Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Darwinism Is Doomed
WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

Why Darwinism is doomed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: September 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2006

Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1977: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God, and this anti-religious dogma enjoys a taxpayer-funded monopoly in America's public schools and universities. Teachers who dare to question it openly have in many cases lost their jobs.

The issue here is not "evolution" – a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue is Darwinism – which claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people – citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history – reject it.

A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think?

On Aug. 17, the pro-Darwin magazine Nature reported that scientists had just found the "brain evolution gene." There is circumstantial evidence that this gene may be involved in brain development in embryos, and it is surprisingly different in humans and chimpanzees. According to Nature, the gene may thus harbor "the secret of what makes humans different from our nearest primate relatives."

Three things are remarkable about this report. First, it implicitly acknowledges that the evidence for Darwinism was never as overwhelming as its defenders claim. It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.

Second, embryologists know that a single gene cannot account for the origin of the human brain. Genes involved in embryo development typically have multiple effects, and complex organs such as the brain are influenced by many genes. The simple-mindedness of the "brain evolution gene" story is breathtaking.

Third, the only thing scientists demonstrated in this case was a correlation between a genetic difference and brain size. Every scientist knows, however, that correlation is not the same as causation. Among elementary school children, reading ability is correlated with shoe size, but this is because young schoolchildren with small feet have not yet learned to read – not because larger feet cause a student to read better or because reading makes the feet grow. Similarly, a genetic difference between humans and chimps cannot tell us anything about what caused differences in their brains unless we know what the gene actually does. In this case, as Nature reports, "what the gene does is a mystery."

So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence – any evidence, no matter how skimpy – to justify their speculations. The latest hype over the "brain evolution gene" unwittingly reveals just how underwhelming the evidence for their view really is.

The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

Get Wells' widely popular "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan Wells is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" (Regnery, 2006) and Icons of Evolution (Regnery, 2000). He holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University. Wells is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: backwardsthinking; crevolist; darwinism; darwinismhasfailed; doomed; evofury; fishwithfeet; headinsand; pepperedmoths; scaredevos; wearealldoomedputz; whyreligionisdoomed; wingnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 1,151-1,195 next last
To: Virginia-American

This is not true: I can name many noted scientists who do
not accept Darwinism.


451 posted on 09/28/2006 8:14:05 AM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
What question do you think I sidestepped - I was not responding to a question. Could you please support your accusation.

Where he got his degree from is irrelevant to the question of what motivated him to pursue it in the first place.

So a Ph.D in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley is not a basis to comment on evolution.

Upon what basis in cell and molecular biology does he conclude that TToE is "first and foremost a weapon against religion"?

452 posted on 09/28/2006 8:14:37 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

So instead of debating the issues (like most) you instead insult "creation" in an adhomnia attack "insutls conservatism". Did I EVER carry out adhominim attacks agasint Darwinsists (Despite the fact tha tI believe they are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay wrong?), and say that they "insult conservatism"? Guess it's easier to demean rather than debate on the issues, huh..?


453 posted on 09/28/2006 8:15:02 AM PDT by JSDude1 (www.pence08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Name one!


454 posted on 09/28/2006 8:19:46 AM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

I am asserting it is a lie to say that evolution is anti-religious. A flat lie.

If it isn't a lie, tell me how evolution is anti-religious, and a statement that the earth moves is not anti-religious. Tell me how physics is not anti-religious when it determines the age of the universe. Tell me how geology is not anti-religious when it determines the age of the earth. Tell me how medicine is not anti-religious when it relieves the pain of childbirth.

Religion has been accommodating the findings of science for as long as there has been science. Most people are willing to heed the warning of St. Augustine.


455 posted on 09/28/2006 8:25:57 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: Theo

Good company, indeed.

The old and new testaments are the inspired Word of God - both written by Jews. The new testament is a continuation of the old testament.


456 posted on 09/28/2006 8:26:13 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman

457 posted on 09/28/2006 8:27:07 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

Very well said! Thanks.


458 posted on 09/28/2006 8:37:27 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Where he got his degree from is irrelevant to the question of what motivated him to pursue it in the first place.

So are you saying the content of his studies are irrelevant. It does sound like you could be making excuses for your inablity to refute this article. So using your logic - what schools you went too and your credentuals are irrelavent, all you care about is what you have decided is his persons motives.

Upon what basis in cell and molecular biology does he conclude that TToE is "first and foremost a weapon against religion"?

Wells also has a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University - do some research before you post. Do you have a Ph.D. is theology?

459 posted on 09/28/2006 8:45:48 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Buck,
I don't know why you have a conviction that you don't want to share. I am speculating that you consider your reasoning a private part of your faith. I'm giving you an out. If you want to explain further, I'm all ears.

Best to you,
ampu


460 posted on 09/28/2006 8:46:11 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (outside a good dog, a book is your best friend. inside a dog it's too dark to read)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Heh, heh. Reminds me of those "fetus drawings".


461 posted on 09/28/2006 8:49:47 AM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I am asserting it is a lie to say that evolution is anti-religious. A flat lie.

Please look up the word "lie"

Unless you can prove the person who said that knew it was not true - all you are doing is presenting your personal opinion not based on any facts (none that you have presented). You, like Democrat Moonbats, seem to not understand the meaning of the word "lie" - as in "Bush lied about WMD in Iraq"

I am asserting it is a lie to say that evolution is anti-religious.

I think there is some evidence that much of what is called "evolution" is in deed anti-religious - but far from all of it. You are going to have a heck of a time disproving somebodies opinion.

If data related to the statement does not support the statement - the statement is NOT considered a lie.

If you think it is a lie - prove that no supporters of evolution are anti-religious. You know that is absurd.

462 posted on 09/28/2006 8:56:52 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

So then why isn't the mudskipper a "found" link? Doesn't it appear to be some sort of transition between a fish and amphibian or land reptile?


463 posted on 09/28/2006 9:00:38 AM PDT by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
Guess it's easier to demean rather than debate on the issues, huh..?

Another person that gets it - bravo!

464 posted on 09/28/2006 9:02:15 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
How should we judge such a transparent attempt to sidestep the question?

I did some reviewing - I replied to every statement in your message and there was one question but it was related to my personal beliefs - I answered it.

Please stop with the baseless accusations unless your goal is to be a troll.

465 posted on 09/28/2006 9:06:24 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
So are you saying the content of his studies are irrelevant.

No, I'm not. A question of what motivated him to seek his degree was answered by stating where he got his degree from - the content of his studies is irrelevant to what motivated him to pursue that study. I don't believe that you are unable to understand that why a person does something is a separate issue from how they go about doing it.

Wells also has a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University - do some research before you post. Do you have a Ph.D. is theology?

I'm aware of his degree in theology. If he's making these assertions from a theological basis, then why argue over his credentials as a biologist?

I don't have a degree in theology. Will you state outright that unless I have a degree in theology I have to accept anything he says as fact, or just make tacit implications?

466 posted on 09/28/2006 9:07:35 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
I did some reviewing - I replied to every statement in your message and there was one question but it was related to my personal beliefs - I answered it.

The question you sidestepped was posed by stands2reason, and the reply was to him. The thread chain leads right back to there.

If you think I'm being a troll, you know where the abuse button is.

467 posted on 09/28/2006 9:11:51 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The only apparent basis the man has for making the assertions and drawing the conclusions in this article is his religion.

Right.

His Ph.D. in cell and molecular biology as well as his a Ph.D. in theology is clearly no basis /sarcasm

Once again you are attacking the man in an attempt to refute his positions - that is fallacious logic.

468 posted on 09/28/2006 9:14:21 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman
Me: The actual fgure is something like 99.8% of biologists, paleontologists, geneticists etc. In other words, 998 out of a thousand professionals accept evo, 2 don't.

You: This is not true: I can name many noted scientists who do not accept Darwinism.

One statement doesn't contradict the other. Among all scientists, the figure drops to something around 95% or so (depending on how "scientist" is defined; are engineers scientists? doctors). BTW, the only "noted scientist" would be Fred Hoyle; the others are more noted for writing popular books than for their science.

469 posted on 09/28/2006 9:15:15 AM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan; My2Cents
Christianity is the acceptance of the belief that Jesus WAS the Messiah,

Jesus IS the Messiah. One must 'possess' Christ, not merely 'profess' Christ as Lord.
470 posted on 09/28/2006 9:16:17 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Unless you can prove the person who said that knew it was not true..

A fair statement, but Wells is an educated polemicist. His intention to defame evolution is undeniable, and he cannot be so ignorant as not to know that evolution is one of many scientific findings that contradict literal readings of the Bible. Therefore, he knows that evolution can only be anti-religious in the same sense that all of science is anti-religious.

Because all of science ignores religion and the Bible, and every branch of science has findings that contradict a literal reading of the Bible.

471 posted on 09/28/2006 9:24:13 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

Correction duly noted. "Was and is" would probably be even better.


472 posted on 09/28/2006 9:27:03 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Lezahal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
the content of his studies is irrelevant to what motivated him to pursue that study

This one goes in the Evo Silly Statements Hall of Fame.

In your mind, what a person has done or said is irrelevant - all you care about is what you decide are their motives.

Once again - are you going to address any issues in the article or is it your plan to merely attack Wells personally?

Some Evo's seem to be masters of fallacious logic.

473 posted on 09/28/2006 9:27:43 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Once again you are attacking the man in an attempt to refute his positions - that is fallacious logic.

Where have I attacked him personally? I have questioned the basis for his assertions and conclusion, and the logical implicatiions of those assertions and conclusions, period. Please show me where I have attacked this man personally.

474 posted on 09/28/2006 9:28:38 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
In your mind, what a person has done or said is irrelevant - all you care about is what you decide are their motives.

I didn't decide what his motive are, I just questioned what where he got his degree from has to do with what motivated him to pursue it. Apparently you don't find that a fair question.

475 posted on 09/28/2006 9:30:46 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
" Please give us examples of these lies"

I already did in my firstst ppost to htis thread at #237. That's why I wrote the little ditty.

476 posted on 09/28/2006 9:48:43 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html


477 posted on 09/28/2006 10:04:08 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

What in high heaven are you talking about? Have you been part of the same thread that I have?


478 posted on 09/28/2006 10:12:34 AM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Excellent post. Couldn't say it better myself.


479 posted on 09/28/2006 10:21:22 AM PDT by Al Simmons (Holocaust deniers and other anti-semites are the lowest form of human scum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

It is quite interesting the way the darwinists attack anyone who questions their faith. I don't know how many posters are actually scientists or academics, but for those who ARE, ignorance regarding what ID really IS is unforgivable. At the very least, they are frauds. All creationists can live with ID, not very many ID adherents can accept creationism. Here is a FACT: a great many legitimate scientists question the idea that darwinism is a "fact". They are ALL looking for another answer and hoping it ISN'T God.

One more repetition, then the smarmy know-it-alls can have their, truly, stupid thread back. IN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS THERE HAS BEEN NOT ONE FACT-NOT ONE- to support darwinism. To see the unscientific means by which the darwinist community has attempted to defraud the public is certainly one of the most disreputable circus acts anyone has ever witnessed. Sooner or later, I hope the "there ain't no God" materialists come to the realization that the American people are just not as stupid as they hope. Not all are creationists, not all even believe in God but more and more are beginning to realize that the darwinists are WRONG- although the idea that SOME are related to monkeys IS rather easy to accept...


480 posted on 09/28/2006 10:23:54 AM PDT by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
"Yes it is. The Lie: Evolution (Paperback) by Ken Ham (Author)"

This is about on a par with Slick writing a book about 'The Lie'. Like the Toon, Ham's book must be persuasive because he is an expert liar....

481 posted on 09/28/2006 10:24:05 AM PDT by Al Simmons (Holocaust deniers and other anti-semites are the lowest form of human scum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

Thank you for bringing some common sense into this thread.


482 posted on 09/28/2006 10:24:08 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Oh man are your posts dead-on! As I like to say, 'Young-earth creationists' are putting God in a box.


483 posted on 09/28/2006 10:25:27 AM PDT by Al Simmons (Holocaust deniers and other anti-semites are the lowest form of human scum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith
"Are Darwinism and Creationism mutually exclusive? Why couldn't Darwinism be God's mechanism? "

No and yes. Unless you want to put God in a box and deny Him the power that you are too scared to understand...

484 posted on 09/28/2006 10:27:18 AM PDT by Al Simmons (Holocaust deniers and other anti-semites are the lowest form of human scum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

>>Using Scripture in a discussion about Science is the same as using Scripture in a discussion about auto repair.<<

Generally speaking, I agree with the premise of your first sentence, but it does not apply here. This is not a discussion of science. It is a discussion of Darwinism.


485 posted on 09/28/2006 10:38:55 AM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: js1138

"Now if you want to have and actual discussion"

I wouldn't discuss dog crap with you.


486 posted on 09/28/2006 10:51:41 AM PDT by razzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: js1138
His intention to defame evolution is undeniable...

His intentions are irrelevant to the validity of his positions. Like I said - why don't you take on his positions rather than attack him personally?

487 posted on 09/28/2006 10:52:05 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

How is taking the Bible literally to be considered 'putting God in a box'? For me it's simply - God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

The corollary to your argument is that God has lied to you - yet the Bible clearly states God is incapable of sin and can not tolerate it in his Holy Presence. Don't bother replying - I can guess that your going to tell me Genesis is mostly myth and fable and recorded by mere man therefore full of error and mis-interpreted statements. Hardly!!!

Jesus studied the Bible and affirmed the old testament - Please please please try digging a little deeper into your faith rather than relying on worldly experts and their opinions.


488 posted on 09/28/2006 10:56:15 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I didn't decide what his motive are, I just questioned what where he got his degree from

If you read the article you would know where he got his Ph.D's

Apparently you don't find that a fair question.

It is a fair question but the answer can be found in the article - you should read the article before you add comments.

489 posted on 09/28/2006 11:02:49 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
IN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS THERE HAS BEEN NOT ONE FACT-NOT ONE- to support darwinism.

Top ten ignorant post of the day placemarker.

490 posted on 09/28/2006 11:05:02 AM PDT by RogueIsland (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Where have I attacked him personally?

You jumped into a thread I was having with another person (which is fine) - looks like you may have not attacked Wells personally - but you certainly are not trying to address any of the positions in the article.

491 posted on 09/28/2006 11:05:07 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
I already did in my firstst ppost to htis thread at #237. That's why I wrote the little ditty.

You really are funny

Yeah, a cute little song is proof Wells is lying.

492 posted on 09/28/2006 11:08:18 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
I don't know how many posters are actually scientists or academics, but for those who ARE, ignorance regarding what ID really IS is unforgivable.

Which opens the door for you to tell us all "what ID really IS." Have at it.

493 posted on 09/28/2006 11:11:57 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

Yes. They have never taken any course in physical anthropology, which clearly shows fossil and skeletal evidence that evolution is a scientific fact.

And, none of this is incompatible with believing in God. It IS incompatible with fundamentalists, who believe the LITERAL TRUTH of the Old Testament, however.


494 posted on 09/28/2006 11:12:00 AM PDT by dashing doofus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Well, I guess then that Pope JP The Great was a "wordly expert" who believed that "God has lied to you" according to your last post...

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

495 posted on 09/28/2006 11:12:12 AM PDT by Al Simmons (Currently shopping for a new tagline...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
IN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS THERE HAS BEEN NOT ONE FACT-NOT ONE- to support darwinism.

Top ten ignorant post of the day placemarker.

I agree - but we have more entries today - this one is from an Evo:

Evo:the content of his studies is irrelevant to what motivated him to pursue that study

496 posted on 09/28/2006 11:13:10 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Exactly PING.


497 posted on 09/28/2006 11:13:52 AM PDT by dashing doofus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

Yes imho.

BTW I do think I spelled worldly correctly both times as if a minor spelling error invalidates a whole post anyways...


498 posted on 09/28/2006 11:17:01 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
IN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS THERE HAS BEEN NOT ONE FACT-NOT ONE- to support darwinism.

So what's this, chopped liver?

(Note its position in the chart which follows; hint--in the upper center):



Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33


Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

499 posted on 09/28/2006 11:20:30 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl
So then why isn't the mudskipper a "found" link? Doesn't it appear to be some sort of transition between a fish and amphibian or land reptile?

No. The mudskipper does NOT so appear. It has fins, not feet. It has none of the amphibian skull anatomy of Tiktaalik or other genuine transitional candidates. Etc. And of course as a living creature, with no indication of a long fossil history, the mudskipper is not properly positioned in time to be a transitional, even ignoring its anatomical unsuitability.

500 posted on 09/28/2006 11:21:21 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 1,151-1,195 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson