'Astonishing' skull unearthed in Africa

Doc, as I said before, Atheists are the ones who are trying to change society, not vice versa. We don't care if you don't worship anything, or you worship your big toe. We will tell you that you are mistaken, but it is your choice. But, Atheists don't have that same attitude toward Christians. Atheists start getting bent out-of-shape if anyone even mentions God. They want everyone to adopt their own zany viewpoint of chance creation and chance life in the Universe. They abandon commonsense, and disregard what is right in front of them. That is ok. Atheists have choice as I said before. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe the Atheistic line.

"I want you out of my life as per the Bill of Rights, and out you will be. Remember, as per the First Amendment, you may practice your religion in private (not publicly funded settings) only. "

I don't remember being in your life. I don't even know you. And, the First Amendment does give choice of religion, not in the closet as you would like, but without interference from the State or any cults that object to the free practice of religion. Christians are here to stay. Just like a Timex Watch, down through the ages, we have taken a licking, but we just keep on ticking. And, we are ticking here and now, regardless of how some people object to that.

"Besides, your churches are coming apart at the seams anyway."

This is an issue that should be addressed separately. Yes, the churches are coming apart, but that is ok. When Christ walked on earth, there were many religions practiced throughout the Roman Empire. The Romand Empire simply adopted all of the religions of the people they conquered. This practice made it easier to conquer the people. And, Romans didn't really care what Gods they worshiped anyway. But, strangely enough, the Romans had a big problem with the Christian Religion. You see, Satan recognized the true Church.

The first Christian Churches were in homes and caves. The first Christians were severely persecuted, and so they didn't have public worship facilities.

As time went on and Constantine adopted the Christian Religion, Christians came out in the open. Down through the ages, the Churches have gone through bad times. Christians were again persecuted by pagans and other "Christians." Even now, Christians are persecuted simply because they are Christians. They are being raped, killed, and run out of their homes by people who hate them for being Christians.

But, there is something that people who hate Christians don't seem to understand. The true Church is not a building. The true Church is the body of genuine believers, not those who simply call themselves Christians, but those who have been called by God to be His Children. And, Atheists can blow steam out of their ears all they want, Christians will not be defeated or silenced. Get used to it. Christians are here to stay as long as God wants Christians on earth. Christians defy efforts to silence them, and they defy the powers of earth to overcome them.

Now, WHICH one was this skull related to again???

Both, just as the article says.

I can tell just by looking at the photo that the skull has striking features in common with *both* the human *and* the chimp skull. But then, that's exactly what one would *expect* to see in a "missing link".

You're obviously only looking at the *differences*. People tend to see differences more readily than they see similarities. It's like the time I was watching a film with a Chinese friend of mine (I'm American, of European ancestry). There was a scene making a point of the fact that one of the characters was half Chinese and half American. I remarked that the guy looked mostly Chinese to me. My friend replied that to her he looked mostly American.

We tend to notice most what's different from ourselves, and mentally give less credit to what we're already used to seeing.

Here, try this sequence, presented in chronological order:

Newly found skull (7 million years old):

Australopithecus africanus (3.3 million years old):

Australopithecus afarensis (3 million years old):

Homo Ergaster (1.9 million years old):

Homo Erectus, (1.7 million years old):

Cro Magnon Man, (30,000 years old):

Australian Aborigne (found in 1905, age of specimen not given):

Modern Man (present day):

Note that, just as evolution predicts, it's a steady progression from first to last:

1. The brain case steadily grows and takes up more and more of the skull.

2. The eyebrow ridge shrinks and fades into the skull.

3. The slope of the face starts with a heavy slant and them becomes more vertical.

4. The jaw (when available) starts massive (especially at the hinge) and becomes more gracile. Even the two earliest specimens with no jaws obviously leave a *lot* of room open for jaw attachment.

5. The curve of the chin begins very rounded and "undercut", then gradually pulls forward until it's finally sharp and directly below the teeth.

6. The ridge of bone that connects the bottom of the eye sockets (even with the nose) to the sides of the skull (there's a name for it, I forget it right now) begins massive and protruding, with a pronounced depression above it, then gradually shrinks and fades into the skull until it has almost vanished (but is still present) in modern man.

7. The nasal cavity starts out almost round and gradually become triangular.

8. The earlier specimens have 5 molars behind the canine, the latter ones have 4 (the fifth has become an impacted wisdom tooth).

9. There's a noticeable "peak" on the top of the skulls that gradually fades into a rounded crown.

And so on.

Looking at three from the side, each shown true relative size to each other (oldest on left), we have:

I could do a similar transition from the 7 million year old skull to the chimp skull as well (except that it would take longer, there aren't as many non-hominid primate skull photos on the web, because people are more fascinated with hominids), which would show a similar progression over time, indicating that the 7 million year old skull is probably an ancestor, or near ancestor, to the chimp family as well. (Chimp DNA differs from human DNA by only 2%, we're 98% identical and are pretty close relatives, I'm sorry to have to inform you).

The 7 million year old skull has some similarities to the chimp skull (just as it has some similarities to human skulls), but there are big differences there as well, showing plainly that the 7MA skull is hardly just an ancient chimp.

Meanwhile, consider the far greater differences between the following skulls and the 7MA skull than between *either* the human or chimp skulls versus the 7MA skull:

Lowland Gorilla (note the "crest" on top of the skull, not present on the 7MA skull, and the very thick bony "ring" around the skull):

Orangutan (do I really need to point out the unique features?):

Baboon (ditto):

Howler monkey:

Mandrill baboon:

Gibbon:

The 7MA skull is clearly not just a random "ape" skull, it's obviously far closer to a humanoid skull than to the above apes.

>And, Atheists can blow steam out of their ears all they want, Christians will not be defeated or silenced. Get used to it.

And therein lies one major difference between Atheists and Christians. Atheists don't care if Christians are here to stay, as long as they don't spend their lives trying to force their religion upon others, as they have for centuries. Christians, on the other hand, fear Atheists to the core of their being because as long as there are logical people out there, one could point his finger at the congregation and yell "Look Mommy! The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes!"

Try to imagine the reaction of the religious world (because from Catholics to Muslims, you're all more or less the same) were Atheists to demand that Atheism be taugh as the only logical belief system in schools. That is exactly how arrogant and conspicuously fearful the Christians are to Atheists.

Incidentally, I was raised a Christian" from soup to nuts and from early childhood I felt "Plenty of nuts around here but I don't see any soup".

Show me evidence that God exists.

All that need be said about God can be said this way; for those who believe, an explanation is not necessary, for those who disbelieve an explanation is not possible.

The believer and the non-believer have this in common, either position is based on faith because neither can prove nor disprove the existence of a creator.

How about you?

I do not find the evidence that there was not a creator compelling and if I am in error, what harm has been done to me, or you?

it's a chimpanzee's skull

Oops.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/715147/posts

If there is a "stability" factor that some species have, what determines it and why doesn't man have the same? What makes our time line so volatile ? Why didn't one of our types settle down for the long haul like the ape?

There does seem to be a body of evidence that suggests a "stability" factor, though I imagine it would be hard to prove. There are many species that have been unchanged for millions of years while, as you have pointed out, others have undergone a relativly rapid series of changes. I think your suspicion that funding is a major factor in determining what gets studied and what doesn't get studied rings true. There were virtually no studies of the great apes until the 1960s, when Proffessor Leakey created grants to study Chimps, Orangs, and gorrillas. These studies, compared to human studies, are still in their infancy.

My uneducated guess as to why humans seem to have had a more rapid evolution than other primates is that human consciousness plays a role in evolution. By this I mean that those species with the least amount of conscious choice are selected not by whim or want, but solely by the primal call of their own genes. Those species who have more conscious choice can choose their mates, and therefore their offspring, by color of hair, speed of flight, or in the case of humans, even intellectual ability.

I don't have any ax to grind with those who choose a biblical view of history. I am an agnostic about everything, including evolution. When it comes to conclusions about God, evolution and social science my motto is "show me the money."

For any 'slight changes' in the 'civilised' world will be treated as a 'birth defect' and 'corrected'.

There's probably some truth to this. As a species, our choices are more and more narrowed to those choices that we want, rather than random choices.

Dr Carl, you have made some presumptions about me that are irrelevant. You presume that I believe in God and that I don't believe in evolution. Those beliefs, either way, are irrelevant to my post.

My post merely points out that scientists, while well intentioned and making their best efforts, are just human. Trained by the same schools that train weathermen (also scientist), doctors, and computer programmers. As such, they study the situation and make their best guess. The fact that they're educated does NOT mean they're right. It also doesn't mean they're wrong. It just means that they've got an opinion. An educated opinion, but still, just an opinion!

>I do not find the evidence that there was not a creator compelling and if I am in error, what harm has been done to me, or you?

Here's what I think. I think that if you are in error, your error has not done you any harm. In fact, it's likely done you good. The problem is not your religion, but rather the tendency of the religious to impose religion upon those who would rather ignore it, consider it a quaint fairy tale, etc. The imposition is the point at which religion moves from being quaint, to appearing stark, raving crazy.

If the religious could simply keep their religion to themselves and out of all that is publicly funded, all would be well all the way around.

Stay out of the schools. Stay away from the first trimester abortion issue. Get off the money. Stay out of Congress. Do whatever else you want to do. But "you" can't do that and therein lies the problem.

Now, as much as I would enjoy continuing this, I am off on a family vacation. Don’t go bombing the World Trade Center or going off on a Crusade or anything now.

Note that, just as evolution predicts, it's a steady progression from first to last:

Sorry; you're outvoted by the rest of the Evo's who say there is NO prediction, NO progression - just random things happening that make things more fitted for survival.

(I think X-ray vision would be a good thing: but, then again, perhaps not.

My MOUTH, drolling over what I'd seen, would probably get me KILLED!)

People tend to see differences more readily than they see similarities.

THIS is a good point! We ALSO tend to see what we WANT to see!

Let me see if I understand your refutation:

1. "I have a PhD, you don't."

2. "Flowery language"

3. "Foolish"

4. "Too much noise"

5. "Get more comfortable with your religion"

Devastating.

Either respond to the arguments or go on vacation.

>Either respond to the arguments or go on vacation.

Thank you. I am back from my vacation now and you proven yourself to be incapable of having an intelligent argument. Frankly, you are an idiot but idiots don't realize they're idiots (part of being an idiot) so I sympathize with your position.