Posted on 02/16/2005 11:01:16 AM PST by Alter Kaker
They found Dick Clark?
Ping
Isn't it safe to say that 200,000 is still an educated guess?
As I recall, "Lucy" is about 6 million years. That leaves quite a gap and quite a story about the possible timing and development of the transition(s)...
Tricky stuff. Evolution is about new species arising from old species. But if you can't tell the difference between one species and other, or natural variation within a single population, then it's tough to know what you have.
My teenage daughter specializes in dating rocks, too. All her boyfriends are dense, difficult to get to and lay around alot.........
So funny. The evolutionists dated the fossils by the rocks. They also like to date rocks by the fossils. Who wants to try to prove they didn't? Thanks.
bttt for later read.
The evidence suggests that homo sapiens arose around 200,000 years ago. Obviously the exact date isn't clear, but this is an example of evolutionary science predicting results before they're discovered.
As I recall, "Lucy" is about 6 million years. That leaves quite a gap and quite a story about the possible timing and development of the transition(s)...
3.2 million years, but yes, there's a huge difference between Lucy and early homo sapiens, but its not a "gap". We know about homo ergaster, homo habilis, etc. in the intervening years.
I wondered how long it would take you.
Good one.
|
:-)
Ardipithicus ramidus
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/ramidus.htm
Australopithecus anamensis
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Hominids/04_A_anamensis.html
Australopithecus afarensis
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Hominids/03_A_afarensis.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/afarensis.htm
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/afarensis.html
Australopithecus africanus
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/121/fyde/africanus.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/afri.html
http://www.msu.edu/~robin400/africanus.html
Australopithecus aethiopicus
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/aeth.html
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant275/presentations/Human_evolution.PDF
Australopithecus boisei
http://faculty.vassar.edu/piketay/evolution/A_boisei.html
http://www.sckans.edu/anthro/index.php?page_ID=305
Australopithecus robustus
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/rob.htm
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/robustus.html
http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/anthro/links/aust.html
Homo sp.
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/atapuerca/gallery/africa.php?image=6&page=branches
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jasonww/africa/transvaal2.html
Homo rudolfensis
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/rud.html
http://calvin.linfield.edu/~mrobert/originsfigure1a.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/rudolfensis.htm
Homo habilis
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/habilis/habilis-a.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html
Homo ergaster
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erg.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/ergaster.htm
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Ergaster_00.html
Homo erectus
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/erectus/erectus-a.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/pchomoer.html
Homo heidelbergensis
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/heid.htm
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/heidelbergensis.htm
http://www.archaeology.org/9709/newsbriefs/dna.html
Homo neanderthalensis
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/neanderthalensis.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/neanderthalensis.htm
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/nead_sap_comp.html
Homo sapiens
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/modern_humans.htm
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf
Thanks for the ping!
I was thinking they'd found relatives of Teddy Kennedy.....
The article in the first link was written in 1975. So a 1974 study would have been recent. I posted that because of the information about the evidence for modern humans and Homo Erector being found below Austrolopithecus. Because that establishes that Austrolopithecus could not have been a human ancestor. Which even Leakey began to conclude.
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.