[_ Old Earth _] another link in the chain

[reznwerks]

"This new discovery closes the gap between the fully blown Australopithecines and earlier forms we call Ardipithecus," White said. "We now know where Australopithecus came from before 4 million years ago."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 224805.htm

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

(reconstruction by Stanford University)

Australopithecines

Africanus

Ardipithecus




Looks like their studying different ape species from the past.

Why they think one evolved into another, I have no idea.

 

[moniker]

Because they continually adapted to their changing surroundings over time.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Because they continually adapted to their changing surroundings over time.

As evidenced by their extinctions?

There is no evidence these species had a gradual gradient of change. Both

appear in the fossil record abruptly, with significant differences. One would

expect a very gradual gradient of change between two species. No evidence has

been presented to date from world wide fossil discoveries that supports this

hypothesis.

 

[reznwerks]

difficult

Because they continually adapted to their changing surroundings over time.

As evidenced by their extinctions?

There is no evidence these species had a gradual gradient of change. Both

appear in the fossil record abruptly, with significant differences. One would

expect a very gradual gradient of change between two species. No evidence has

been presented to date from world wide fossil discoveries that supports this

hypothesis.

You keep denying the discoveries but you don't have any evidence to back it up. The best you can do is lip service. Do you really think God is up there putting stars next to your name for every time you deny a new discovery?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

You keep denying the discoveries but you don't have any evidence to back it up. The best you can do is lip service. Do you really think God is up there putting stars next to your name for every time you deny a new discovery?

Settle down there Crouching Tiger.

My evidence was presented: The lack of a gradual transition between species

expected by the evolutionary model.

And I don't need God put gold stars next to my name...Jesus took care of

that on the Cross.

From an Atheist's view, do you fear death...nothingness...the end of your

existence?

Crudely put, your just a fart in time (according to your

interpretation)...meaningless...just a crude product of

crude processes.

 

[moniker]

Because they continually adapted to their changing surroundings over time.

As evidenced by their extinctions?

There is no evidence these species had a gradual gradient of change. Both

appear in the fossil record abruptly, with significant differences. One would

expect a very gradual gradient of change between two species. No evidence has

been presented to date from world wide fossil discoveries that supports this

hypothesis.

As evidenced by the development of micro-organisms to various stimuli. This discovery just decreased the abruptness formerly found in the fossil record and fills in a few spots of that gradient to better understand a creatures development over the aeons.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

As evidenced by the development of micro-organisms to various stimuli. This discovery just decreased the abruptness formerly found in the fossil record and fills in a few spots of that gradient to better understand a creatures development over the aeons.

Don't you think these finds could also be different species?

Why is there this need to line them up in "chronological" order?

For their to be a gradual gradient of change, predicted by ToE, there would

need to be thousands more transistional fossils...basically a blur from

Ardipithecus to Africanus to Australopithecines. It should be almost

impossible to detect where Ardipithecus ends and Africanus begins. There's

no such evidence.

 

[reznwerks]

LOL

You keep denying the discoveries but you don't have any evidence to back it up. The best you can do is lip service. Do you really think God is up there putting stars next to your name for every time you deny a new discovery?

Settle down there Crouching Tiger.
LOL

My evidence was presented: The lack of a gradual transition between species

expected by the evolutionary model.
Read the article. It is no longer a problem or has been answered elsewhere. Your evidence or objection is not recognized as such by those who know better.

And I don't need God put gold stars next to my name...Jesus took care of

that on the Cross.
Then why do you continue to deny the evidence in spite of the evidence?

From an Atheist's view, do you fear death...nothingness...the end of your

existence?
No. I don't worry about what happened before I was born and when I am not here I won't know it either. You can't be both alive and dead.

Crudely put, your just a fart in time (according to your

interpretation)...meaningless...just a crude product of

crude processes.
That was crude but you are correct but don't forget to include yourself and everyone else. If man suddenly died out I don't think the world would stop existing do you?

 

[moniker]

As evidenced by the development of micro-organisms to various stimuli. This discovery just decreased the abruptness formerly found in the fossil record and fills in a few spots of that gradient to better understand a creatures development over the aeons.

Don't you think these finds could also be different species?

Why is there this need to line them up in "chronological" order?

For their to be a gradual gradient of change, predicted by ToE, there would

need to be thousands more transistional fossils...basically a blur from

Ardipithecus to Africanus to Australopithecines. It should be almost

impossible to detect where Ardipithecus ends and Africanus begins. There's

no such evidence.

Species is just a name for a sufficient number of physiological changes to make labelling more precise and easy. I am a different creature than my parents who were different than theirs ad infinitum. The differences just happen to be incredibly small. If we and all my ancestors were to have been perfectly preserved you might actually see a bit of a realistic difference over time (growing taller, leaner, and more bald) but that isn't the case. Getting fossilized is a fairly rare occurence, afterall.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Settle down there Crouching Tiger.

LOL

Lol..I got that from Carlos Mencia...A comedian..he cracks me up.

Your evidence or objection is not recognized as such by those who know better.

Why are we able to differentitate species? It should be a blur between them.

Then why do you continue to deny the evidence in spite of the evidence?

I honestly do believe our existence had to originate with intelligence.

I just don't see it happening by chance interactions between matter.

To me it's counter-intuitive.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Species is just a name for a sufficient number of physiological changes to make labelling more precise and easy. I am a different creature than my parents who were different than theirs ad infinitum. The differences just happen to be incredibly small. If we and all my ancestors were to have been perfectly preserved you might actually see a bit of a realistic difference over time (growing taller, leaner, and more bald) but that isn't the case. Getting fossilized is a fairly rare occurence, afterall.

But with the scenario you present, there should be a blur between early

humans and modern humans. Yet, to date, this is the hypothesized

progression:

Ardipithecus ramidus

Australopithecus afarensis

Australopithecus robustus

Paranthropus boisei

Austrolopithecus africanus

Homo habilis

Homo erectus

Homo neanderthalensis

Homo sapien

Evidence that seems in itself sufficient to completely invalidate an Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo sapiens evolutionary line was uncovered by Louis Leakey himself. Leakey has reported that he found the remains of a juvenile Homo habilis in Bed I at Olduvai Gorge at a lower level than he had found an australopithecine in the same bed. Furthermore, Leakey has found evidence of both Australopithecus and Homo habilis above Bed I in Bed II, contemporary with Homo erectus.8,9 This would establish the contemporaneous existence in the same area of Africa of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus, hardly conducive to the idea that Australopithecus had evolved into H. habilis, which had then evolved into H. erectus.

Even more astounding (to evolutionists) was Leakey's report that he had found the remains of what appeared to be a circular stone habitation hut right at the bottom of Bed I!9,10 It has long been held that deliberate manufacture of shelters could have been performed only by modern Man. This evidence clearly indicates then that Australopithecus (and the so-called H. habilis), H. erectus, and modern Man were contemporary inhabitants of the same area.

8 M.D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 3, Cambridge U. Press, 1971, p. 272.

9 A.J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1st Edition, J.B. Lippincott Co., New York, 1970, p. 221.

10 M.D. Leakey, op cit., p. 23-24.

 

[moniker]

Species is just a name for a sufficient number of physiological changes to make labelling more precise and easy. I am a different creature than my parents who were different than theirs ad infinitum. The differences just happen to be incredibly small. If we and all my ancestors were to have been perfectly preserved you might actually see a bit of a realistic difference over time (growing taller, leaner, and more bald) but that isn't the case. Getting fossilized is a fairly rare occurence, afterall.

But with the scenario you present, there should be a blur between early

humans and modern humans. Yet, to date, this is the hypothesized

progression

I'm afraid I don't see the problem. Yes it is not nearly as smooth of transitions as would be expected, but is that attributable to the incredibly rare state of fossils or to whatever it is you have in mind?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Evidence that seems in itself sufficient to completely invalidate an Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo sapiens evolutionary line was uncovered by Louis Leakey himself. Leakey has reported that he found the remains of a juvenile Homo habilis in Bed I at Olduvai Gorge at a lower level than he had found an australopithecine in the same bed. Furthermore, Leakey has found evidence of both Australopithecus and Homo habilis above Bed I in Bed II, contemporary with Homo erectus.8,9 This would establish the contemporaneous existence in the same area of Africa of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus, hardly conducive to the idea that Australopithecus had evolved into H. habilis, which had then evolved into H. erectus.

Even more astounding (to evolutionists) was Leakey's report that he had found the remains of what appeared to be a circular stone habitation hut right at the bottom of Bed I!9,10 It has long been held that deliberate manufacture of shelters could have been performed only by modern Man. This evidence clearly indicates then that Australopithecus (and the so-called H. habilis), H. erectus, and modern Man were contemporary inhabitants of the same area.

8 M.D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 3, Cambridge U. Press, 1971, p. 272.

9 A.J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1st Edition, J.B. Lippincott Co., New York, 1970, p. 221.

10 M.D. Leakey, op cit., p. 23-24.