shropshire 0 #1 September 20, 2006 QuoteThe 3.3-million-year-old fossilised remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia's Dikika region. The female Australopithecus afarensis bones are from the same species as an adult skeleton found in 1974 which was nicknamed "Lucy". clicky This find could lead to some interesting re-evaluation of our history. interesting stuff. And for a moment, I thought that the world was only a few thousand years old..... silly me (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #2 September 20, 2006 QuoteI thought that the world was only a few thousand years old..... Those who interpret the B ible Litterally certainly thinks so.... since THE BIBLE SAYS SO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #3 September 20, 2006 But it is a cool find tho. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #4 September 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe 3.3-million-year-old fossilised remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia's Dikika region. The female Australopithecus afarensis bones are from the same species as an adult skeleton found in 1974 which was nicknamed "Lucy". clicky This find could lead to some interesting re-evaluation of our history. interesting stuff. And for a moment, I thought that the world was only a few thousand years old..... silly me Jeez ... isn't it obvious? God left these as a test of our faith. I wish people wouldn't just grab everything and assume it's "scientific proof" that the Bible story isn't true.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #5 September 20, 2006 >Jeez ... isn't it obvious? >God left these as a test of our faith. >I wish people wouldn't just grab everything and assume it's "scientific >proof" that the Bible story isn't true. I'm sorry, but since you don't have as many clickys/attachements as HairyJuan, we cannot take you seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #6 September 20, 2006 Cheers mate - I love your posts (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #7 September 20, 2006 hahahha reminds me of the Bill Hicks rant about fundamentalists... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #8 September 21, 2006 Wait, if the bible isn't true than why do so many people kill and die for it? Hmm,now it all seems kind of silly.My photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #9 September 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteI thought that the world was only a few thousand years old..... Those who interpret the B ible Litterally certainly thinks so.... since THE BIBLE SAYS SOexcept it doesn't actually. That bishop dude Usher says it does, and apparently all the Fundies believe him. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #10 September 21, 2006 QuoteAnd for a moment, I thought that the world was only a few thousand years old..... silly me If we accept the timeline, it kind of blows a big hole in the evolutionary belief that humans are the new kid on the block. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #11 September 21, 2006 WTF? Australopithecus afarensis was known to be around 3 million years ago. Lucy was one. This isn't new info, & doesn't blow any holes in evolutionary theory at all. What do you mean, exactly? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #12 September 21, 2006 >If we accept the timeline, it kind of blows a big hole in the evolutionary >belief that humans are the new kid on the block. Nope. That's pretty much what we expected our ancestors to look like around that time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #13 September 21, 2006 QuoteThat bishop dude Usher says it does, and apparently all the Fundies believe him That was based on al the BEGATTING from ADAM on down thru the family tree to Noah... and to Abraham.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #14 September 22, 2006 Human evolution technically does NOT imply that todays humans "descended from apes"... As I understand the theory, modern apes, ( gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and gibbons) and todays Humans, may share a common ancestor back 8 or 10 million years ago,,, as mammals in general continued, to acclimate and develop according to the environmental demands placed on them. But If man evolved from apes,,, then apes would NOt still be around... The adjustment to a bipedal mode of travel had distinct advantages over 4 legged locomotion,,,,,The being would now have the upper extremities free to carry things with, allowing for increased tool use ability... Standing upright would also allow for better visualization, as compared to an animal whose eyes were closer to the ground... Avoidance of predators often required early recognition of same, and good vision, plus speedy travel on two legs, saved many of our early ancestors from being the main course, for the carnivores with whom they shared their world... The article mentions "tree-swinging" and it's use by gorrilas, however, the true Swingers are the gibbons, and orangutans...THEY have the elongated arms, hand dexterity, stereoscopic vision, and moderate body size which makes "arboreal brachiation " possible.. Gorrillas and chimps may climb, and may navigate through forest canopies, but NOt like the gibbon... Australopithecus, who was first identified by Mary Leakey at Olduvai Gorge was/is significant because of dental similarities to Homo Sapiens Sapien,,,, that is, a rounded dental curve at the front of the mouth. Apes tend to have a Boxy, or more squared off shape...with prominent canines at the front 'corners'... the location of the 'foramen magnum' is significant also... This is the whole at the base of the skull through which the spinal chord and vertabrae connect to the head... Quadrupeds have that feature located on the "back" of the skull and bipedal animals have it located at the "bottom" of the skull. Brain capacity can be determined by the remaining cranial cavity which can be measured in a well preserved fossil, especially if most ALL of the skull is intact... Brain capacity however is not so crucial as brain complexity..... It has be speculated that as mans diet improved, i e more protien and later as Humans settled near bodies of water and began to eat 'seafood', the benifical protiens and omega 3 components, found in that seafood helped to form the complex and amazing brain organs which are components of modern Man... Now if only we could USE them correctly and justify the millions and millions of year which were needed to create them.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #15 September 22, 2006 History is wrong. If many Americans descended from Englishmen, why are there still Englishmen? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #16 September 22, 2006 QuoteHistory is wrong. If many Americans descended from Englishmen, why are there still Englishmen? Because a characteristic of evolution is that there is an interval during which the precursor and successor species coexist. Put another way, the Brits are the Beta version: functional, but obsolete. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
