Tanzanian Tracks Show Man's Early Steps

---

Originally Posted By: thorSorry...my bad. I was thinking virus...not bacteria. Too much coffee and not enough sleep...good an excuse as any, I suppose.Easy mistake to make, and you're right, viruses do straddle the boundaries of what we consider to be life. Originally Posted By: thorBut that still doesn't mean much. So they changed their diets...so what? I'm certain seaguls didn't always scrounge at garbage dumps for food, but things change. Certainly some animals are better at adapting than others...and for some it's quite simple. But this is hardly evidence of the creation of another species...and there is certainly no evidence that natural selection is responsible for anything.These bacteria didn't simply change their diet, like a person deciding to go vegetarian. The ability to digest Nylon was the result of a mutation, a positive mutation. As these bacteria existed in an environment that was quite suddenly flooded with Nylon, a synthetic material invented in the 20th century, the bacteria that evolved the ability to digest the Nylon was given a much larger food source, thus dramatically increasing their chances of survival and reproduction. This is a clear example of Natural Selection. A form of life adapting to a rapid change in environment through the natural selection of a mutation. Originally Posted By: thorIf bacteria is all you've got after thousands of years of existance, I'd say you're reaching (as the saying goes).I chose the Nylon-Eating Bacteria as it is one of the most famous and strongest examples. There are others that have been observed (since actually observing these changes is the only way you think we know they happen). Lets see, there is:Adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment.The ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose.Evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga.Modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol.Evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars.Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor.  Originally Posted By: thorYou want it to be true on the basis of what it means for your point of view on life, generally speaking...not because it's a scientifically viable solution to the question.I don't want it to be true, I would fully accept the God Did It Theory if the evidence supported it, but it doesn't. Instead, all of the evidence supports natural causes. I don't have an emotional investment in Natural Selection. If it was proven to be wrong tomorrow and something else was shown to be the most likely explanation of the facts, then I wouldn't be bothered. You are the one that can't stand the thought of a natural explanation because you hate the thought of not being the result of the divine hand of God. Originally Posted By: thorIneligible takes the same tac...the bit about recessive genes being passed on and such. It's possible...though it's much more likely such genes would disappear before mating with another with the same recessive gene and passing it onto their offspring. The odds are rediculous, and no true scientist would entertain such an idea...that's reserved for liberals and athiests who have no desire to see God as the creator of all things. If you have worked out the numbers, feel free to share them. I've seen many creationists throw huge numbers around which they couldn't possibly have actually calculated as the variables are so high. Or calculating the age of the earth using a single text as reference instead of external observation (thank you James Ussher.) Even Isaac Newton was blinded by religious bias in some of his calculations.And as for the chances of recessive genes emerging, it is clearly shown that this is achieved, especially faster and more prominently in smaller populations.

Quote:Ineligible takes the same tac...the bit about recessive genes being passed on and such. It's possible...though it's much more likely such genes would disappear before mating with another with the same recessive gene and passing it onto their offspring.Genes that produce new enzymes are dominant, not recessive.Even recessive genes don't 'disappear' from heterozygous individuals. If the gene is recessive it will not change the characteristics of the individual, and therefore will not change the number of offspring, half of whom will carry the gene. Only when a gene affects an individual can it be selected against or for.But as I said before, mutations that result in a new ability will be genetically dominant.

Originally Posted By: thor Quote:They feel that they can't have evolution AND God, that its one or the other. You keep saying evolution...but it's "natural selection" that is the dream-fantasy created by athiests to keep God out of the equation.I was just reading through all of this again and this line stuck in my head. You say that its Natural Selection that you don't believe in, does this mean that you do believe in Evolution? That you believe in common decent?I ask this because you always gave the impression that you were a die-hard creationist, dare I even say it, a young Earth creationist. If you could maybe tell me, in your own words, what you consider to be evolution, how long its been happening, what are its results, etc...

again, as I've stated, creationists don't understand evolution because they can't grasp the magnitude of the time scale. Evolution and natural selection would never make any sense if the world were thousands of years old rather than millions.I really do have an honest interest in peoples' belief structures. I do! thor, you seem to be a bit of a moderate fundamentalist. You seem to support the "intelligent design" theory, based on some of your posts. This begs the question... when did ID theory begin and where is it outlined in the bible?you also poo-poo some science while accepting others. How do you decide?this is far from an original question but please tell me what dinosaur bones arehere is the question that I will hound you with, incessantly...what is the one true religion?

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thor Quote:They feel that they can't have evolution AND God, that its one or the other. You keep saying evolution...but it's "natural selection" that is the dream-fantasy created by athiests to keep God out of the equation.I was just reading through all of this again and this line stuck in my head. You say that its Natural Selection that you don't believe in, does this mean that you do believe in Evolution? That you believe in common decent?I ask this because you always gave the impression that you were a die-hard creationist, dare I even say it, a young Earth creationist. If you could maybe tell me, in your own words, what you consider to be evolution, how long its been happening, what are its results, etc... A long, long time. A thousand years is as a day, to God...and "a thousand years" is a Biblical metaphor for a very long, undetermined period of time. It was a very common phrase during the time the Bible was written...and used in more than one place in the Bible.So, how old is the earth? Much older than literalists (concerning the earth's creation in six days) would suggest. Since man was not yet created, whose days would they be...God-days, or man-days? And what is a day to God, again?Genesis was never intended as an explanation for how God created the universe...but it also does not conflict with what little we know about it, WHEN YOU TAKE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS WRITTEN!!! And that's an amazing part of the Bible...that it doesn not conflict with what we have discovered. Evidence has even been uncovered of the big flood during Noah's time. Piece by piece, science is discovering that the Bible is/was right all along. And if science conflicts with the Bible, perhaps we need to take a closer look at our conclusions...

Quote:Genesis was never intended as an explanation for how God created the universe oh c'mon, there must be someone here, more devout that you, who would take exception to that statement.  Quote: Evidence has even been uncovered of the big flood during Noah's time ok, so there was a flood. A LOCAL flood. There have always been floods. I wouldn't even imagine to deny that they could have been a flood. What doesn't work in the story is that 2 of every creature on Earth, an almost unimaginable mass and volume, got on a boat AND then repopulated the plant with a tiny gene pool.Yep, that book is very open to interpretation. The sick thing is people like you who bend the stories to fit your pre-existing belief structure then proclaim you have it figured out.

Quote: Quote: Evidence has even been uncovered of the big flood during Noah's time ok, so there was a flood. A LOCAL flood.Not what I was referring to. Do your research Mr. science-guy.

I know what you're referring to. I saw the documentary years ago.
it was a geological incident, not a magic rain storm. And it may have been a large event, but it was still geographically localized.

or maybe there is some other research you are referencing?

Originally Posted By: thorA long, long time. A thousand years is as a day, to God...and "a thousand years" is a Biblical metaphor for a very long, undetermined period of time. It was a very common phrase during the time the Bible was written...and used in more than one place in the Bible.So, how old is the earth? Much older than literalists (concerning the earth's creation in six days) would suggest. Since man was not yet created, whose days would they be...God-days, or man-days? And what is a day to God, again?Interesting. So would you accept the scientific measurement of the Earth's age? Or the scientific measurement of when the Big Bang occurred? Originally Posted By: thorGenesis was never intended as an explanation for how God created the universe...but it also does not conflict with what little we know about it, WHEN YOU TAKE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS WRITTEN!!! And that's an amazing part of the Bible...that it doesn not conflict with what we have discovered.But it does conflict with what we know about how the Universe formed. Gen 1 says that God created the Earth before He created light, and He created light before creating the Sun, moon or the stars. It says that the moon is just a lesser version of the Sun. It also says that Man was created before the birds (or does it?):Gen 1: 26-27 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen 2: 19 - And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.Same issues with the other animals.So we either take the Bible's account literally, and accept that its just wrong, or we take it figuratively and then ignore it as its just a pretty story. But it certainly does not coincide with what we know about the beginning and formation of the universe. Originally Posted By: thorEvidence has even been uncovered of the big flood during Noah's time.Please show me this evidence. Any of it! Originally Posted By: thorPiece by piece, science is discovering that the Bible is/was right all along. And if science conflicts with the Bible, perhaps we need to take a closer look at our conclusions... That is just plain wrong. Science is constantly going against the views of the Bible and exposing it as the work of men who, although they may have been quite enlightened philosophically and spiritually, they were completely ignorant about the way the physical world works.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedI know what you're referring to. I saw the documentary years ago.it was a geological incident, not a magic rain storm. And it may have been a large event, but it was still geographically localized.The nature of the ancient flood of the Black Sea and/or the even more ancient flood of the Mediterranean Sea are still highly speculative in nature. How cataclysmic the events were is very much debatable.With regard to these events being geographically localized, that is correct, but the human nature for an ego-centric view of the world must be taken into account. God destroyed only the people that "mattered," his people. The peoples of the rest of the world were not "Gods people" and subsequently of no consequence to Noah, God or any other being inside the middle east. It gets back to that old thing in the ancient world that the non-believers don't matter because by definition as non-believers they have no chance at salvation in as much as God has nothing to do with them anyway. Therefore, whether they were effected by these floods or not doesn't matter because humanity consisted only of the people of "your" group with the same belief system. Kind of like religious and ethnic extremist today. It's the reason why we can treat those of another ethnic group with such cruelty. "They" are sub-human and "we" are the real incarnations of humanity, so only the things that effect "us" are of any importance. Ergo, the flood destroyed all of humanity, all of humanity that "mattered."

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedI know what you're referring to. I saw the documentary years ago.it was a geological incident, not a magic rain storm. And it may have been a large event, but it was still geographically localized.or maybe there is some other research you are referencing? The one I'm referring to (and saw the documentary on) covered what was, at Biblical times, the entire known earth...all of Europe, Africa and Asia. Of course, because of techtonic movement, it's really hard to say how North America fit into it.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thorA long, long time. A thousand years is as a day, to God...and "a thousand years" is a Biblical metaphor for a very long, undetermined period of time. It was a very common phrase during the time the Bible was written...and used in more than one place in the Bible.So, how old is the earth? Much older than literalists (concerning the earth's creation in six days) would suggest. Since man was not yet created, whose days would they be...God-days, or man-days? And what is a day to God, again?Interesting. So would you accept the scientific measurement of the Earth's age? Or the scientific measurement of when the Big Bang occurred?I'd be more inclined to accept the Big-Bang age (though don't necessarily buy into that theory) than I would the earth's age, as determined by scientists. Carbon dating has been discovered to be much more flawed than scientists at the time led the world to believe...and I believe so it is with much of today's science. Scientists, quick to make a name for themselves, often go out on a limb...with the hopes that they won't be proven wrong; at least not until after they're dead. Quote: Originally Posted By: thorGenesis was never intended as an explanation for how God created the universe...but it also does not conflict with what little we know about it, WHEN YOU TAKE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS WRITTEN!!! And that's an amazing part of the Bible...that it doesn not conflict with what we have discovered.But it does conflict with what we know about how the Universe formed.Gen 1 says that God created the Earth before He created light, and He created light before creating the Sun, moon or the stars. It says that the moon is just a lesser version of the Sun. It also says that Man was created before the birds (or does it?):Gen 1: 26-27 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen 2: 19 - And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.Same issues with the other animals.So we either take the Bible's account literally, and accept that its just wrong, or we take it figuratively and then ignore it as its just a pretty story. But it certainly does not coincide with what we know about the beginning and formation of the universe.Go back and read the Bible again...there is nothing there that points to anything wrong considering what we know for certain about the creation of the universe and development of life on this earth. Most likely, you are not understanding the Bible...which is why it's best if you go back to the KJV version and use a Concordance of some kind to help you understand all of it. Quote: Originally Posted By: thorEvidence has even been uncovered of the big flood during Noah's time.Please show me this evidence. Any of it!Go talk to Mr. U...he seems to have heard of it. Not surprising you haven't, considering our liberal media...I'm sure that most folks have not heard of it. It's about a layer of tiny fossilized marine animal remains that constitute a band going, roughly, north to south through the middle of the Atlantic. These are shollow-water marine animals not normally found in the ocean at all. The only plausible explanation scientists have been able to come up with is that a great flooding occured a long time ago, which pushed these animals out to where they are now found today. Quote: Originally Posted By: thorPiece by piece, science is discovering that the Bible is/was right all along. And if science conflicts with the Bible, perhaps we need to take a closer look at our conclusions... That is just plain wrong. Science is constantly going against the views of the Bible and exposing it as the work of men who, although they may have been quite enlightened philosophically and spiritually, they were completely ignorant about the way the physical world works. LOL! No...athiestic scientists are constantly going up against the Bible...even manufacturing evidence to do so. But when better understood (and not forged), the data increasingly points to the Bible being correct. Not bad for a motley crew of oddballs running around Mesopotamia thousands of years ago.

Just wanted to let you know, after this, I'll just observe, my views aren't going to play in well, and besides, most of them have been covered.  Quote:Although more advanced languages definitely emerged independently, the original use of sound-object association most likely emerged before the existence of our MRCA, or Most Recent Common Ancestor meaning that it emerged before the mass migration of Homo Sapien groups. Even Homo Neanderthals are believed to have had a basic language. Pretty much what I was saying, but with better words.  Quote:And I think you might be talking about the Anthropic Principle... Thank you Bob! Geez, I was typing INthropic, trying to find it. That would be WHY I couldn't find it.  Quote:Evolution by Natural Selection is the basis of modern biology... All I mean, more or less, is that, just like any other "law", it's only a theory (we just got done with "pre"-gravity/Newton in physics class). But you kind of said that, so...

Originally Posted By: thor

Carbon dating has been discovered to be much more flawed than scientists at the time led the world to believe...

Radiocarbon dating isn't perfect, there are events that can throw off the accuracy of it such as volcanic eruptions. But that is why no single radiometric dating system is used. A number of dating systems are used which are then cross-referenced, and using all of the data, a more accurate result is achieved.

And radiocarbon dating is not generally used for most geological studies, such as the age of the Earth, as its short half life limits its ability to date objects to about 60,000 years.

Originally Posted By: thor

and I believe so it is with much of today's science. Scientists, quick to make a name for themselves, often go out on a limb...with the hopes that they won't be proven wrong; at least not until after they're dead.

There are glory hunters out there in every profession and they certainly are a nuisance, but they certainly do not amount to anywhere near a large percentage of them. A lot of cases that seem to be overhyped are done so by the media. A perfect example being the recent Ida announcement. All the news reports were claiming that it was the missing link, that it finally proved Darwin's theory. Total bullshit! Ida is a very interesting and well preserved fossil, one of the best found, but it is not the final proof for Evolution, its just a happy addition to the already well established theory. And Ida is not the widely misunderstood missing link, she fills a gap in the record. She is not even our ancestor.

Originally Posted By: thor

Go back and read the Bible again...there is nothing there that points to anything wrong considering what we know for certain about the creation of the universe and development of life on this earth. Most likely, you are not understanding the Bible...which is why it's best if you go back to the KJV version and use a Concordance of some kind to help you understand all of it.

But I just pointed out something that the Bible says that goes against scientific knowledge. It says that Man was created before the birds. This is wrong. Birds emerged about 140 million years ago, while man (Homo genus) has only been around 2.5 million years, or maybe push it to 4 million years if you count Australopithicus.

Originally Posted By: thor

Go talk to Mr. U...he seems to have heard of it. Not surprising you haven't, considering our liberal media...I'm sure that most folks have not heard of it. It's about a layer of tiny fossilized marine animal remains that constitute a band going, roughly, north to south through the middle of the Atlantic. These are shollow-water marine animals not normally found in the ocean at all. The only plausible explanation scientists have been able to come up with is that a great flooding occured a long time ago, which pushed these animals out to where they are now found today.

I've honestly never heard about this. I tried searching for it on Google but its not really coming up with anything. Could you or Mr.U maybe give me some more details on this so I can look it up?

Originally Posted By: thor

LOL! No...athiestic scientists are constantly going up against the Bible...even manufacturing evidence to do so. But when better understood (and not forged), the data increasingly points to the Bible being correct. Not bad for a motley crew of oddballs running around Mesopotamia thousands of years ago.

Please show me the scientific studies that are proving the Bible to be right. Please show me the atheistic scientists manufacturing evidence just to go against the Bible. The Bible says that the Earth was created before the stars. This is wrong, science has proven that this is wrong as planet formation is a bi-product of star formation. Stars are created first, and then the leftover material forms planets. This is not an atheistic belief, this is real science.

One more question for you, if you don't mind. If you believe in Evolution, do you believe in common decent? That all life shares a single ancestor?

_Oldest "Human" Skeleton Found--Disproves "Missing Link"

Jamie Shreeve
Science editor, National Geographic magazine
October 1, 2009

Move over, Lucy. And kiss the missing link goodbye.

Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago.

The centerpiece of a treasure trove of new fossils, the skeleton---assigned to a species called Ardipithecus ramidus---belonged to a small-brained, 110-pound (50-kilogram) female nicknamed "Ardi."

The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link---resembling something between humans and today's apes---would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior---long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors---is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings.

Ardi instead shows an unexpected mix of advanced characteristics and of primitive traits seen in much older apes that were unlike chimps or gorillas (interactive: Ardi's key features). As such, the skeleton offers a window on what the last common ancestor of humans and living apes might have been like.

Announced at joint press conferences in Washington, D.C., and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the analysis of the Ardipithecus ramidus bones will be published in a collection of papers tomorrow in a special edition of the journal Science, along with an avalanche of supporting materials published online.

"This find is far more important than Lucy," said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. "It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between." (Related: "Oldest Homo Sapiens Fossils Found, Experts Say" [June 11, 2003].)

Ardi Surrounded by Family

The Ardipithecus ramidus fossils were discovered in Ethiopia's harsh Afar desert at a site called Aramis in the Middle Awash region, just 46 miles (74 kilometers) from where Lucy's species, Australopithecus afarensis, was found in 1974. Radiometric dating of two layers of volcanic ash that tightly sandwiched the fossil deposits revealed that Ardi lived 4.4 million years ago.

Older hominid fossils have been uncovered, including a skull from Chad at least six million years old and some more fragmentary, slightly younger remains from Kenya and nearby in the Middle Awash.

While important, however, none of those earlier fossils are nearly as revealing as the newly announced remains, which in addition to Ardi's partial skeleton include bones representing at least 36 other individuals.

"All of a sudden you've got fingers and toes and arms and legs and heads and teeth," said Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, who co-directed the work with Berhane Asfaw, a paleoanthropologist and former director of the National Museum of Ethiopia, and Giday WoldeGabriel, a geologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

"That allows you to do something you can't do with isolated specimens," White said. "It allows you to do biology."

Ardi's Weird Way of Moving

The biggest surprise about Ardipithecus's biology is its bizarre means of moving about.

All previously known hominids---members of our ancestral lineage---walked upright on two legs, like us. But Ardi's feet, pelvis, legs, and hands suggest she was a biped on the ground but a quadruped when moving about in the trees.

Her big toe, for instance, splays out from her foot like an ape's, the better to grasp tree limbs. Unlike a chimpanzee foot, however, Ardipithecus's contains a special small bone inside a tendon, passed down from more primitive ancestors, that keeps the divergent toe more rigid. Combined with modifications to the other toes, the bone would have helped Ardi walk bipedally on the ground, though less efficiently than later hominids like Lucy. The bone was lost in the lineages of chimps and gorillas.

According to the researchers, the pelvis shows a similar mosaic of traits. The large flaring bones of the upper pelvis were positioned so that Ardi could walk on two legs without lurching from side to side like a chimp. But the lower pelvis was built like an ape's, to accommodate huge hind limb muscles used in climbing.

Even in the trees, Ardi was nothing like a modern ape, the researchers say.

Modern chimps and gorillas have evolved limb anatomy specialized to climbing vertically up tree trunks, hanging and swinging from branches, and knuckle-walking on the ground.

While these behaviors require very rigid wrist bones, for instance, the wrists and finger joints of Ardipithecus were highly flexible. As a result Ardi would have walked on her palms as she moved about in the trees---more like some primitive fossil apes than like chimps and gorillas.

"What Ardi tells us is there was this vast intermediate stage in our evolution that nobody knew about," said Owen Lovejoy, an anatomist at Kent State University in Ohio, who analyzed Ardi's bones below the neck. "It changes everything."

Against All Odds, Ardi Emerges

The first, fragmentary specimens of Ardipithecus were found at Aramis in 1992 and published in 1994. The skeleton announced today was discovered that same year and excavated with the bones of the other individuals over the next three field seasons. But it took 15 years before the research team could fully analyze and publish the skeleton, because the fossils were in such bad shape.

After Ardi died, her remains apparently were trampled down into mud by hippos and other passing herbivores. Millions of years later, erosion brought the badly crushed and distorted bones back to the surface.

They were so fragile they would turn to dust at a touch. To save the precious fragments, White and colleagues removed the fossils along with their surrounding rock. Then, in a lab in Addis, the researchers carefully tweaked out the bones from the rocky matrix using a needle under a microscope, proceeding "millimeter by submillimeter," as the team puts it in Science. This process alone took several years.

Pieces of the crushed skull were then CT-scanned and digitally fit back together by Gen Suwa, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Tokyo.

In the end, the research team recovered more than 125 pieces of the skeleton, including much of the feet and virtually all of the hands---an extreme rarity among hominid fossils of any age, let alone one so very ancient.

"Finding this skeleton was more than luck," said White. "It was against all odds."

Ardi's World

The team also found some 6,000 animal fossils and other specimens that offer a picture of the world Ardi inhabited: a moist woodland very different from the region's current, parched landscape. In addition to antelope and monkey species associated with forests, the deposits contained forest-dwelling birds and seeds from fig and palm trees.

Wear patterns and isotopes in the hominid teeth suggest a diet that included fruits, nuts, and other forest foods.

If White and his team are right that Ardi walked upright as well as climbed trees, the environmental evidence would seem to strike the death knell for the "savanna hypothesis"---a long-standing notion that our ancestors first stood up in response to their move onto an open grassland environment.

Sex for Food

Some researchers, however, are unconvinced that Ardipithecus was quite so versatile.

"This is a fascinating skeleton, but based on what they present, the evidence for bipedality is limited at best," said William Jungers, an anatomist at Stony Brook University in New York State.

"Divergent big toes are associated with grasping, and this has one of the most divergent big toes you can imagine," Jungers said. "Why would an animal fully adapted to support its weight on its forelimbs in the trees elect to walk bipedally on the ground?"

One provocative answer to that question---originally proposed by Lovejoy in the early 1980s and refined now in light of the Ardipithecus discoveries---attributes the origin of bipedality to another trademark of humankind: monogamous sex.

Virtually all apes and monkeys, especially males, have long upper canine teeth---formidable weapons in fights for mating opportunities.

But Ardipithecus appears to have already embarked on a uniquely human evolutionary path, with canines reduced in size and dramatically "feminized" to a stubby, diamond shape, according to the researchers. Males and female specimens are also close to each other in body size.

Lovejoy sees these changes as part of an epochal shift in social behavior: Instead of fighting for access to females, a male Ardipithecus would supply a "targeted female" and her offspring with gathered foods and gain her sexual loyalty in return.

To keep up his end of the deal, a male needed to have his hands free to carry home the food. Bipedalism may have been a poor way for Ardipithecus to get around, but through its contribution to the "sex for food" contract, it would have been an excellent way to bear more offspring. And in evolution, of course, more offspring is the name of the game (more: "Did Early Humans Start Walking for Sex?").

Two hundred thousand years after Ardipithecus, another species called Australopithecus anamensis appeared in the region. By most accounts, that species soon evolved into Australopithecus afarensis, with a slightly larger brain and a full commitment to a bipedal way of life. Then came early Homo, with its even bigger brain and budding tool use.

Did primitive Ardipithecus undergo some accelerated change in the 200,000 years between it and Australopithecus---and emerge as the ancestor of all later hominids? Or was Ardipithecus a relict species, carrying its quaint mosaic of primitive and advanced traits with it into extinction?

Study co-leader White sees nothing about the skeleton "that would exclude it from ancestral status." But he said more fossils would be needed to fully resolve the issue.

Stony Brook's Jungers added, "These finds are incredibly important, and given the state of preservation of the bones, what they did was nothing short of heroic. But this is just the beginning of the story." _

Its sad that these publications use such misleading titles, makes people think they know the story without reading. But anyway...That sounds really cool. Judging by the timeline, it sounds more like a cousin than an ancestor, it seems like too short of a time period to become Australopithicus.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousBut I just pointed out something that the Bible says that goes against scientific knowledge. It says that Man was created before the birds. This is wrong. Birds emerged about 140 million years ago, while man (Homo genus) has only been around 2.5 million years, or maybe push it to 4 million years if you count Australopithicus.OK...I'll bite. Where in the Bible does it say man was created before the birds? Quote: Originally Posted By: thorGo talk to Mr. U...he seems to have heard of it. Not surprising you haven't, considering our liberal media...I'm sure that most folks have not heard of it. It's about a layer of tiny fossilized marine animal remains that constitute a band going, roughly, north to south through the middle of the Atlantic. These are shollow-water marine animals not normally found in the ocean at all. The only plausible explanation scientists have been able to come up with is that a great flooding occured a long time ago, which pushed these animals out to where they are now found today.I've honestly never heard about this. I tried searching for it on Google but its not really coming up with anything. Could you or Mr.U maybe give me some more details on this so I can look it up?I've already told you about all I remember...it was about 10 years ago that it was reported. Considering the ramifications, I'm not surprised it was buried...while Lucy gets front-page status because of the implications there. Quote:...manufacturing evidence just to go against the Bible.Remember the moth story you brought up some time ago? But it's not directed against the Bible...more like directed against creationism. Quote:The Bible says that the Earth was created before the stars.Where? Quote:One more question for you, if you don't mind. If you believe in Evolution, do you believe in common decent? That all life shares a single ancestor? I really haven't considered that question long enough to form an opinion one way or another...but my gut tells me no.

I really didn't want this conversation to turn biblical, but here we go... Originally Posted By: thorOK...I'll bite. Where in the Bible does it say man was created before the birds?KJB - Gen 2: 19 - And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.God created the birds and asked Adam to name them, meaning Adam had already been created. Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobaliciousI've honestly never heard about this. I tried searching for it on Google but its not really coming up with anything. Could you or Mr.U maybe give me some more details on this so I can look it up?I've already told you about all I remember...it was about 10 years ago that it was reported. Considering the ramifications, I'm not surprised it was buried...while Lucy gets front-page status because of the implications there.The only thing close to this that I can find is THIS article from the Institute for Creation Research. Marine fossils found around Bermuda that show that apparently show that the Earth's sea level was atleast 70 feet higher at some point in the past. Which is complete bollocks as the whole thing is explained by tectonic plate movement. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:...manufacturing evidence just to go against the Bible.Remember the moth story you brought up some time ago? But it's not directed against the Bible...more like directed against creationism.Not the bloody moths again. What was made up about the moths? What evidence was manufactured? Kettlewell's testing methods were not perfect, this has been known for a while. He placed some of the samples of moths onto the barks of trees, somewhere that they didn't usually sit. He also compared they camouflage abilities with his eyes, a mistake but one that was not known at the time. It wasn't til years later that biologists discovered that many birds' vision is shifted into the ultraviolet. But even with these errors in his methodology, his work still had its merit and its conclusion was correct, and was fully supported by a study in 1998 by Michael Majerus.And to keep to your point, no evidence was manufactured with the intent to discredit the Bible or Creationism, nor was it manufactured to prove Evolution. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:The Bible says that the Earth was created before the stars.Where?You kidding? On the first dayGen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And on the fourth dayGen 1:16 - And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Originally Posted By: thorI really haven't considered that question long enough to form an opinion one way or another...but my gut tells me no.Take as long as you want to form your opinion. My only suggestion would be to ignore your gut and consider the facts instead.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

I really didn't want this conversation to turn biblical, but here we go...

Originally Posted By: thor

OK...I'll bite. Where in the Bible does it say man was created before the birds?

KJB - Gen 2: 19 - And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

God created the birds and asked Adam to name them, meaning Adam had already been created.

I think you have it backwards bob...

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, 1 Cor. 11.7 after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Mt. 19.4 * Mk. 10.6

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousGod created the birds and asked Adam to name them, meaning Adam had already been created.See what sdp posted...no sense in repeating it. Quote:The only thing close to this that I can find is THIS article from the Institute for Creation Research.That's not it. Quote:What was made up about the moths?...He placed some of the samples of moths onto the barks of trees, somewhere that they didn't usually sit.That's it. Quote:But even with these errors in his methodology, his work still had its merit and its conclusion was correct, and was fully supported by a study in 1998 by Michael Majerus.No credit for attempted mitigation of the fabrication of evidence. Quote:And to keep to your point, no evidence was manufactured with the intent to discredit the Bible or Creationism, nor was it manufactured to prove Evolution.For the bazillionth time, the issue is "Natural Selection"...not evolution. Quote: Originally Posted By: thor Quote:The Bible says that the Earth was created before the stars.Where?You kidding? On the first dayGen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And on the fourth dayGen 1:16 - And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.That requires literal interpretation of the passages of time...which I've already told you I don't believe in as far as the creation story is concerned. If you wish to prove your point, find someplace else in the Bible where it says that. Quote: Originally Posted By: thorI really haven't considered that question long enough to form an opinion one way or another...but my gut tells me no.Take as long as you want to form your opinion. My only suggestion would be to ignore your gut and consider the facts instead. I will when I see any.