New fossil skull from Africa reveals tangled roots at base of the human family tree
Submitted by emalvini on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 14:24New fossil skull from Africa reveals tangled roots at base of the human family tree
By Brian Vastag, Wednesday, August 8, 10:39 AM
A two million-year-old flat-faced skull pulled from the sandstones of east Africa has shored up claims that at least three species of early humans once co-existed in an “evolutionary experiment” that saw an explosive increase in brain size paired with radically different faces, teeth, and jaws.
While the new partial skull and two newly found jawbones look radically different from modern humans, they match an enigmatic, nearly complete skull found 40 years ago that paleoanthropologists have long struggled to fit into the human family tree.
Together, the new finds and the puzzling skull describe a species of early humans clearly distinct from two others known from fossils from the same period, said Meave Leakey, the 70-year-old paleoanthropologist who led the team that discovered the fossils.
The “base of the human lineage was indeed diverse,” Leakey said from her longtime home at the Turkana Basin Institute in northern Kenya. Her colleagues made the finds near there.
Read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-fo...
- Login to post comments
Religion vs. Revelation
In the beginning man found God through inspiration (from within) When man found the ways of God too difficult to follow, he created religions.
Religions are the enemy of God. They are a dead end and lead man to follow the spoken word.(Outspire)
The prophets were inspired (from within) as was the first man before the fall. Adam knew God intuitively. There was no counter voice within the mind of man to outshout the quiet revelations from God.
After the fall from grace, man became externalized, depending on the spoken word from the first woman. As a result, the spoken word or speech entered into the whole human race.
In the beginning, it wasn't mean to be that way..
God put the first woman there to
help Adam. And what did Adam do when God questioned him? He blamed God for giving him Eve! And that, my friend, is what got him kicked out of the garden. That's what my Bible says.
The Excuse Is Worse Than The Sin
Men and women always make excuses for their sins. Nothing has changed since the days in the garden.
Pride goeth before the fall...
ya know, I just got done running an atheist off another forum...
...because all he could do is insult people who didn't believe in evolution; the administrator shut him down.
The FACT of the matter is BOTH creation and evolution are FAITH issues, both religious - the mature Christian perspective; DO NOT TEACH ORIGINS in school by way of taxpayer funding, especially with LIES that humans evolved from apes/rocks!
Now, this guy I was going at it with posted this picture from a Steven Jay Gould publication when they found some "missing link"...
The picture showed the Eusthenopteron turning into the Tiktaalik over 10 million years, then that turning into the Ichthyostega over 10 million more years: and if you Google them names, you will find articles that these species contained the original blueprints of human hands! TAXPAYERS paid for this fairy tale!!!(of course, Steven Jay Gould was another guy who refused to debate Kent Hovind)
...here's what I told him:
1) Show me where the Devonian layer of ROCKS were dated at 385 million years old for your Steven Jay Gould example of the lobe-finned fish(still in existence today) fossil, and show me where the Devonian rocks of the 20 million years later EVOLVED mudskipper(still in existence today) were dated 365 million years ago through ANY DATING METHOD you want.
I want PROOF that all 3 of your Steven Jay Gould fossils were NOT buried in the same catastrophe; but SEPARATE catastrophes, 10 million years apart ... I want PROOF that the same 3 species did NOT live together simultaneously, and get buried in the same CATASTROPHE.
I don't care about volcanic rock right now, I care about Devonian rock being dated at 345-405 million years ago - and NOT by the fossils found in that layer.
#1) Fossils(BONES ONLY) of a fish were found in a rock layer called Devonian, they named it Eusthenopteron and estimated/printed that this particular lobe-finned fish lived 385 million years ago(and lobe-finned fishes have been found to exist today);
#2) Fossils(BONES ONLY) of something they named Tiktaalik was recently found in that same rock layer called Devonian, and they estimated/printed it lived 375 million years ago, and that it EVOLVED from the Eusthenopteron over 10 million years;
#3) Fossils(BONES ONLY) of something they named Ichthyostega (which still seem to exist TODAY as a “mudskipper” as seen a National Geographic video anyone can find) was found in the same rock layer called Devonian, and they estimated it lived 365 million years ago and it EVOLVED from the Tiktaalik.
He told me to "make sense of them in light of creationism" - I said it would seem VERY LIKELY to me that God just may have made the Eusthenopteron, the Tiktaalik, and the Ichthyostega just the way He wanted them "in the beginning"; and they got buried alive in the worldwide flood of Noah's day...why not?
BOTH theories are RELIGIOUS; so why don't we just teach the reading, writing, and arithmetic in TAXPAYER funded schools, and PUBLIC universities - WHY do we teach this religious theory that says "God DID NOT create this world, or humans in His image"?
http://postimage.org/image/cjzi9t077/
http://virtueandexcellence.com
PUG...
"The FACT of the matter is BOTH creation and evolution are FAITH issues"
Your questions are not particularly clear, can you be a little more specific? I don't know everything, but I'm a practicing paleontologist with 30 years experience in the *industry* (not academia). Maybe I can clear up your misconceptions.
Evidence of evolution is observable, so much so that it's as certain as gravity or that the earth is round. I see this evidence in my daily work. I have no political or religeous agenda, I use evolution as a practical approach in oil exploration. Trust me, my customers wouldn't pay for something that didn't exist!
I believe in evolution from direct observation, not from faith.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
BS
Not one freakin person has observed macro-evolution, so that is a lie. Now variation YES, you can see it in dogs.
So show me your proof, everyone would like to see it
This will fall on deaf ears
This will fall on deaf ears but maybe others will benefit-
"...at a certain stage of evolution/creation, species become specialized to the extreme that further advantages cease to exist. And on the seventh day God rested..."
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -Jebediah Springfield
Cheezy... macro, micro, etc. is semantics.
I don't care what you call it. Let's just say that we can easily see gradual and rapid *CHANGE* in the fossils as we traverse through the sedimentary strata in a geological section.
Saying this is a "lie" shows your ignorance. You may disagree and think of me as uneducated or not intelligent, but saying this is a 'lie' makes you a dick.
You're welcome to come to my office. I'll sit you down at my microscope, and show you the fossils from 200 samples from an oil well taken at 30' intervals. You'll be able to see the changes in the microfossils as you work your way through the section. We call those changes evolution. We think it took millions of years for these changes, but hell, if you have it your way and it only took thousands of years, it doesn't matter, the results are the same.
Then we'll look at another 200 samples from a nearby well. You'll see the same sequence of change, in a predictable order. This is what makes fossils (and therefore evolution) valuable to oil companies, we can tell them when they are above, in, or below that layer of oil sand, based upon the fossils.
There have been literally thousands of oil wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico alone that have utilized fossils to help understand the stratigraphy.
I'm sorry if you can't understand this basic geology. It really is simple and obvious when you actually allow yourself to see the evidence.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
I think you guys are talking past each other
How major are the changes in your samples? Does a small trilobite turn into a fish over the years or does it become a more adapted trilobite? If they become more fit than that it most certainly evidence of evolution, but actually says very little about creation.
I firmly believe that evolution is very real and just another in a long list of things that are evidence of God's glory. However, I don't believe that everything could randomly come from nothing and create such diversity of life and energies.
I see no argument between evolution and creationism because I think creation obviously has the ability to evolve.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
I agree...
Evolution is not mutually exclusive of a creator. But the interpretaion of the nature of the creator is, IMO, not even close to what today's religion teaches.
Of course we don't seen fish turn into dogs. We see fish turn into different fish.
But the change over time in fish is not more dramatic than the change from apes to man. There is not much physiological difference between apes and humans.
Why would God put two discrete animals on earth that are so similar, but totally unrelated to each other? He wouldn't.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
Fish and Man
The Coelacanth, once thought extinct, is absolute proof that fish never change. 400 million years and it's the same.
Why would God put two discrete animals on earth that are so similar, but totally unrelated to each other? He wouldn't.
Of course he would. Because he can and because his ways are not our ways, so don't assume you understand him.
Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest. - Ben Franklin
Explain humankind's
Explain humankind's evolutionary adaptation to environment. Skin color, height, hair color, musculature differences, etc.
Are you saying there was an Eskimo Adam and Eve?
www.gunowners.org
Of all the arguments I have
Of all the arguments I have heard opposing divine creation, the one that appeals to God's supposed motives, methods and/or purposes ("God wouldn't do it this way") strikes me as perhaps the most worthless.
By the same token, I doubt seriously that your Coelacanth argument will have much effect.... Bugman is not interested in explaining stasis in biology, but change. He can simply point out that species may or may not experience significant morphology over any particular stretch of time. But I find it to be a far better question to ask a Darwinist, than to say the ole "If there were a God, he wouldn't have done it this way" silliness.
Perhaps it would be more
Perhaps it would be more profitable if people on all sides of this issue were willing to focus on what is really in dispute. Of course, that becomes more difficult when people talk past one another (something I've seen from many Christians on this thread), or when people don't use definitions in a consistent manner.
One word (in this war of ideas) that seems to shift meanings at times is the word 'evolution' itself. I have heard it defined as simply 'change over time', a definition so general as to be next to worthless. Under that definition, I doubt you could find anyone willing to argue against the 'fact of evolution'. But what often happens is the definition will expand beyond the general idea of change over time, and will then include the actual mechanisms responsible and the larger metaphysical backdrop allowed. What is really at issue is the mechanisms of change and the metaphysical implications involved in the various answers.
Well hello there Bugman...
Let's try this...You have "evidence" of evolution through microscopic samples taken from below the ocean. Now is it not a leap of faith to apply that knowledge and call it "FACT" that man somehow evolved from apes or monkeys or sea sludge? I would hope that as a scientist that should truly be open to all things and constant "adjustment" to THEORIES, that you would somehow understand why I see that as a definite leap of faith. Have things evolved? Sure they have. But comparing the evidence that you see in your job and applying it to the evolution of species, especially man, are completely different ball fields. If one is American football then the other is true Futbol. :O)
I can't help but believe that for you to apply your knowledge, and belief to the evolution of man, that you have a matter of faith whether you like to admit it or not. The only difference between us is your faith in man and his teachings and my faith in God and His teachings.
Yo Dale...
long time!
Man is so similar to apes that it's not much of a stretch at all to see that they are related.
Clearly dogs, foxes, wolves, etc. all came from common ancestors. But they are more different from their ancestor than man is from apes. This doesn't take faith to believe, it's a logical progression.
Why is it so bad that we evolved from apes? As long as we live as intelligent people now, why does it matter?
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
Dogs ARE wolves
Dogs are now classified as a sub-species of the gray wolf, for good reason. Dogs and wolves can inter-breed and produce viable and fertile offspring. It happens.
It is interesting how dogs evolved from wolves, i.e., through the mechanism of neoteny. (Google it.) Dogs have wolf DNA in which certain switches are stuck in the OFF position. The result in the adult dog is that it is fertile, yet retains many of the characteristics of a juvenile wolf. To understand how that would be a survival adaptation, look at the Siberian Silver Fox experiment. (Spoiler: The foxes now look just like dogs. They are the decedents of foxes that were selected for not being afraid of or aggressive toward humans.)
Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń
"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln
What does the geneticist say about our differences.
How different are we genetically from other species?
Free includes debt-free!
So please explain further...
"Man is so similar to apes that it's not much of a stretch at all to see that they are related."
I'm saying that being "similar" to something doesn't exactly prove that we evolved from that same something or even had the same ancient ancestors. You are still dealing with theory when you admit that it's simply "not that much of a stretch". There is absolutely no PROOF of our evolution FROM apes or any other creature. It takes faith for you to believe that and to believe it so absolutely without any proof. :O)
And for me it doesn't matter at all. I don't understand what our creator did and I don't think the Bible gives us every minute detail. If it did none of us would understand the purpose behind it because we couldn't pick the damn thing up. My own personal theory is the the Days of God are very different than ours. If you look at the week of creation it follows along nicely with the steps of your accepted THEORY of evolution. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other as long as I live my life correctly and based on the laws and commands that I accept into my life.
My only problem is the way people can't accept that others think differently and belittle people. I'm not accusing you of this of course. We have had more than our fair share of conversations about this and fully understand each other. But for a non believer to belittle someone for having Faith in God while not recognizing their own faith in man is simply mind numbing. These people can see Theory over and over and still read it as FACT and take the time to belittle me for having my faith in a Creator. I think you guys just need to admit that you have your own faith and accept that others have a different faith.
Of course I also know that there are hard headed "Christians" who belittle anything that has to do with science and in no way can understand the possible correlation of evolution and creation...believe me that steams me too. Just saying. Take care Bugman!
Check this out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oweUN-GaN3M
Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń
"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln
How do I contact god so he
How do I contact god so he can teach me his teachings? That's my problem with creationist. Where's their starting point? Natural selection and variations in species is observable. Creationist call it 'micro' evolution and they don't seem to have a problem with it. Where is 'micro' creation I can check out to compare and contrast with? How do I test creationist theory? How can something be teachable if it's not observable or testable?
So you like to run off atheists.
If you deported all the atheists from the USA, you would deport 92% of the scientists in the National Academy of Science, 1% of the prison population, and 0% of the politicians.
Liberty isn't given to us; it is taken by us, and if not, we will not have it.
I don't LIKE to run off atheists...
...it is not a hobby of mine; I was only making the point that they resort to insulting and demeaning Christians for no good reason...
He was being a bully - and - I stayed in there, and he got shut down by the site administrator.
I would argue, MOST people being paid to teach evolution theory via tax dollars; personally do not believe it themselves - they KNOW there is a game to be played to get that paycheck ... either way, don't teach origins in school is the creationist point(Kent Hovind).
I am happy to strive with atheists in this revolution; I have MORE in common with them in promoting LIBERTY than I do with 99% of the Christian politicians in America!
http://virtueandexcellence.com
Well I'm not saying that the Federal Reserve is good or bad...
I think, no I'm positive there is just as many times the Federal Reserve is good as it is bad.
It could be a perfect system for some of you, you may want to wind up endless debt with fake money and collateral assets. All the while committing crimes the entire way along. So if that is true, so be it.
But what I am saying, is the Federal Reserve is a system that is based upon financial fraud, theft and criminal interest rate racketeering. It is a criminal based system, in order to keep the economy going ahead.
And we cannot rely on anything to do with this non-sense system, yet we still use it, have our banks, and use cards. So for a lot of us who were very wise, we are now using things like silver too. Or perhaps gold and silver bars. This is working well and we are developing finally systems to use debit cards directly off silver or gold type of currency.
But it's a slow process, and like it or not, if we dismantled the Federal Reserve tomorrow every one of us would be on the street including the millionaires. We have created a system based on criminality, and fraud. It ultimately needs to entirely destroy itself, prosecute itself & be scrapped which a president can't do.
And I'm saying the only way you will ever get there, is stop using it; draw your funds to credit unions. Use hard currency, develop alternative debits and simply cut your state's ties to the Fed. Its not their problem you are borrowing from the Fed's bank when you have another resource already.
Yes that is ultimately the only, and I do mean only, way it will stop.
This whole conversation
This whole conversation reminds me of a joke about the scientist that was prevented from entering the church. As he sat out front, he said, "Lord, I don't understand, they refuse to let me enter". The Heavens opened up and God spoke to the man saying, "Sorrow not, for you are not alone. They won't let me in there either".
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -Jebediah Springfield
Science and religion...
are exclusive.
Science deals with the explanation of phenomena that can be tested. In Science, things can be proven to be false, but nothing can be proven to be 100% universally true - I am 99.9999% sure that gravity will never reverse.
Religion presents a philosophy to explain things that are not testable. Faith is required. No proof can be given. No experiment can be performed.
It is true that sometimes religious declarations are able to be tested as scientific knowledge is gained. For instance, the proposal of the heliocentric universe was considered treasonous to the principles of the church. Today, no religious person questions that the sun is the center of our solar system.
The scope of religion has shrank over the years. What happens after death is one of the only mysteries left for religion. How the universe came into existence can be debated as well, but arguments either way are mostly speculation.
Science and religion do not have to be at odds. People can choose what they do and do not believe. However, the existence of a god is not prohibited or placed into question by science. The religious beliefs of Man are sometimes placed into question by science but not the existence of a god.
Who's to say that evolution isn't a god's slow method of creation and improvement of species? Is any human capable of knowing this?
Fascinating thoughts about the scope of both.
Well put. Much thanks.
HArd science or soft
Yeah HARD science can be tested and proved but not historical science
So you evolutionist believe we "evolved" from a Hydrogen atom?? cuz i find that logic completele BS
You state
"Religion presents a philosophy to explain things that are not testable. Faith is required. No proof can be given. No experiment can be performed."
Ah, you are wrong on two counts. First, religion--Christianity in particular--- is based on observation of supernatural phenomenon. That's why the Bible is divided into two parts, the Old and New Testaments. The Prophets and many others have testified and record the things they have witnessed and divine communication they have received. Thousands of years of revelations and testimony show a consistent pattern of experiencing contact with a divine being. The scriptures are no less a valid account than scientific journals of observation.
Many of these witnesses have given up wealth, personal reputation, social status and their very lives to follow a path to spiritual enlightenment. To write them off as merely delusional would condemn many of scientists from history whose theories you cherish so highly.
Second, experiments to test the validity of the above testaments can be performed by anyone. In fact, they are required. The Savior gave the challenge:
"If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak of Myself.
John 7:17
This pursuit for supernatural divine truth cannot be performed by mortal logic alone, nor with measured by the scientific machines we have today. It demands an open minded, and honest experimentation with scripture reading, mediation, prayer and practicing the tenets to discover the existence of God.
Conscience does not exist if not exercised
"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin
Oh, please
"The Prophets and many others have testified and record the things they have witnessed and divine communication they have received. Thousands of years of revelations and testimony show a consistent pattern of experiencing contact with a divine being."
No, what are left with are recorded writings which mostly appear to be first person subjective statements. None of these statements align with modern observable knowledge.
Did "magic" stop working all of a sudden when we entered the Age of Enlightenment, or was it simply that magic and miracles never existed?
www.gunowners.org