INTRODUCING ARDI: This early hominid is more than a million years older than famed Lucy and presents a wealth of new information--and speculation--about how humans first embarked on our long evolutionary journey.
Image: J.H. MATTERNES
More In This Article
-
Overview
Slide Show: Images of Ardi
-
Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?
Why do testicles hang the way they do? Is there an adaptive function to the female orgasm? What does it feel like to want to kill yourself? Does “free will”...
Read More »
The first full analysis of a 4.4-million-year-old early human paints a clearer picture of what the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees may have looked like, which is not, after all, that much like a chimp at all. The ancient Ardipithecus ramidus ("Ardi", as the most complete female specimen is known) is described in 11 research papers published online today in Science. The prodigious research effort combines Ardi's fossils with those from many other Ar. ramidus individuals—both male and female—found near the Awash River in the Afar Rift region of Ethiopia.
Ar. ramidus, although likely millions of years more recent than the so-called missing link between chimpanzees and humans, represents "coming as close as we've ever come to that last common ancestor," Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, one of the studies' lead authors, said in a recorded interview for Science.
Ardi is, in fact, "so rife with anatomical surprises, that no one could have imagined it without direct fossil evidence," wrote C. Owen Lovejoy, a professor of anthropology at Kent State University in Ohio, and his colleagues in a summary of one of the papers.
Among the surprises: Ardi's jaw and limbs show she was a forest-dwelling omnivore, not a fruit-eater like today's chimps or an open savanna–dweller like other early hominids. Ardi had a brain about the size of a modern chimp's relative to body size (about a third the size of a modern human's). And Ar. ramidus's foot is strikingly unlike that of a modern chimpanzee, the authors of another paper (led by Lovejoy) explain.
For a primitive cousin who likely stood at only about 120 centimeters and weighed about 50 kilograms, Ardi is likely to make a big impact in the field of paleoanthropology. For instance, Ardi's physical form also has implications for many other ancient animals, including the controversial six-million- to seven-million-year-old Sahelanthropus tchadensis, discovered in Chad in 2001. The similarities in skull size and shape among these two species now has prompted the researchers of one of the new papers (led by Gen Suwa, a professor at the University of Tokyo) to conclude that S. tchadensis was, indeed, an early hominid, rather than a female ape as others have suggested.
Fragile fossils
First announced 15 years ago with only scant tooth and jaw fragments, Ar. ramidus had remained a relative paleoanthropological secret amidst growing literature on other early hominids, such as the well-known Lucy, a 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis.
For the new papers, an international team of researchers assembled and described the more than 110 pieces of Ardi's skeleton, including portions of the skull, hands, feet, arms, legs and pelvis, and those of other Ar. ramidus specimens and surrounding plants and animals.
"It's an amazing amount of material," says Carol Ward, an associate professor and integrative anatomy specialist at the University of Missouri–Columbia (M.U.). "That in itself is astonishing."
The recovery efforts themselves took some "heroic efforts," says Brian Richmond, of George Washington University's Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology (CASHP), in Washington, D.C. Poorly fossilized, many of the bones would crumble with a normal human touch, so they were carefully removed, cast and scanned.
See what we're tweeting about
133 Comments
Add CommentSo insecure these creationists. PUSH puts forward no discussion of this interesting find, just some defensive posturing to insure others are aware that this doesn't mean the Bible is largely based on myth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo insecure these creationists. PUSH puts forward no discussion of this interesting find, just some defensive posturing to insure others are aware that this doesn't mean the Bible is largely based on myth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI for one, really appreciate that these scientists are digging into our past and piecing together how, where, and why humans evolved into the weird creatures we are today.
Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther disposed of Copernicus by quoting scripture to the contrary. Biw PUSH disposes of Darwin the same way. Good luck.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFive hundred years ago, Martin Luther disposed of Copernicus by quoting scripture to the contrary. Now PUSH disposes of Darwin the same way. Good luck.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPUSH,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou appear to follow a hardliner Christian stance with zero tolerance for scientific discovery. Christian hardliners believe the earth to be around 6,000 years old, but yet you concede that the earth is at least 4 million years old. Well, either you accept the Bible in it's entirety or you do not. The fact that you believe the earth is much older than 6,000 years would tend to be the latter.
I think that humans evolved from humans and monkeys from monkeys. Whether God was involved or not who knows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure there are alot of similarities, but I feel that we are separate.
But anyway, how do they know she was covered in fur? Was it in the article or does it just go along with the evolution thing?
The fascinating thing about this article for me is that Sahelanthropus Tchadensis, at 6 to 7 million years old, is possibly the earliest homonid. Ardi, with her abundance of evidence, is a great tool to use for actually finding our earliest common ancestor with the apes. PUSH is such a great example of the mentality of his kind. Intelligence (spelling and grammar, not to mention science) is nowhere to be found, and not even desired.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would love to see two things in my lifetime. Our common ancestor determined...and an alien. The third is the end of all religions, but I don't think that one is possible.
Why do you commenters quote and cite one particular mythology and ignore so many others? Whatever "god" was why would "he" have the "likeness of man", a somewhat insignificant and parasitical Hominid that has existed for only a short time span & whose primitive ruminations were based solely on a limited imagination?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI often wonder why you read articles like this one that are entirely beyond your comprehension.
I'll ignore the ubiquitous religious debate that accompanies any article on SciAm that involves evolution. . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy favourite part of the article is this bit:
"This new evidence calls into question many assumptions that have been made about Homo sapiens's assumed privileged evolution. Indeed, if anything, Ardi reveals that chimpanzees, too, have been on quite an evolutionary odyssey in the past seven million to 10 million years."
It's a great reminder that all life on the planet has had just as much time to evolve as we, Homo sapiens, have. A nice bit of anti-anthropocentrism.
This might be an interesting point to open a thread on the evolution of religious thinking in primates. Clearly religiosity is highly conserved. It must be good for something. What though is it's survival value? Are there especially religious lineages? Are there "knockouts" that lack the religious gene? Could it be that religiosity is all about man the superorganism - an extended phenotype. Is it all about wild memes? Perhaps the extremely religious are analogous to the homozygous for sickle hemoglobin - that is diseased - whereas having a lesser dose of the sickle gene is mildly harmful but also antimalarial? Should man be regarded as "the religious ape" as opposed to the "tool using" or "linguistic" ape? Is it true that science is not amenable to religious study but religion is amenable to scientific study?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that God wanted man to evolve the way that he did over time. It is irrelevant that he came from a lower species only that he arrived in his present form and is self-aware.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI respect all religions. I love to study the different cultures. But as far as the limitation and rejection of science I cant understand how one can reject evidence, but so easily have faith in something that can not be proved. and for creationists, "God created man in his image", what image are we talking about. Lets asume that the bible is true for a minute. lets asume that god created existance. Science explains how things work. We arent saying there is a science god or anything. All things organic, non organic, are linked as one on the smallest scale of existance as wave lengths, depending on gravitational, electrical, nuclear force and how molecules are arranged life and objects take different forms, and react when when faced with environmental pressures.. Evolution, "addapting to an environment over a period of time", It doesnt say man came from ape. Creationists piss me off when they dont use the correct definition. Scientist didnt say man came from ape, we have a common link. Just like as in fish, Shark and fish have a common link, but a shark didnt come from a fish, if it did than fish wouldnt exist. I feel that religion is a primative political system, governed with fear in the place of modern day war threats from super powers. Religion is good for people who would stray far from living an unlawful life, but for the few who can act civilized and would like to understand the world and universe for how it works, and not buy a book that has been corrupted and printed by money hungry churches for years be my guest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHELLO people. is anyone out there reading the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy observation of the subject would indicate to me that Ar. ramidus is in the ancestral common line of apes and homonides, before the homonides moved permenantlly out of the forest and out onto the savanna. This thing has the feet and legs of a forest dwelling ape.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ardipithecine foot has a widely abducent hallux which suggest that its mode of bipedalism was similar to Oreopithecus. The more we learn about earlier hominins like Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus, the more oreopithecine-like they look.
Seems like they could be describing an ancestor of gibbons. I'm not saying Ardi is not a hominan ancestor, but how would you know the difference?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone else think these blogs could use a moderator? You know, to divide the discussion into the "illiterate thread", or the "relevant thread"? But seriously, I mean this: every interesting report connected to human evolution brings out the religious cranks. Sure, its easy to dismiss them, but they should NOT just be dismissed. They represent a majority of our species. They vote. They run whole countries, for example Iran. They are dangerous to intellectuals. Seriously. They should be studied, and studied carefully.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is no explanation about how the life came to earth except that God only Created us all...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishow the animals arrived to earth?? the plants , trees.. fruits , vegetables ... O2 , water ... which all are suitable for us to live !! is that all are coincidences??
I always find it interesting that the determination of skeletal structure, function, classification, etc. all use comparative anatomy based on modern structures. So apparently heel bones, pelvises opposable toes, etc. never actually change in any organism, they just wind up in different places and that's how we know the organism's evolutionary history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave we ever found a hominid fossil with half an opposable toe? What are the genetics of the opposable toe? Does one gene mutation get rid of it? If so, why haven't we seen hominids with everything else being ape-like, but with human-shaped feet?
There are a lot of questions evolutionary biologists don't ask.
Every time an article uses the word evolution the religious fanatics have to insert their beliefs. This is a science magazine. Why don't you create your own venue. You could call it "nonsense I believe without one shred of evidence to support it". You could talk about why the earth is the center of the universe, how much does our soul weigh, was Darwin the Devil? You are not interested in the findings of science and you ruin it for those who are. Go away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The hands of Ar. ramidus were indeed strong enough to hang from tree branches but don't show any indication of knuckle-walking." Exactly, Ardi 4.4 mya had the ability to walk upright, and was bipedal when she did. Bipedality goes back millions of years earlier than generally supposed. The split in evolution from the ape line that led eventually to Homo sapiens may have been much earlier than hypothesized -- some 10 million years ago, I believe. The common ancestor was indeed an ape. "Why did they never drop down on all fours when they came out of the trees?" It's not a question of natural selection analysis (which fails to provide a cogent explanation of how this came about), but a question of how the new species was set in its behavioral characteristics and instincts. Natural selection as a theory of origin of species remains unsubstantiated, and fails to provide any interesting explanation of these stunning new finds in Ethiopia. Way to go Ardi!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe really underestimate God and how can He work, what we all humans know about everything is so little, the multiverse is so vast, the Bible only tells us a way of life in order to achieve something else, is not a complete guide of how the planet nor the multiverse works. And to accept that we evolved from smaller creatures is to accept the truth and part of it is that God is way more complex and smart than ourselves, not only we come from a hominid but every part of life on earth comes from a single cell organism, divided and transformed almost infinite times. The story of Adam and Eve it can be well applied to the story of the first evolved humans, it was meant to give an Idea of how it was at the beginning of our recently developed specie, for our ability to believe how the world really worked was not yet formed, for the strongest still dominated the smartest, and when someone knew something different he was silenced. It is until now that we are starting to understand a little bit about the basics in the world, for the road of understanding has no end near.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVOICE OF REASON (you are, indeed). I see religion as a learned behavior. There has been an interesting discussion regarding music that I think has similarities. Some see the appreciation of music as an innate response to something genetic. I see it as a learned behavior. I think the "god gene" is a sarcastic term. Look at a wide variety of life here on earth and you can see how different species come together as a tribe. Flocks of starlings, for example. Schools of baitfish. Geese...ants...bees. The need to tribalize for safety and propagation abounds in the animal kingdom. Next you add our larger brains and the evolving need to explain our surroundings. Thus...superstition. Then we discovered that we could control others. It totally makes sense to me that religion developed as a learned behavior. The big mystery is that it continues to exist when ALL of our knowledge points to the opposite. Those of us who don't need it are possibly evolving towards individuality, which I think is a step forward in our evolutionary journey.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am very happy with the attention that Ardi has received in the media. Even my small town paper has her on the front page, and she is all over the TV news. Hominids have come a long way in the few millions of years that we have existed. A VERY long way since Neandertol and an exponentially long way since the bronze age of the ancient jews. Big brains are cool, and will serve us well in our evolutionary future. I must remind myself to be patient with those who are slow to evolve. We can't all go at the same speed.
There are times when I feel the religious nuts should be respected and at least treated seriously so that there can be some understanding between the two camps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen I read what they write and remember that there are no educated individuals among them who can appreciate that sort of gesture, much less reciprocate it.
Back to the topic, I have to say that this new release is very exciting. We may have just advanced our understanding of hominid evolution with a giant leap. I'm hoping to see more very soon.
The evolution of the Bible started around 3300 years ago according to popularly accepted tradition. It has been added to and altered, edited and interpreted during that time period. Even in the last decade, we have seen new interpretations of the ancient texts. I expect that our understanding of ancient human societies and their religious traditions will continue to change as we uncover more evidence in the archaeological record.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have seen how the world works. God is clearly a monkey, perhaps a baboon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI often wonder how many scientific beliefs that we have are based on preconceived notions. Why do we have no ancestry for chimpanzees? You would expect some fossil record for them as well. Were they far less numerous than the human ancestors and therefore more difficult to find? Did human ancestors preserve their dead in ways that chimp ancestors didn't? Why do specific species reappear frequently in the fossil record when evolution is often considered to be a slow continuous process? I would expect that when looking through millions of years of evolution that it would be rare to find the exact same species twice unless that organism were not evolving at a steady pace or it was a better candidate for fossil preservation than previously evolving species(which doesn't seem likely). Why do many scientists see evolution as primarily determined by the environment and by predation? Many organisms evolve to meet the needs of the social society more than to meet the needs of the environment. Dr. Lovejoy seems to recognize this when he points out that humans lost their canines as males adopted the role of provider.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you would like, read what Nat. Geo. said regarding this animal. They were not so optimistic. Wonder why? hmmm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is the link:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html
the blackman and women are the original people on earth you'r scientist found a 4.4million year old black person you'r scientist have Ben building a house of card on a foundation of lies you'r time is up!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell. I was going to drop a response to the first and second comments to this article but then I got to reading others and now my head is spinning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat to say, what to say...
I'll stick with the first comment.
Had God created man in his own image?
A sad state God must be in if this is his image, let me tell you; we squat when we shit, our disks slip in our backs for want of relief after standing erect for fifty years, and we pro create in the manner of dogs (he smiles on reflection). In fact every biological function that we perform is the exact same as any other higher mammal on the planet. Why should we look at ourselves as any different?
How anthropocentric of us, eh?
If the image that you see in the mirror is Gods own image, then what of H, erectus or heidelbergensis? Surely they might be thought of as God like, no? What about H habilis? A little less so perhaps?
What's more you have a clear transition from the most early of uprights to your six foot tall erectus, and lets not forget that there is greater genetic similarity between your reflection in that mirror and a chimpanzee than there is between a horse and a zebra.
You sight the Bible and speak of truth and then fritter away when others don't fail, as you do, to differentiate the difference between testimony and fact. The Bible as you say is truth, but I don't buy it. Give me something more please, and I'm not asking, I'm demanding! But I've been here before and have never been obliged, even by men of "the cloth".
We are apes in every respect. So the next time that you are sweating and grunting and excreting, remember why. And it's most likely not because you are made in Gods image.
The trouble with coming across chimpanzee fossils is that they're ancestors had exploited what resources were available within the receding forests. And as any modern forensic scientist will tell you, bodies don't stick around very long in the humid fertile soils of the tropics. Decomposition is rapid and final. These conditions are not conducive to fossilization and as such there have been fewer fossil remains available to study along the lineage of today's old world apes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's not forget that our ancestry is theirs. Strip your jewelry, clothing, and for that matter your dermis layer and then compare yourself to any chimpanzee in the same state, and you would be hard pressed to claim one any less ape like than the other.
A good rule of thumb to go by is when ever you think that you had thought of something that science hadn't thought of, pick up a book.
I've learned this the hard way.
Why do religious extremists respond by posting replies that are invariably full of typos and misspellings? Is it the written equivalent to speaking in tongues?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----Why do specific species reappear frequently in the fossil record when evolution is often considered to be a slow continuous process?------
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdrkyle, you must read a book. Are you going to tell me that evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics next?
God has no immage-it is probably more accurate to say man created God in his own immage because he did not know better!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, the token politicizing marginalist at 5:47pm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks to this article, once again the honest God hater, Sir Arthur Keith, verbalizes all that is still true no matter how many skeletons are discovered through the efforts of countless truth assassins: "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. Yet the alternative of spontaneous creation by a Creator is unacceptable."
And another thing or two:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI challenge any feisty God hater to take on John Gerstner in a debate concerning the truth of the Bible or the existence of God. If you value reason at all, that is.
Also, why not avoid hypocrisy and absurdity and no longer accuse a creationist of having no proof for believing in God and His Bible. This is true only for the lover of fantasy: the anti-creationist. Start with the essays and findings of Sir William Ramsay. Include the commentary of Colin Patterson, paleontologist with the British Museum of Natural History.
Finally, the concern, obviously to Darwin until he died and still today after 140 years of exploratory digging and searching: there are no transitional forms. As far back in time as you can guess in dating fossils the biological species appear in form as they do today with only adaptational evidences observable.
------"there are no transitional forms. As far back in time as you can guess in dating fossils the biological species appear in form as they do today with only adaptational evidences observable"-----------
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd assume that if you have had any doting care giver what so ever while you were growing up, you might be able to produce a succession of candid snap shots taken of the years between, say one and nineteen, is this safe?
And were you to spread these moments in time out on a table for all to see, there would be clear evidence of exact points in you life when you perhaps had taken your first step, or were blowing out five candles on an enormous birthday cake, and still others of you with a ridiculous grin on your face as you clumsily escorted your prom date to the door.
If what you say of the fossil record were a reasonable and acceptable argument, then how is anyone to believe that you had transformed from the age of one to five? How can I be sure that that pimply faced teenage boy wasn't miraculously created on the spot as seen in that photo, rather than morphing gradually between the ages five and seventeen?
Show me a snap shot of you at age ten and I'll just turn around and claim a lack of evidence that you were eight, and twelve! Alas, there are two more gaps to fill. Your hope of proving that you had aged have been dashed even further.
The difference is, between the time it took you to become an adult and the time it took eohippus to become a palomino for instance, is vast indeed.
And just as there are moments captured in time of you displaying half chewed cheese burger to the flash of a camera, there are moments in the history of the evolution of Mr. Ed that have been preserved under the very rare but right conditions needed to fossilize his ancestors.
Your mother could not sit and stare at you as you passed through infancy to puberty without turning to fold laundry while you rolled around on the floor or slapped the monkey with a do not disturb sign on you bedroom handle.
Don't pretend that a gap in the fossil record means anything other than a moment in time where no fossils could form. There's no reason to your point, it's just desperate.
chipsmydog: "Include the commentary of Colin Patterson, paleontologist with the British Museum of Natural History."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet more anti-evolution dishonesty. Anyone who wishes to check for themselves about the way in which Dr. Patterson laments the misuse and quote-mining of his statements by creationists can read this in detail at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
chipsmydog: "Also, why not avoid hypocrisy and absurdity and no longer accuse a creationist of having no proof for believing in God and His Bible."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen produce that proof. Right here. Right now.
I AM A HUMAN BEING AND CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. THE CREATOR GOD, CREATED HUMANS FIRST AND ANIMALS AFTER US AND TOLD US TO HAVE DOMINION OVER THEM. I AM SORRY FOR YOU, THAT YOU SHOULD BELIEVE THAT YOU CAME FROM AN APE. YOU SHOULD READ YOUR BIBLE AND START WITH THE BOOK OF GENESIS SO YOU CAN KNOW YOUR CREATOR GOD, OUR FATHER, THE CREATOR OF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH AND OUR SAVIOR. YOU SHOULD ALSO CHECK OUT: WWW.CREATIONMOMENTS.COM I PRAY FOR YOU THAT THE LORD OPENS YOUR MIND, YOUR EYES, EARS AND HEART TO KNOW THE TRUTH.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, Lillian7, go back and read Genesis. Gen 1:20-25 God created all the animals first. Gen 1:26,27 God created Man second.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLILLIAN7: "THE CREATOR GOD, CREATED HUMANS FIRST AND ANIMALS AFTER US.." etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I in my turn, LILLIAN7, will pray that you learn better internet manners and remove your finger from your caps lock key. You seem to be among those who mistakenly imagine that writing something in capital letters in some mysterious way makes what you say more true. It does not.
And as jh443 correctly points out, if even Genesis 1 and 2 can't get their stories straight, what does that say about the rest of the Bible? I suggest that you act upon jh443's suggestion and reread those first two chapters. You will indeed find that the orders of creation contradict each other. And don't say that they do not. I once argued this very point with a Christian fundamentalist on an internet forum over several successive days. Eventually, through gritted teeth, he conceded that I was correct. As is jh443.
Coolmoss,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a wonderful and reasoned reply. I have never read it put that way before. I wish I had written it.
Anybody who claims there are no transitional forms is simply "aping" (pun intended) Creationist fantasies.
I don't understand why so many creationists are posting on this website. Creationism is the antithesis of science and its sole effect (if not purpose) is to discredit the work of scientists by blindly valuing something their parents taught them as young children with no thought of their own. Why are you even bothering to read this website if you refuse to be open to the logic of science? Why are you even using a computer? That's a part of science, too, you know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving just taken the time to check out the creationmoments.com link which LILLIAN7 so rashly recommended, I can only say that if the puerile anti-science mumbo-jumbo paraded on that particular website meets the standards to which the creationist intellect apparently aspires, then it goes a considerable way towards explaining why their protests on this thread are so full of errors (yes, even about the Bible), typos, caps lock afflictions, and general lack of any ability to marshal even a halfway decent counter-argument (that is, other than barking out 'Goddidit!').
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLILIAN7 wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI AM A HUMAN BEING AND CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.
My reply:
Do you believe God has a belly button?
Actually, my question has two but purposes. If it elicits a smile, I am halfway there. If it elicits even a moment of thought, I can die happy.
Chipsmydog...WTF do you think Ardi is? Over 100 bones from a transitional species. Go back to church and leave us alone in our triumph. Let those of us with a brain in our head celebrate this fascinating find. You lose again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy lament all the creationists who keep visiting this blog? Instead, what we need is a new "Jane Goodall" to go live among the creationist, um tribes, troops, or whatever their collective noun is. There must be scads of Phd. theses to be had there. Remember, the instincts that drive their behavior, however bad it is, evolved, are widespread, and highly conserved. They are worthy of study. Besides it would be funny to get a government grant to study them - after all, they'd be helping to pay for it! You'll seldom find any other lab animal able to do that for you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt doesn't matter what the anti-evolutionists say anymore. Ari's place in our collective psyche is assured. She was immortalized just moments ago on SNL's Weekend Update.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGartal-The most esoteric question is this:what is the next dilemma in this field? Are we evolving from the simple theories to the more puzzling baffles? Are we tripped in the labyrinth of science? ...?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you are wrong in your judgment about PUSH. Perhaps he is not Christian, he is Muslim. Because Muslims believe that The Earth has been created long ago, no definitive timeframe, but Man was created at his entirety as we are now, no Evolution for us. God in not in contradiction with Science! Science is, God never keeps changing his mind like you scientist do every now and then like a five year old kid in a candy shop who is amazed by the different type of candy!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at the pictures, the bone fragments that was used to recreate the humanoid is incomplete. Many fragments are missing and crushed, so they have imagined the shape of the creature. It does not have to be the ancestor of modern day human. HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT Ardi IS THE ANCESTOR OF MODERN DAY HUMAN? WHAT PROOF DO YOU BASE YOU THEORY ON?
@ MSobhan: Right here on these SciAm threads I have come across both Muslim and even Buddhist creationists (no, I'm not kidding), as well as the more frequent Christian variety. They all trot out the same flawed arguments which they seem to have learned by rote on some creationist website. If you in your turn actually thought on your feet, opened your mind, and read the accompanying article through carefully, you would be capable of answering your own question instead of screaming it out in caps lock at others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to your 'God never keeps changing his mind like you scientist do..': the reason that science changes its mind is what gives it the flexibility to grow and expand to accommodate new knowledge gained. By your definition, religion just stays in the same old rut, flailing against anything that it perceives as giving it a healthy shove. Hence the protests of yourself and others of your ilk on this thread.
Dear Lord. Thou people art crackpots and loons to believe that something that has been written by man, translated by man, passed on by man is directly from you, and has not been twisted and altered by powerful men to stay in power. The word of the lord is in our heart and is our soul. The laws of science is in front of our eyes. It is wonderful to have faith in the lord, ala, budha, mohammed, and every other spiritual guide. Personally, I follow Jesus. He is by my side everyday, guiding my steps. I am not supposed to judge, but I've noticed that hard-core "Christians" spread hate and anger with self-rightousness and contempt for things that they blindly won't consider because of their "religious beliefs." Which, by the way, were handed down to the masses by powerful men, hiding behind God and fear to maintain their power. It's really sad that people will so blindly follow the wicked and corrupt, amidst the guise of faith and religion, condemning every other race, religion, and lifestyle because someone told them only white, christian, married, middle-upper class, professional, business, etc. go to heaven. It's funny, because a "true" Christian does not judge, and definately doesn't condemn. That's God's job. A true Christian gives up all there worldly possessions and lives in poverty. I don't see any Christian Riech people giving up their Bens' or houses in the Hamptons. A true Christian is humble and meek, and brings the word of the Lord to those that seek it. They don't cram it down everyone's throats. There is nothing Christian about the way any of you people are acting. Not now, and not for the last 2000 years. Before you start throwing stones, look at your own house. Before you come on here to protest what these BRILLIANT people have been doing for 15 years, think... how smart am I really? can my little bitty brain really fathom the awesomeness of the devine creator? can any mere mortal truly know which story is right? which religion had the true prophet? No. It can't. All it can do is believe what it learned from someone else. Now, ask yourself... Who did I learn it from? Where did I get this information? Then, ask... Who benefits? I am quite confident that it isn't a starving, lonely orphan or a diseased cripple. Having running water and a cell phone classifies you as the top 1% richest people in the world. Don't speak the word. Live the word. Go to Africa and help AIDS victims. S. Americans need houses built. Orphaned kids in your town need foster homes. Animals are sick and starving. Serve God. Don't be a minion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReplies like this and others are the best response to brainless creationism.
Dude - your grammar sucks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour content is a bit outdated, too.
Ardi is still in the news and there's nothing the creationists can do about it. Everyone still remembers Lucy, and Ardi is a much more informative find. I look forward to Ardi being in the spotlight for a long time after Angelina, Mylie and Britney have faded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's up to you to decide which system you belong.But I am from the line of Adam whom God created in his own image according to his holy word. If you want to be from a monkey, and not from the mighty hands of God,it's funny!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisxprmntl,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would HIGHLY suggest you study how the Bible came to be as much or more as you have studied how you came to be.
Name the myths with the corresponding myth busters and make sure that it has been proven.
Kasivaki wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I am from the line of Adam...
My reply:
So am I. Adam was a monkey's uncle.
mjknoxville (to xprmntl): "I would HIGHLY suggest you study how the Bible came to be as much or more as you have studied how you came to be."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking as someone who has done both, I realise that the Bible is a self-contradictory patchwork of writings by many different authors, most of them unknown, having been translated and retranslated from and into Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Greek, Aramaic, Coptic, Latin, and many contemporary languages, and sometimes more than once into the same language. Anyone reading this who speaks more than one language, and who has attempted even a modest amount of translation work (I include myself) will know that compromises and inflections of meaning, both small and radical, are inevitable. Add to this factor the editing which has gone on over time - what to leave in, what hits the cutting room floor and why - and not insignificantly, who made the decisions and for what reasons (protection of personal power bases were usually in there somewhere). Add to these the 'branded product' factor, because Christianity as we recognise it today is not as it originally was, but was consciously shaped according to their highly-colored personal opinions by the likes of Paul, Irenaeus, and notably Augustine, and at least the first and last of these named seem to have been tortured, or at the least deeply troubled, by a profound misogynism and guilt about sex (Augustine even considered that the male semen was corrupted with original sin). And let's not bother with the Council of Nicaea and Constantine's despotic influence upon the proceedings.
Oh, yes, mjknoxville, I for one have studied how the Bible came to be. That's why I'm sticking with fossil evidence. It's more reliable.
Anyone who believes this nonsense is living in a fantasy world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not science, it is mythology. There is not now, nor has there ever been a scientific concept, postulate, principle or axiom that even begins to suggest that transmutation is possible. It is just simply not true. Dr. Paul
drpwcollinscadre: "There is not now, nor has there ever been a scientific concept, postulate, principle or axiom that even begins to suggest that transmutation is possible. It is just simply not true."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm.. transmutation is the changing of one form or substance into another. As in: dust to human. Rod to serpent. Water to wine. You get my drift. So I guess according to you these things are 'just simply not true'.
I asked about the myths...? What do you do with the Dead Sea Scrolls??? Do you have any clue about manuscript authority? Try looking at the New Testement, Who comes in second place? How was the Old Testement brought to us over the years? Enough with your World Relgion textbooks, study the facts. Isn't that what you expect of Creationist? :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismjknoxville: "Try looking at the New Testement, Who comes in second place?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond place to what? Unless you define what the New Testament is relative to, your statement is meaningless. As to your term 'manuscript authority', it's another term which you need to relativise. What authority? Scriptural authority? That has its own biased axe to grind. Scholastic authority? Neutral academic authority? Would you accept the findings of such respectably qualified sources whether you were comfortable with their conclusions or not? Because that is what manuscript authority involves. What do I do (you also ask) with the Dead Sea Scrolls? I study their contents, which includes the original fragments of the Book of Enoch. Have you read it? You should. It contains some of the finest passages of visionary writing that I have come across anywhere. Ah, but wait; it's ex-canonical, now isn't it, so I guess that you wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole. How about the Nag Hammadi texts? Too Gnostic for your taste? I thought that you were concerned with 'manuscript authority'? Or perhaps it is rather more the case that you accept the authority which conforms the most to what you prefer to consider as your scriptural 'truth'.
"I have seen how the world works. God is clearly a monkey, perhaps a baboon."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love it! and it fits nicely . . after the "fall" we "fell" out of the trees and ventured forth from eden all the while loosing our hair . .
So the True GODLY ones are Chimps! (the other branch not posioned by that evil apple) and they are still in eden which we are now destroying . . .
oh man I could just go on but some wacko would make a new religion out of it or some ID'er would quote me. . regardless of my obvious LOLing over this.
As Shakespeare stated in "Hamlet"; "The devil himself can quote scripture to prove his point.:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations for your reasonable point of view.....We are definitely primitive in terms of how we see Gd as well as how we deal with scientific issues...In some heads it seems that one excludes another and it is not truth...God Himself, needed profound scientific knowledge to do what He just did...and, yet, we persist not undersanding the extent of "infinity" or "eternity" or "whole" and we want to limit, insert Gd, within the narrrow limits of our understandings...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen it is said we are made His image, why do we "limit it" within the short understandings of a "antropomorphic shape"...Why not to see ourselves as "spirit"...or "spiritual beings "..."energetic beings" (in fact I prefer bioenergetic beings, instead)...Bibles says "Gd is Spirit...we shall adore Him in spirit...and truth...Spirit is some sort of energy...pure
Regardless of what point you think you're making, when you string your words into babbling nonsense like that, the only thing anyone is convinced of is that you have no idea what you are talking about and are best left to sit in the corner while the adults are speaking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPUSH;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quote from the bible is wrong. It should read that "Man created God in his own Image". Because that is what turly happened.
How is it that today in the year 2009 after the common era, that there are still people who think that the Universe was created 6,000 years ago by a spirit like creature, who looks like the male of the species homosapien, in six days (on the seventh he needed a coffee break).
That theory was disporven a long time ago and is not founded in science fact.
Nik;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know if it is true for this particular case but generally speaking they find clues of hair around the find but then again it often is inferred. Perhaps in a 4.4 million year old find it may be difficult to find evidence of hair!! I am only 53 and I hardly have any left!!
voiceofreason;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could not agree with you more. People who are stuck on religion may still have some genes left over from our anscestors of about 10,000 years ago. These genes are responsible for supersticious beliefs and difficulties with abstract thought. It takes a long time for evolution to work you know. I am sure that Ardi was supersticious.
drkyle;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is an interesting point that you bring up that the foscils evidence a change that is not smooth. I understand that the earth's magnetic poles change and they think that this could 'roll the dice' of the genetic sequence. It is understandable that the organisms evolve to meet the need of the social society more then environment. This simply points out the fact that the more social you are, the more that you reproduce. It only makes sense.
I common misconception that people have is that humans are more evolved than other speicies. This simply is not true. All that exist today are evolved to the same degree. Evolutin does not have a plan for intelligent beings that are able to explore the Universe. We just are who we are because we were able to survive long enough to reproduce and those that reproduce the most are the ones who survive with their genes. There is no special genome or destiny.
In the words of an old pirate "I yam what I yam"
When I look at the picture of Ardi, I see GOD!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGord Davidson wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI yam what I yam.
My reply:
While it's absolutely correct to say that our evolutionary status is no more special than any other living being, at the same time it's a stretch to declare that my evolutionary status is the final arbiter of "what I yam". I am also what I choose to be.
jpill69;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I am also what I choose to be."
We only what we choose to be from a low level behavioural perspective. I cannot choose to have a trunk like an elephant or to have wings like bird and fly. I am stuck playing the cards that I have been dealt.
Gord Davison wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am stuck playing the cards that I have been dealt.
My reply:
Of course, but that is still the same for us all. To mix metaphors, are your cards half empty or half full? I can choose to do nothing because I can't have everything. Or I can choose to accept the challenge life offers, because any hand is better than no hand at all. To be, or not to be? All living things today are the descendants of those who answered affirmatively.
This is the philosophical heart of the anti-evolutionists' argument; that by removing humanity as God's special project, evolution destroys the reason for a purposeful life. I reject such thinking as deeply cynical. Effort and achievement are their own rewards, and I am inspired by those who strive to make tomorrow better than today.
PUSH;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope that English is not your first language.
I mean Jesus Christ.....
'their' is possesive,'there' is used with 'were'
alot has no 'e'
evolved has only one 'o'
thoughts doesn't have an 'a'
existence has no 'a'
nourishment has an 'o'
undug isn't even a word..
Do you believe in plural Gods? You add an (') after the s on Gods?? Are you monotheistic or polytheistic??
Maybe you are polytheistic.... After all, it does say "let US make man in OUR image" (Genesis 1:26). Apparently there was more than one God present at the time of creation....
Your ignorance amazes me. Seriously, you people pick and chose what you want to believe in and criticize others for doing the same thing. You guys are all so self-righteous and judgmental, and your arrogance is overwhelming.
Please, please, please, leave Science to us... you know, intellects that don't go around talking to imaginary people claiming to know the origin of mankind from a book full of contradictions. . Just stay at home and read your Bible. And please don't log onto sites that refer to Science in any way.
cards half empty or half full
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJPill69;
My cards are neither, empty or full, halfway or not. The cards that I was dealt determine the colour of my skin, the height that I will be (if properly nourished), my shoe size and a whole bunch of other things including my approximate intelligence.
In response to ..by removing humanity as God's special project, evolution destroys the reason for a purposeful life. I still feel that I have purpose. I dont wake up in the morning and say to myself Whats the point? I dont rob banks, rape people or even hog the road. As a matter of fact I am quite polite. I do this not because I am afraid of going to hell but because the basic behaviour of social interactions for our species has evolved to this point as it has for other species. It is in my genes to behave like this. As for the details of the behaviour well they were taught to me by my mother, father, minister, teachers and boy-scout leader. This is all part of evolution.
I say to you that if you are looking for God then you should use a microscope, perhaps an electron microscope.
stew6302;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat do you mean by "Genetic Modified Organisms is spontaneous and acceptable"
To Gord Davison,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think I understand you. When you write phrases like "I am stuck with" and "We are just", it seems to me you are saying that your material existence is all that defines you. Again, I agree it is a part, but I disagree it is all there is, or even the most important part. You can choose to let your skin color et al limit you, or you can choose to look beyond your physical existence. It offers you more opportunity that you imagine.
In reply to your strawman, I rephrase my original point: We are products of natural evolution. To declare that fact alone determines everything important about us is to prove creationists' greatest fears.
Jpill69;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what are creationists greatest fears? Are they afraid that there is no Father image watching over them? Are they afraid that perhaps this universe may end in coldness for infinity of time? Are they afraid that perhaps they are no more important to the earth than a fruit fly? What exactly is the problem?
Jpill69;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOz never did give nothin’ to the Tin man
That he didn’t already have
And cause never was the reason for the evening
Or the tropic of Sir Galahad
So please believe in me
From Strawman
Gord Davison wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat exactly is the problem?
My reply:
THE problem is exactly and only what you believe it to be. No more and no less. End of thread.
I suppose Itunes is an interesting topic for some people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello Gord...Your comments are interesting, but you have a few misconceptions that I would like to address. First of all it's "that he didn't, didn't already have" and "in the tropic of Sir Galahad", if I remember correctly. It seems that we are of the same generation. As for evolution, your minister can't teach you anything about it, and his teachings don't affect it. Evolution is not what you learn, it is what you have. Your learned behavior is the brainwashing that you received in childhood. Why else would you believe in ancient mythology? I appreciate your comments about your moral compass, and I agree with you. But the credit belongs in YOU, not some super being that the jews created thousands of years ago. YOU are the one who makes the right decisions. I also live by the rules...because it is the best way to get ahead in life and not screw things up. Simple logic. No sky pilot required here. Long live Ardi. May she maintain the spotlight for years to come and may she show us the way to our common ancestor with the apes!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotslic;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere did you get the idea that I believed in a sky pilot? I am not arguing in favour of the creationists or intelligent design. I only put the words from Tin Man in because jpill69 called me Strawman who is from the wizard of Oz. He was telling me that there is more than what we see. He is the creationists. I am into science. I have no notion of omnipotent spirit creatures who look like the male of the species homo sapiens.
I believe that man created god in his own image.
Read through the threads and you will see what I have to say.
Notslic;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the learned behaviour, if you read through the documents about behaviour you will find that most of it is in our genes. It is only the details that are brainwashed into us and it took me years to clear my brainwashing!! Most animals exhibit behaviour that goes much deeper than simply surviving and we are just beginning to understand it. The moral compass that we have is a product of evolution and most of it is inherited. When I find the links to the data I will post them. That is why I said If one is looking for god then they may need an electron microscope.
cool story bro
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCool story bro
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGord Davison wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI only put the words from Tin Man in because jpill69 called me Strawman who is from the wizard of Oz.
My reply:
And the theme song for you can be the one the scarecrow sings.
Gord Davison, your posts sound very much like that of ViewsofMars. Imagine that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotslic wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for evolution, your minister can't teach you anything about it...
My reply:
I agree with you that a minister's specialized knowledge provides no particular expertise regarding evolutionary theory. That's like asking a randomly chosen chiropractor about quantum mechanics. In principle, any expert's opinion outside their field of expertise is no better or worse than any other layman's opinion. Given this narrowly defined point, and in a similar way, I hope you and I can also agree that knowledge of evolutionary theory provides no particular expertise regarding human potential, of what motivates and inspires people to enjoy life's rewards, endure its trials, and invest in its future.
If you choose to reply, please do not give in to another's false assumption that the above says anything at all about creationism or the ability of science to inspire. Thank you in advance.
I disagree...Evolution is what defines human potential. I am inspired by the fact that I can enhance my life by living it to the fullest. I bet that I have more fun than you do. As I am right now! NOI. Cheers! (My daughter gave me that one...No Offense Intended)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo offense taken. You may be right. But you can't be sure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just noticed you answered a different question. Darn. I must have been distracted by all that fun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotslic wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am inspired by the fact that I can enhance my life by living it to the fullest.
My reply:
JOOC, how does evolution define what it takes for you to live your life to the fullest?
Notslic, excuse my multiple posts, but I have a related question I hope you will consider as well: how does evolution define the potential of a individual born in in the U.S. 1961, of parents of mixed race and nationality, and raised by his grandparents for much of his childhood? In other words, what evolutionary basis is there that defines that person's success or failure?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me follow the logic here, apes and humans both exist in modern times. Apes and humans have similar abilities. Lets compare. Apes can climb trees, eat bananas, and fling dung at one another. Humans can speak in numerous languages, write literature, create art, cook, cure diseases, build skyscrapers, design cars, ships, computers, and aircraft, and philosophize. An ancient ape skeleton was found that resembled that of a human, only different. Therefore, it must be the ancestor of humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, following that logic, cats and dogs both exist in modern times. Cats and dogs have similar abilities. Lets compare. Cats can climb trees, purr, eat out of a bowl, and run around outdoors. Dogs can bark, eat out of a bowl, and run around outdoors. I see that a cats skeleton resembles that of a dog, only slightly different. Therefore, a dog must have evolved from a cat. Paleontologists should search for the ancient cat skeleton from which all dogs evolved.
Let me follow the logic here, apes and humans both exist in modern times. Apes and humans have similar abilities. Let’s compare. Apes can climb trees, eat bananas, and fling dung at one another. Humans can speak in numerous languages, write literature, create art, cook, cure diseases, build skyscrapers, design cars, ships, computers, and aircraft, and philosophize. An ancient ape skeleton was found which resembled that of a human, only different. Therefore, it must be the ancestor of humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, following that logic, cat’s and dogs both exist in modern times. Cats and dogs have similar abilities. Let’s compare. Cats can climb trees, purr, eat out of a bowl, and run around outdoors. Dogs can bark, eat out of a bowl, and run around outdoors. I see that a cat’s skeleton resembles that of a dog, only slightly different. Therefore, a dog must have evolved from a cat. Paleontologists should search for the ancient cat skeleton from which all dogs evolved.
"Paleontologists should search for the ancient cat skeleton from which all dogs evolved."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you take the dog out for a walk, be sure to take your mind along. It needs the exercise.
"When you take the dog out for a walk, be sure to take your mind along. It needs the exercise."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the sound advice. You should do the same, when you take your cousin, the cat for a walk!
"When you take the dog out for a walk, be sure to take your mind along. It needs the exercise."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the sound advice. Be sure to do the same, when you take your cousin, the cat for a walk!
Meow :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Thank you for the sound advice."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust in case I missed your point, it seems to me your advice is as sound as mine.
It seems that Ardi's four hands are well-suited for zero gravity in a space ship. Perhaps we have the bones of a space traveler.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the exterior flesh and hair in the final picture are speculative -- a smooth hairless skin is just as likely.
For those creationists posting here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the beliefs you assert are the result of childhood indoctrination, and, as far as I can tell, are identical to superstition by every practical measure. If you were born to Hindi parents in India, Animist parents in Nigeria, or atheist parents anywhere, would you now be writing the same comments? Certainly not.
Your beliefs are thus a random accident of where you were born, and which religious group indoctrinated you as a child, not any objective reality.
Re ardi: Looking at the marvelous anatomical drawings, it's interesting to note how much the arms and legs of ardi resemble those of the orangutan, though the jaw and dentation differ. These creatures seem to have led a similar arboreal life-style, but had no need for the powerful mandible or big display canines. It's unlikely to be an orangutan ancestor, because once archaic features disappear, such as the robust mandible and fangs, I haven't read of any such features re-developing again full-blown. The skull resembles a juvenile orangutan, though the teeth indicate maturity. So neoteny may have been a successful adaptation in ardi's case. Exploiting a new ground-based food source, and divergent mating practices seem to have driven it's divergence from other apes 4.4 million years ago. So the interesting question is: human ancestor, or yet another evolutionary dead-end?
Poppycock! Such a big fuss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to see a Paleoartist (as they are now called) see if they can pass an intellectually honest test.
Get a complete contemporary human skull (not just fragments) for a Paleoartist to reconstruct by a drawing or sculpture the fleshed-out head and see how inaccurate it will be. Compare it to the photograph of the person whose skull they reconstructed. Not to mention the color and texture of the non-existent skin and hair
As one who who has studied art (The Art Student's League), I can guarantee the results will be laughable.
For enlightenment as to the intellectual honesty in the sciences read pro-evolution Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything." almost every other page exposes the chicanery in archaeology, paleontology, biology, sciencefin etc.
The ultimate chutzpah is the current full-scale homonid African diorama at The Museum of Natural History based on a set of footprints!
Michael Antebi
Brooklyn NY 11223
917-375-2781
mike10001613@yahoo.com
Poppycock! Such a big fuss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to see a Paleoartist (as they are now called) see if they can pass an intellectually honest test.
Get a complete contemporary human skull (not just fragments) for a Paleoartist to reconstruct by a drawing or sculpture the fleshed-out head and see how inaccurate it will be. Compare it to the photograph of the person whose skull they reconstructed. Not to mention the color and texture of the non-existent skin and hair
As one who who has studied art (The Art Student's League), I can guarantee the results will be laughable.
For enlightenment as to the intellectual honesty in the sciences read pro-evolution Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything." almost every other page exposes the chicanery in archaeology, paleontology, biology, sciencefin etc.
The ultimate chutzpah is the current full-scale homonid African diorama at The Museum of Natural History based on a set of footprints!
gnagy wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs one who who has studied art (The Art Student's League), I can guarantee the results will be laughable.
My reply:
I admire your intellectual honesty in admitting that, despite your art studies, your results remain laughable. Regarding the actual topic at hand, as one who challenges other people's intellectual honesty, you might want to reconsider your conflation of precise renditions of specific individuals and approximate llustrations of a representative type.
Just a thought.
As a Christian and a University science student, I find the article and the comments that have followed quite interesting. It is my belief that God created all things in the beginning, how I am not entirely sure, I am not God. So in my efforts to understand how all things were created I believe it necessary seek out all information available, whether that be articles on new discoveries or descriptions provided in the Bible
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo my understanding the Bible is considered to be the most accurate ancient text; having been proven time and again to be historically accurate. And even though it has been translated numerous times there are a vast number of copies (not necessarily full texts, but in many cases portions of books or chapters) which when compiled and compared result in an extremely high accuracy for the current translations. Whether you believe in what the Bible (The Old and New Testament) says about God or not, that is your choice, but the text itself, at least as far as historical accuracy and translation quality, is reliable.
In regards to the new discoveries paleontology and biology are not my areas of study. I am a physics major and so have had limited study in those fields. Since many of you happen to have backgrounds in these fields if you could guide me to some quality resources I would be very appreciative.
Finally my challenge to all who have posted and any who may read these comments is this: Always keep seeking the truth. You may have been raised in a religious family and have adopted that religion or maybe you were raised up to believe evolution, but sometimes you may need to set aside your preconceptions and start looking at opposing ideas in order to really learn what is true. Challenge what you have been raised to believe whether it is a religious belief or a scientific. That doesn't mean completely give up on what you believe but ask questions and be open to answers you might not have expected. Both sides, religious or scientific, take faith to continue in believing them; religions faith in God and scientists faith in the assumptions, theories, and processes developed by other men.
I believe in God and I believe that what He has created is wonderful and more complicated than I could possibly understand. But it is still awesome to try and learn about it. So if any of you care to help me learn, or share your understanding, reply to this post.
To Nik
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt happens every day. Humans are born to humans. That is not evolution. Evolution occurs when a species changes as
described by Darwin and others. Read about it. You are confused.
Wil
To Rufio7
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead Wikipedia article on The Historical Jesus. It shows the folly of trying to use the Bible as a historical document. Read John Dominicv Crossin a resigned ( not dismissed) RC priest
who attemts to put together the history of Jesus fron Canon and non Canonical scripture and what is known about the period from other sources. A noble effort but.....!
Wil
I will give those sources a look. May I recommend for you "A Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel, previously an investigative journalist who sought out to disprove the claims of Jesus and authenticity of the Bible, as well as "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell, who's book came out of the same intent as that of Strobel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you. I'll look up these authors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWil
God's word has reported in the Bible is a myth. It is in the same domain has all other religous writings and not of valid scientific debate. The Bible is part of our rich mythological/religous heritage which while valid in some terms for truth is certainly unworthy of revealing facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVelly interesting: Could this be the elusive Sasquasch / Big Foot of the North West quadrant of the US? As much as a scientist wants to reach a conclusion he has found "the missing link" the holy grail of evolution, I think he / she is taking a leap of (faith) to say it is for a fact human. Early version or not. Scientist have proven we humans were not and could not have been procreated from monkeys. Just because we might act or look similar, no scientist has proven we ever were cut from the same mold. Those that take a swiped at creationist are themselves practicing a religion. They only have faith that their conclusions are right. They can't prove it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Big Foot" is supposed to be a very large creature. Ardi was diminutive even by comparison to us. There is no evidence that Big Foot is real. Not even one single hair (which would survive scavenging). There is much evidence that the "footprints" are faked (they don't even look convincing). Fakery-for-fun-and-profit is all that you can conclusively prove--so far. As far as I can tell: probability of Big Foot: 1%; probability of people who love Big Foot stories: 99%. Pretty much the same as ghosts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously, you did not read the article, or more detailed articles on this discovery. Why comment on an articles you did not read? The whole point is that the authors CAN prove it, from exhaustive, detailed analysis of the fossils. There is no "leap of faith" what-so-ever. Once again, that's the whole point. Ardi may be a evolutionary dead-end, but it has very early hominin traits, unlike monkeys, and like us. Have a little courage and face it.
Archaeologists are not involved in their field to flatter the vanity of your preacher. "Scientists have proven...could not be procreated...from monkeys"? What "scientists" are you referring to? Where is their exhaustive, detailed evidence? (Apparently they keep it safely hidden away in a place called "absent".) The point is that this is NOT a monkey.
What you are saying is that you will not look at the evidence, but instead are only interested in making declarations of the superstitions indoctrinated in you as a child: "aping" your preacher, ironically. If you want to stick your head in the sand, fine. But don't think it isn't obvious to others that's what your doing.
the end of all religions? that's a bit drastic. religion often strengthens spirituality in individuals. where i agree with you that religion can lead to horrible prejudice, i disagree that all religion should be abolished. a few judging people should not mean the doubts of all humankind of religion to have any value.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit's my personal opinion that there is some form of creator. the extent and intricacy of the design around us indicates to me that an intelligence must have been behind it. something had to have dictated the fabric of the genetics and biology of earth.
though i am open to any science that may prove me wrong, i also believe that slight innerfamily adaptations, not evolution, is the most likely explanation of today's wide variety of species. i can't help but overlooks some of the flaws in the theory of natural selection.
Push should be reported for abuse. A better listing would just be spam I suppose. What is he even doing here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne stupid freak looking straight at the mirror " my god you really are handsome. you are the truth and my image" That is his faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is amazing that people still believe in fairy tales like creationism. Everyone knows in the beginning there were hot lumps that came together to form the first union our sun, the heating system! Crops then sprang up in rows; animals without backbones stood up and then fell over. Trilobites, chiggerbites a musqeedos collided aimlessly in the dense gas called an atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thischristianity teaches many virtues which humans should try to follow in their daily behavior; by doing so they can reach the end of mortal life knowing they have harmed fewer fellow humans; the new testament letters of paul contain many of these virtues. paul's letters in the king james bible used to condemn homosexuality as a sin. The bible used by progressive christians omits these condemnations, as social values have evolved. Most of the old testament is a record of jewish religious traditions; a few of the psalms contain good moral advice, but genesis can only be taken as an anthology of creation. Of course evolution occurred between a hominid somewhat like Ardipithecus and Homo sapiens. Jesus of Nazareth had a Y chromosome. Progressive Christianity and Science don't need to be mutually exclusive; progressive christianity evolves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne day... You and I will die... Darwin won't be quoted...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne day... You and I will die... Darwin won't be quoted...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight? Professor? Your credentials? An obvious analysis of what was taking place when this world formed. You're so arrogant. How old are you? What do you KNOW? "Only a fool says in his heart 'there is no God' ".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure this find is interesting. I wonder who made it? Not the find, I mean, who arranged these fossils? Lucy is a chimp. cats don't become dogs dude... Bats don't become gerbils. It hasn't been observed..........................................
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is such a nice drawing..........:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Perhaps such and such" is not science.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI apologize for being so forward. But come on... Get real... When has anyone observed anything resembling a transformation, a metamorphosis from one specific species to another? I want a picture, not drawn, without the mad abstract postulations. Just show me the proof please. It isn't their. It is all fabricated BS. If not, PROVE IT.... Until now, no solid, court viable evidence has been produced. No missing link has been found... Most of the crap produced has been proven to be false. The rest is speculative. What about all the other hundreds of thousands of creatures that supposedly evolved. Where are their Cross Species fossils? Really?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlbert Einstein (1879-1955) proposed God that created the universe which is physical laws. God created the evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlbert Einstein (1879-1955) proposed God that created the universe which is physical laws. God created the evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlbert Einstein (1879-1955) proposed God that created the universe which is physical laws. God created the evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlbert Einstein (1879-1955) proposed God that created the universe which is physical laws. God created the evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this