It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Skull of 'Missing Link' Human Ancestor Found In Ethiopia

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   


ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (AP) -- Scientists in northeastern Ethiopia said Saturday that they have discovered the skull of a small human ancestor that could be a missing link between the extinct Homo erectus and modern man.



The hominid cranium -- found in two pieces and believed to be between 500,000 and 250,000 years old -- “comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human,'' said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia.



Archaeologists found the early human cranium five weeks ago at Gawis in Ethiopia's northeastern Afar region, Sileshi said.


LiveScience.com


This is a very cool and interesting discovery.

I hope that I get to see the day that the human evolutionary tree is complete.


Comments, Opinions?




posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Very interesting news indeed. I hope it really is a missing link.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei


I hope that I get to see the day that the human evolutionary tree is complete.


Comments, Opinions?


thanks for the .s up

i heard a news blurb on the TV news around 9AM this sunday, and didn't
really have time to go to 'LiveScience.com'...your link was very convienient!

as far as a "complete evolutionary tree"
my thinking is that you'll be a couple of hundred years old to witness that.
because, the way i see it, every present gap has a possibility that a dozen or more intermediate transitions, or adaptions, or niches
remain to be discovered.

interesting stuff

EDIT: oops, forgot a where it was needed

[edit on 26-3-2006 by St Udio]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
In order for man's evolutionary tree to be complete we would need the skulls of every geenreration of human for 10 million years. I foresee IDers complaining about not having the "missing link" between modern man and this particular skull.

Very interesting find and just more evidence for evol.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Agreed with St..udio, they always seem to proclaim this every 5 years, only to be later trumped by yet another intermediate. Our genealogical history is a bit more complex than just a simple 'missing step'.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Now can you imagine if Christians claimed, "Creation proof found", based on a couple of fragments of skull they had for 5 weeks?

The world would jump on them for irresponsable reporting of bad science.

No, above and beyond all else, the world must be constantly reminded that, any moment now, any second, man will prove, God doesn't exist. "Damn, folk are becoming believers in God again. What will we do?" "Throw another 'Mars' rock or more 'bone fragments' at them. Tell them it 'may' prove something 'one day'. They'll be too scared to sound stupid to, 'share' their 'crazy' ideas again."

I have to wonder about the mind'set' of many posters, in the way they jump to support anything that seems to give weight to a Godless view of life and yet use belittleing, insulting language to answer those of an opposing view.

Why is it more 'inellectual' to 'faithfully' wait forever, to 'dis-prove' something that's been 'proven' forever? That's what the, "Just you wait, we'll prove you're wrong!" Pro-Evolutionist/Anti-Christians seem to have convinced the world, and the world seems to have accepted this silliness in an effort to not look 'stupid'.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Whether or not gods exist man keeps finding proof of earlier existance. And I think the fact that no man has found any proof of God makes those who see nothing other than God seem silly.

I think this was a good find. When Man can find proof of a higher power, I am sure it will be praised just as much as an old piece of bone fragment



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420I foresee IDers complaining about not having the "missing link" between modern man and this particular skull.


My understanding of ID is that they do not deny evolution, but rather they believe that evolution is a directional process. As well, you can expect that evolutionists may ask for the same thing as what you are assuming IDists will. Personally, I'd be very wary of an evolutionary tree that depended on one skull for its validity.

But, it's good to see that science is progressing (which should not be confused with faith in God declining, they can very easily be complementary).

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Rasobasi420
I foresee IDers complaining about not having the "missing link" between modern man and this particular skull.


As Jamuhn pointed out common ancestory isn't ruled out by ID nor do all ID theorists have issue with it... eg, Mike Behe believes man and ape share a common ancestry. FWIW to quote ID theorist Stephen Meyer:


Source
In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are telltale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.


Back on topic:




Source

Delson said the fossil found in Ethiopia "might represent a population broadly ancestral to modern humans or it might prove to be one of several side branches which died out without living descendants."


Bit early to be calling this a "missing link" but interesting none-the-less... nice find


(edit) - re: Meyer quote. Sorry guys didn't realize you had to register to see the quote. Found another source here


Intelligent Design is not Creationism by: S. Meyer

By contrast, ID holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.






[edit on 26-3-2006 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Ahah, earlier this morning I found the article on Pravda. Guess someone beat me to posting the article. Ah well.

Its a very interesting find. We're getting closer to finding the truth. But I woulden't be surprised if this thread turns into another creationism vs. evolution thread...

*looks up* Seems it already has.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Now can you imagine if Christians claimed, "Creation proof found", based on a couple of fragments of skull they had for 5 weeks?

If they had thousands of other fossils that were consistent with a valid scientific theory they might be taken more seriously.

I have to wonder about the mind'set' of many posters, in the way they jump to support anything that seems to give weight to a Godless view of life and yet use belittleing, insulting language to answer those of an opposing view.

Perhaps some people just like science.. you are branding us anti your god and whatever else, insulting us yet say we are abusive? This is about a scientific discovery. I doubt it was posted to attack you personally or your religion. Believing in evolution does not make us 'anti-christian'.. just like some christians may not like being told they're godless for believing in ToE.

iori_komei,
Great find!



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

posted by Jamuhn: “

Rasobasi420 ID’ers complaining about not having the "missing link" between modern man and this particular skull.
My understanding of ID is that they do not deny evolution, but rather they believe that evolution is a directional process. But, it's good to see that science is progressing (which should not be confused with faith in God declining, they can very easily be complementary). Jamuhn]


I am satisfied the newest incarnation of anti-intellectualism, the successor to the failed “Scientific Creation” frauds, just can’t wait to get their hands on public school science textbooks. Here’s my definition;

"IF you cannot convince me, then it MUST be intelligent design."



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Back on topic...

Penace for my participation in the off topic shenanigans...

The only pic of the skull i can find so far is this from here

(AP)

Only had it for about five weeks or so and i'm sure they've better things to do then post pics on the web, but hopefully they'll have more soon.

*Tried a few searches and only can find this pic, maybe somebody else will have more luck.*



[edit on 26-3-2006 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Bit early to be calling this a "missing link" but interesting none-the-less... nice find


[edit on 26-3-2006 by Rren]


Yes, quite a bit early, but that has never stopped the "God is dead, crowd" from getting their 'updates' '.lining' around the world.

This has the effect of constantly reinforcing their 'belief' as 'likely' and so acceptable because the, "Sorry, we were off the mark." stories never get the same, general public grabbing, .lines.

It's just a classic example of the simple social manipulation tactic, 'Repeat untill believed.', with the default meaning of, "Kook", attached to 'dissenter'.

I have an encyclopedia, printed in the 90's, that still has that, non-sence example, of the 'evolution' of the horse, in glorious, detailed colour. This is just one of the countless examples of disproven, 'off the mark', yet to find supporting evidence, yet to explain annomolies, yet to prove, 'discoveries' of 'evidence' in support of the 'theory' of evolution, still touted by those who hold it dear in their hearts and minds.

Just asking that folk concider this aspect of the debate, when 'news' of this sort is trumpeted out.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
*Sighs* I'm thinking Kacen is right in saying that this thread will become a evolution V. Creation brawl.

I'd just like to ask that people not trun it into that.

This thread is about a scientific discovery of a fossil that fills one of the gaps in our evolutionary history, it is not a place for people to argue whether evolution is true or not.


Thank you.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

This thread is about a scientific discovery of a fossil that fills one of the gaps in our evolutionary history, it is not a place for people to argue whether evolution is true or not.

Thank you.


Well if you don't want arguments about evolution being true or not, then maybe you shouldn't all but declare it as fact, in the way you structure your sentences.

Asking people of faith to withhold their views, is the same 'crime' 'science' (falsly) accusses Bible believers of. Isn't science about 'testing'? Can't you test your ideas against those of Bible believers.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
From the link above:

""The hominid cranium -- found in two pieces and believed to be between 500,000 and 250,000 years old -- “comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human,'' said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia.""

hmm this is hardly a lot of evidence is it? They will need to find a lot more than this.

Besides evolution has not yet fully explained the jumps in development. One would expect a very smooth transition with evolutionary developments and we haven't been seeing that at all.

Those that support evolution as a viable explanation of the development of Mankind are grasping at straws.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Well if you don't want arguments about evolution being true or not, then maybe you shouldn't all but declare it as fact, in the way you structure your sentences.

Asking people of faith to withhold their views, is the same 'crime' 'science' (falsly) accusses Bible believers of. Isn't science about 'testing'? Can't you test your ideas against those of Bible believers.


This is a science forum, most scientists except evolution as fact.

I would'nt make a post arguing evolution to be true in a thread about a creation topic, unless the thread was for that argument.

This thread is for those of us that except evolution to be fact.


If this thread does end up being an evolution V. Creation thread, than I will ask to have it closed.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   
AHA!!!! take that you sons of creationiches!
It wont be long you know before we have a fully complete chain of ancestors perhaps each one 20,000 years apart. Then how can the god fearing creationsist dispute that? Could we finnnnnalllllly put the whole bible thing to rest now?

[edit on 29-3-2006 by Shadow88]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
There is another thread about this, however, it was a duplicate. I just want to present it so that people can check it out if they are interested.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join