Skull discovery sheds light on human species

reply to post by ZakOlongapo


Yes... And then you stopped reading. If you keep reading they are found in all other organisms, with 113 only found in vertebrates. They also explain how the 113 could be found in vertebrates, but not in vertebrates.

But, they're the dummies?

Plugin

solomons path

ZakOlongapo
reply to post by solomons path

 

just for the sake of interest.... Zecharia Sitchin made sense for me

i can deal with it.

So then, your whole argument rests on a fictitious tale and made up facts about genetics . . . yet, paleontologists and anthropologists are wrong because it goes against a work of pure fiction?

Hey, at least you can admit to living in a word based on lies and devoid of reality. As long as it makes sense, right?

And I'm assuming by your response, despite your presenting lies as fact and a defiant claim to "Google it", you cannot back up said claim on the human genome?

Why is it that those (and not just you, but all) that cannot deal with the fact of evolution and the evidence to back it have to resort to made up versions of reality to promote their "designer"? If design was correct, shouldn't there be evidence that is based in fact to back it?

Proving anything is really really really hard, let alone finding some almost 2 millions years old bones and make conclusions and present it as fact, they had anything to do with modern humans.
It's for the most part guesswork.

All I know we have had Dino's living on this planet for 180 million years!!! (or at least according our dating ''science''), what an evolution we saw during those 180 million years! they almost went human, with their science and great achievements.

All I know something happens, then it's gone, then something new comes. Not really something new.
Those dino's where a prime test for muscles and bones (my belief). All those testings are stored even in our muscles and bones today and all other species living in present day.

Why or how, nobody knows. If you are dead, what do you know, nothing, you are even forgotten but everything (or at least it seems) is memory, based on an older experience but you need something new, really new, not a copy from a copy from a copy (and so on). Like a computer program, when you keep on making a copy, it's gets worse and weaker.

But then, voila a new specie, not really new (based on older memory) but all fresh, all new coded but how or when, basicly nobody knows, but it's there until the time is there for something new. Nobody seen it happening or know or when though.

So when something big happens in the future and we are all gone, will we be starting as some fish crawling on land and evolve (again?) or will we see new species based on olders ones, a bit the same (from past memory) but just better/improved (but again all new coded).
Things really start over again for nothing???

There must be a big erase button but with an old backup program (so you don't have to start from scratch) running there somewhere when making something new (but not all is new, based on old memory but new code nevertheless).

edit on 18-10-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

OK, this is going to come down to an individual and their own internal feelings. It is a matter of faith or lack there of. Why, well despite wanting genetics to prove evolution it does not. Unless you want it to and you read into it what you want to see.

In reality it does the opposite, it proves we did not come from an ape. You will find scientists on both sides.

I found this guy interesting in that he is and a genetics professor. Interesting if nothing else, some of his thoughts here

www.answersingenesis.org...

It is just a short page with his argument but it is compelling.

The Bot

reply to post by solomons path


you do not understand english? you are a bit out of concept there, no problem....

those 113 are those with significant similarity to the proteins of some bacteria, but they are not them!.
the rest of 110 they did not find at all!

may be you can help them

Krazysh0t

"But we simply say … we don't have sufficient fossil evidence."

Oh boy... Incoming God brigade to tell us that this doesn't prove evolution in 3... 2... 1...

What, we don't get the same consideration as the satan brigade telling us it does prove evolution??

SuperFrog
Fascinating discovery of 1.8 million year old skull that as suspected shows evolution of our species...




What is great about this discovery is that it is skull of mature adult, as most of earlier discoveries are either of too young or too old to be very useful representatives of their species.

Wonder how people who believe in creationism see this find.

A mature adult monkey! None of the description leads me to believe it was human. It is cool to find fossilized bones regardless of what people believe they belong to...

ZakOlongapo
reply to post by solomons path

 

you do not understand english? you are a bit out of concept there, no problem....

those 113 are those with significant similarity to the proteins of some bacteria, but they are not them!.
the rest of 110 they did not find at all!

In this context significant means that they likely are them.

I think I have scientifically determined a descendant:

gort51
Why is it, every old skull found in Africa, HAS to be some old human relative in their opinion.

More than likely, it is an Ape, that evolved into an ape, that may or may not, still have relatives now.

wtf were you huffing before attending elementary science class?

You don't even need this prehistoric ape to find a homo sapien relative.

Chimpanzees & humans share 98.8% of their dna.

Even among human siblings, they only share half their dna.

I got news for you: You're an ape

reply to post by Kaboose

How do they know it is that old exactly... Assumption...

Your ignorance of scientific methods does not support your strawman.
The scientific model surrounding radiocarbon dating is the standard, the norm, the approach accepted worldwide for over 50 years and the scientific community is in agreement on its methods, uses, and accuracy.
If you disagrees with scientific dating methods, here is your chance to present evidence showing how and where it is wrong.

Why are they saying it is human when it is just another ape or Chimpanzee.... Like Lucy was, and countless other frauds putting apes bones and human bones together.

Humans are primates.
The argument over this find is it's taxonomy, how does it fit in the hierarchical biological classification.
Please cite your sources suggesting that the researchers at the Anthropological Institute and Museum in Switzerland have perpetrated a fraud regarding this discovery.

I mean please, the evolutionist are just pathetic in their attempts over and over again to justify a bankrupt 100+ year old fairy tale dreamed up by Darwin and/or his daddy.

You are the one espousing fringe conspiracy ideas. Don't you think it would be best if you showed where the scientific community is wrong, instead of creating massive strawmen?

You have zero credibility without backing up your pathetic nonsense with evidence. And no!... a shinny turd or your religious beliefs are not evidence.

Blue Shift
I think I have scientifically determined a descendant:

Cavemen can talk!!

Ron Perlman, if you read ats... Don't get mad at blue shift...

Kaboose
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

How do they know it is that old exactly... Assumption...
Why are they saying it is human when it is just another ape or Chimpanzee.... Like Lucy was, and countless other frauds putting apes bones and human bones together.

I mean please, the evolutionist are just pathetic in their attempts over and over again to justify a bankrupt 100+ year old fairy tale dreamed up by Darwin and/or his daddy.

They study fossils and skeletons and based on findings they classify them into group. Our group is sub-group of similar species, as you mentioned... all humanoid apes.

Your above denial is similar like going to orchard and ask farmer how does he know witch is honeycrisp apples - actually you are more like customer who knows and can tell difference, but is trying to pay cheap for honeycrisp claiming that farmer has no idea about apples and that they are all look alike, like any other 'pear'.

In simple words - they study remains and they CAN tell difference.

As for how old, there are scientific methods, from carbon dating to depth calculations... but you already know all of that, don't you?

Plugin

Who is 'our'? It's you and?

Of course I know it's stone, but hey they know how old stone is? you know they can't really date stone?
Nobody really exactly knows how memory works.
Even your skin got memory, with a wound it gets thicker and you always see it there you had this wound a long time ago. Or like when you work out allot your skin on your hand gets thicker and more tougher, so it can deal with the punishment the next time better, must have some kind of memory?
But wait that can't be, memory only exist in your brain, right?

Sure we can date stones. Minerals in volcanic and igneous rock formations can be dated. Metamorphic rocks can be dated back to the orogeny that provided the pressure and heat to metamorphose the igneous and volcanic rock. Its call radiometric dating, primarily K/Ar dating. We know that if a sill or dike moves into a rock layer, it is newer than the rock layer it crosses. We can date that rock (usually K-spar minerals in granite) making any fossils in the rock layer the dike passes through is obviously older than the minerals in the dike.
there are many other ways to date geologic formations such as superposition. Its not "memory", its basic principles laid out by science.

Basically, you are creating a definition and taking the term memory out of context to fit your logical reasoning,

reply to post by randyvs

Between the artists rendering and the teeth does it strike anyone as completely human ? Even tho I can understand the observations of evolutionary sequencing in the skulls characteristics. It falls short of being very convincing only because it lacks any remnant of those sharp fangs we see in apes. In other words I'd be almost convinced if there was just some remnant of the sharp teeth we see, even in the fossils of early apes shown in this thread. I realise a lot more study is needed and I am trying to see this from both sides with fairness..

Hi randy,

I must say it's refreshing to see you asking serious questions.

The sharp fangs you are referring to are canines and are characteristic in all primates including humans.


I do not agree that these Georgia skulls fall short of anything but more study.
As for the individual #5 It's seems obvious to me his teeth are seriously ground down from front to back, including his canines. This erosion could be due to diet and or tool use, such as softening hides.
A juvenile sample from this site would no doubt have less damaged teeth and most certainly reveal canines. But more is expected from this site who knows what they find next, hopefully they will find some evidence of diet and life style.

I work with a guy that looks just like that.
2nd

reply to post by flyingfish

I do not agree that these Georgia skulls fall short of anything but more study.
As for the individual #5 It's seems obvious to me his teeth are seriously ground down from front to back, including his canines. This erosion could be due to diet and or tool use, such as softening hides.
A juvenile sample from this site would no doubt have less damaged teeth and most certainly reveal canines. But more is expected from this site who knows what they find next, hopefully they will find some evidence of diet and life style.

Well partner, there's the part of me that loves ancient history and
archaeology that the King Tut avatar represents. Also I try
to practice never holding a grudge, after a thread is done ?
New slate.

And thanks for setting me straight here as well.

I know, this is more of an anthropological study.

Auricom
reply to post by gort51

 

Of course they don't know. It's only speculation at this point with a good ground in reality thanks to previous findings. Plus, don't you think they'd know an ape skull and skeleton when they find one? That's why we're so excited when we find things like this, as it helps paint a bigger picture.

Not trying to pick nits here, but human skeletons are also ape skeletons.

Both are members of Hominoidea.

Harte