Fossil discovery fills gap in human evolution
- Thread starter cartoon
- Start date
There is a difference between standing by your word and remaining ignorant. If you choose to remain ignorant than that’s on you comrade but I clearly stated that evolution does NOT state that you came from an ape. And to answer your question, no he was not a racist and he opposed slavery.
""I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it." - Charles Darwin
""I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it." - Charles Darwin
Lol, chimpanzees actually have one more chromosome (48 chromatids compared to our 46). Nah, we obviously have one more chromosome because we are intellectually superior to chimps!!! You obviously don't know a lot about molecular biology if your claim (that we didn't evolve from apes) comes as a result of the fact that we have a different number of chromosomes. Evolution DOES state that we came from apes, thats the whole point. I don't know who's theory of evolution you subscribe to - perhaps a deeply religious persons, who considers every animal to have evolved with the exception of the human 'who was made by the hand of God himself and is thus superior'.
Just to clarify Hutch, when I said to Pressplay "Evolution doesn't state we come from apes" I say that as a means to try to explain to him that we did not evolve from modern apes that exist today (which is what I think he thinks evolutionists believe). I am merely trying to show that humans share a common ancestor with modern apes (roughly around 6 million years ago?), which then the species diverged into two separate lineage - one of these which evolved into gorillas, chimps etc., and the other evolved into early human ancestors (hominids).
But you're still a killer. If you recall, my point was that non-whites still enslave people. I said NOTHING about the extent in which they do/did so. So talking about which is worse is not necessarily relevant. That guy said that he didn't believe the words of anybody who enslaved others and I was merely pointing out that people of all colors have enslaved people, and therefore, using his logic, he shouldn't believe the words of any human being.
You're still not mattering. You can downplay all you want--that was never the point.
'"All Colors" NEVER enslaved people on the same level that the White Man did.'
Either you can refute this, or you cannot. There is no need to set-up side arguments and other shit. A Killer is verily a Killer, but not every Killer is a Mass-Murderer, or an architect of Genocide. Think on that one.
'"All Colors" NEVER enslaved people on the same level that the White Man did.'
Either you can refute this, or you cannot. There is no need to set-up side arguments and other shit. A Killer is verily a Killer, but not every Killer is a Mass-Murderer, or an architect of Genocide. Think on that one.
Side arguments? You're setting up side arguments. You're the one who came in talking about what race did worse. I'm not even arguing with you about that point. You're the one turning this into a comparison; I didn't. I'm talking about the act of slavery, not the extent to which it was taken. If pressplay said he didn't trust white people because they enslaved others to a much larger extent than other races, then that would be relevant, but he did not. He simply said he didn't trust any race of people who enlaved others. Do you understand?
No....wrong. This is a case of you reading what you want to read, rather than what is actually there. If you are going to say someone SAID something, you had better be able to provide the quote, else it would be better for you to say "IMPLY" or "HINTED THAT" and so on.
"our these the same people who work for the government who were all for slavery, i did not come from no ape"
"what i ment was im not going to believe anybody who legalized slavery,i.e white people
The word trust does not even exist. So for you to SAY he said the word Trust (YOU are the first in this thread to say the word), throws out just about your whole argument before you even get started.
Please, either do more or stop starting stupid arguments. It is beyond question that the White Man was the greatest enslaver of all time. Nobody ever enslaved people on the same scale, or even came close. I do not understand why you would deny this, or try to frame it another way than it actually is.
"our these the same people who work for the government who were all for slavery, i did not come from no ape"
"what i ment was im not going to believe anybody who legalized slavery,i.e white people
The word trust does not even exist. So for you to SAY he said the word Trust (YOU are the first in this thread to say the word), throws out just about your whole argument before you even get started.
Please, either do more or stop starting stupid arguments. It is beyond question that the White Man was the greatest enslaver of all time. Nobody ever enslaved people on the same scale, or even came close. I do not understand why you would deny this, or try to frame it another way than it actually is.
First of all, I didn't deny that the white man enslaved more people than any other race. That is true; the reason I wasn't acknowledging it was because it was completely irrelevant to what I was talking about before, which was that non-white people enslaved others. You were trying to argue with me about something that I never said, implied, or anything. The fact that white people enslaved more than the others does nothing to change the fact that the others still enslaved people. Again, do you understand what I am saying?
And change the word to "believe", it still displays the same type of ignorance. That last quote is the only time I used the word "trust". If you replace that with "believe", it still says the same thing as all my other posts. So don't bring up that throwing out my argument before it's started bullshit. My argument began way before then, guy.
And change the word to "believe", it still displays the same type of ignorance. That last quote is the only time I used the word "trust". If you replace that with "believe", it still says the same thing as all my other posts. So don't bring up that throwing out my argument before it's started bullshit. My argument began way before then, guy.
Please...
Here's another article on the same find, but this one talks a little more on how Australopithecus may have evolved. And it talks a little bit about the features of the fossils themselves.
______________________________________
Fossils fill gap in human lineage
By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter
Fossil hunters have found remains of a probable direct ancestor of humans that lived more than four million years ago.
The specimens of this ancient creature are helping bridge a long gap during a crucial phase of human evolution.
Professor Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues unearthed the cache of fossils in the Middle Awash region of Ethiopia.
They describe the finds, which belong to the species Australopithecus anamensis, in the journal Nature.
Australopithecus is an important ancient genus of humanlike creatures, or hominids.
Our own genus, Homo, is widely thought to have evolved from this group. So the relationship of Australopithecus to even earlier bipedal hominids is crucial to understanding where we all ultimately come from.
When placed together with other fossils from the same general area of Ethiopia, the 4.1-million-year-old anamensis specimens appear to establish an evolutionary succession between earlier and later species.
"The fact anamensis is sandwiched between earlier and later hominids is what is really significant about this Ethiopian sequence," Tim White told the BBC News website.
Middle man
The finds close the gap between a more ancient species known as Ardipithecus ramidus, which is found at 4.4 million years and a later species known as Australopithecus afarensis, which is present in the Middle Awash 3.4 million years ago.
Australopithecus anamensis is intermediate between the two not only chronologically but also in terms of its anatomy.
The anamensis species is not new, but, say the researchers, "this is the first time that these three species have been shown to be time-successive in a single place".
One explanation is that one species simply evolved into the other - so-called phyletic evolution.
Another possibility is that Australopithecus first emerged as a side branch of Ardipithecus. Under this scheme the mother species would have lived alongside the daughter species for some period of time before the mother species died out.
But no overlap between any of the three species has been found in Ethiopia.
Mind the gap
"I think you could argue, fairly, that the circumstantial evidence based on geography and habitat is of one evolving phyletically into the other and what we're monitoring here is the genesis of that second stage of human evolution - the genesis of Australopithecus," White explained.
But, he added: "We cannot disprove the alternative hypothesis just yet."
The new discoveries go some way to bridging the gap between Ardipithecus and Australopithecus, but do not entirely plug it.
"The gaps don't get entirely filled; you fill a big gap and create two smaller ones," said Professor White.
"Now we're looking at a gap between 4.4 million and 4.1 million. That's 300,000 years; an awful lot of time when measured on a human timescale, but not that long on a geological one."
The fossils represent at least eight individuals and include the largest hominid canine ever found, the earliest known Australopithecus thigh bone as well as hand and foot bones.
In the woods
The excavation at Asa Issie also uncovered the remains of pigs, monkeys and big cats. The fauna suggest that anamensis was living in a closed, wooded habitat.
Australopithecus anamensis had a significantly thicker layer of enamel on its teeth than Ardipithecus, suggesting the later hominid was adapting to eating a more abrasive diet of roots.
In many species, this is a fallback food when resources are scarce, but it is not clear what caused the diet shift in this case.
The Turkana Basin in Kenya has also yielded Australopithecus anamensis fossils.
Australopithecus afarensis was first recognised in the 1970s on the basis of the now famous "Lucy" skeleton from Hadar, Ethiopia, and footprints preserved in volcanic ash at Laetoli, Tanzania.
Tim White, Gen Suwa and Berhane Asfaw discovered the first Ardipithecus ramidus fossils in the 1990s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4900946.stm
Here's another article on the same find, but this one talks a little more on how Australopithecus may have evolved. And it talks a little bit about the features of the fossils themselves.
______________________________________
Fossils fill gap in human lineage
By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter
Fossil hunters have found remains of a probable direct ancestor of humans that lived more than four million years ago.
The specimens of this ancient creature are helping bridge a long gap during a crucial phase of human evolution.
Professor Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues unearthed the cache of fossils in the Middle Awash region of Ethiopia.
They describe the finds, which belong to the species Australopithecus anamensis, in the journal Nature.
Australopithecus is an important ancient genus of humanlike creatures, or hominids.
Our own genus, Homo, is widely thought to have evolved from this group. So the relationship of Australopithecus to even earlier bipedal hominids is crucial to understanding where we all ultimately come from.
When placed together with other fossils from the same general area of Ethiopia, the 4.1-million-year-old anamensis specimens appear to establish an evolutionary succession between earlier and later species.
"The fact anamensis is sandwiched between earlier and later hominids is what is really significant about this Ethiopian sequence," Tim White told the BBC News website.
Middle man
The finds close the gap between a more ancient species known as Ardipithecus ramidus, which is found at 4.4 million years and a later species known as Australopithecus afarensis, which is present in the Middle Awash 3.4 million years ago.
Australopithecus anamensis is intermediate between the two not only chronologically but also in terms of its anatomy.
The anamensis species is not new, but, say the researchers, "this is the first time that these three species have been shown to be time-successive in a single place".
One explanation is that one species simply evolved into the other - so-called phyletic evolution.
Another possibility is that Australopithecus first emerged as a side branch of Ardipithecus. Under this scheme the mother species would have lived alongside the daughter species for some period of time before the mother species died out.
But no overlap between any of the three species has been found in Ethiopia.
Mind the gap
"I think you could argue, fairly, that the circumstantial evidence based on geography and habitat is of one evolving phyletically into the other and what we're monitoring here is the genesis of that second stage of human evolution - the genesis of Australopithecus," White explained.
But, he added: "We cannot disprove the alternative hypothesis just yet."
The new discoveries go some way to bridging the gap between Ardipithecus and Australopithecus, but do not entirely plug it.
"The gaps don't get entirely filled; you fill a big gap and create two smaller ones," said Professor White.
"Now we're looking at a gap between 4.4 million and 4.1 million. That's 300,000 years; an awful lot of time when measured on a human timescale, but not that long on a geological one."
The fossils represent at least eight individuals and include the largest hominid canine ever found, the earliest known Australopithecus thigh bone as well as hand and foot bones.
In the woods
The excavation at Asa Issie also uncovered the remains of pigs, monkeys and big cats. The fauna suggest that anamensis was living in a closed, wooded habitat.
Australopithecus anamensis had a significantly thicker layer of enamel on its teeth than Ardipithecus, suggesting the later hominid was adapting to eating a more abrasive diet of roots.
In many species, this is a fallback food when resources are scarce, but it is not clear what caused the diet shift in this case.
The Turkana Basin in Kenya has also yielded Australopithecus anamensis fossils.
Australopithecus afarensis was first recognised in the 1970s on the basis of the now famous "Lucy" skeleton from Hadar, Ethiopia, and footprints preserved in volcanic ash at Laetoli, Tanzania.
Tim White, Gen Suwa and Berhane Asfaw discovered the first Ardipithecus ramidus fossils in the 1990s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4900946.stm
Again....there is nothing to understand about it. You are saying things that ostensibly do not matter. Are you serious, friend....you're going to make me go back AGAIN and re-cap this thread? PLEASE DEVELOP YOUR SHORT-TERM MEMORY.
"our these the same people who work for the government who were all for slavery"
"what i ment was im not going to believe anybody who legalized slavery,i.e white people"
And verily...they did. Who says this man must be talking about outside countries and thousands of years of world history?
The White Man is not only the most recent mass-enslaver, he is also the most prolific, and the one who was carrying on the practice on a massive scale less than 150 years ago.
Since then, we have had nothing but purely white Presidents, Vice Presidents, and just about every other leadership position. Academia is even more monopolized by the Non-Black man.
And yet, this man is supposed to believe in this White-dominated infrastructure, and the conclusions and explanations that they provide? It is not going to happen.
This is his personal opinion and he is entitled to it. What I said was beyond a personal opinion, and you are unable to refute it. Now that I have cleared all this up and not given you a cheap win......What exactly is left here to discuss?
You still misquoted. It demonstrated a fundamental absence of integrity that you would ascribe an opinion to another man, attack him for it, and then not even have the decency to make sure that you quoted him correctly.
I QUOTE:
"He simply said he didn't trust any race of people who enlaved others"
Here we have yet another misquote (or lie, depending on how many misquotes it takes you to consider it what it essentially is), and it came from that same paragraph.
"what i ment was im not going to believe anybody who legalized slavery,i.e white people"
Id est, friend. Not Exempla grata. Please study Latin, and in particular, SUM/ESSE/FUI/FUTURUM. But that is another subject you want no part of...
Friend, you are showing some promise here, but you are making the pettiest of mistakes. The man makes a comment you obviously think is stupid; I then, essentially, clean up his comment and make a nearly irrefutible statement of fact; and then here you come after me, knowing that the other man is the lesser challenge, and yet, with standards and expectations of fact and evidence that you would expect from an AOL chat-room scuffle amongst 13 year olds.
"our these the same people who work for the government who were all for slavery"
"what i ment was im not going to believe anybody who legalized slavery,i.e white people"
And verily...they did. Who says this man must be talking about outside countries and thousands of years of world history?
The White Man is not only the most recent mass-enslaver, he is also the most prolific, and the one who was carrying on the practice on a massive scale less than 150 years ago.
Since then, we have had nothing but purely white Presidents, Vice Presidents, and just about every other leadership position. Academia is even more monopolized by the Non-Black man.
And yet, this man is supposed to believe in this White-dominated infrastructure, and the conclusions and explanations that they provide? It is not going to happen.
This is his personal opinion and he is entitled to it. What I said was beyond a personal opinion, and you are unable to refute it. Now that I have cleared all this up and not given you a cheap win......What exactly is left here to discuss?
You still misquoted. It demonstrated a fundamental absence of integrity that you would ascribe an opinion to another man, attack him for it, and then not even have the decency to make sure that you quoted him correctly.
I QUOTE:
"He simply said he didn't trust any race of people who enlaved others"
Here we have yet another misquote (or lie, depending on how many misquotes it takes you to consider it what it essentially is), and it came from that same paragraph.
"what i ment was im not going to believe anybody who legalized slavery,i.e white people"
Id est, friend. Not Exempla grata. Please study Latin, and in particular, SUM/ESSE/FUI/FUTURUM. But that is another subject you want no part of...
Friend, you are showing some promise here, but you are making the pettiest of mistakes. The man makes a comment you obviously think is stupid; I then, essentially, clean up his comment and make a nearly irrefutible statement of fact; and then here you come after me, knowing that the other man is the lesser challenge, and yet, with standards and expectations of fact and evidence that you would expect from an AOL chat-room scuffle amongst 13 year olds.
evolution is real, religious folks cant see it because it goes against everything they were taught (brain-washed)
it makes them happy to think that when they die they will goto heaven. let them remain, because we all know that even if we get a fossil from every year prior to this one leading back to the beginning of time, they would still believe their religion. so its pointless.
and some people in here are really stupid, i like when stupid people argue with smart people. its funny as fuck
it makes them happy to think that when they die they will goto heaven. let them remain, because we all know that even if we get a fossil from every year prior to this one leading back to the beginning of time, they would still believe their religion. so its pointless.
and some people in here are really stupid, i like when stupid people argue with smart people. its funny as fuck
And even if we never found another fossil again, you wouldn't abandon Darwinism.....so what is YOUR point?
Friend, I want you to stick around. I want to see how smart you are. I am going to give you a free 72 hour protectorship here. You will be off limits for 72 hours--I will not personally attack you, nor will I allow others to attack you (or they will face the fullness of my wrath.) Feel free to find your groove, argue with some folks, etc. Just enjoy yourself. And then hopefully, after 72 hours and whatever change it takes for your mouth to catch up with me, hopefully, you'll stick around after that first thrashing.
Clock starts at 12:01am. Good luck!
Friend, I want you to stick around. I want to see how smart you are. I am going to give you a free 72 hour protectorship here. You will be off limits for 72 hours--I will not personally attack you, nor will I allow others to attack you (or they will face the fullness of my wrath.) Feel free to find your groove, argue with some folks, etc. Just enjoy yourself. And then hopefully, after 72 hours and whatever change it takes for your mouth to catch up with me, hopefully, you'll stick around after that first thrashing.
Clock starts at 12:01am. Good luck!