Missing Link Found Between Human Ancestors
simetra writes "Researchers with a University of California, Berkeley team are now saying they have 'proof' of human evolution. Fossils have been found linking two types of pre-human species." From the article: "The remains of eight individuals found in the northeastern Afar region of Ethiopia belonged to the species Australopithecus anamensis -- part of the Australopithecus genus thought to be a direct ancestor to humans, according to a report due to be published Thursday in Nature magazine. 'The fossils are anatomically intermediate between the earlier species Ardipithecus ramidus and the later species Australopithecus afarensis,' he said."
Fist post you stupid god hating fuckers!!!111!eleven!!11
How much you want to bet these guys have an anti-christian bias?
So, I get that these are "hominids", but does that mean they are apes or humans?
If they are apes, it is curious to me that they are referred to as "individuals." It infers that we're willing to personify monkeys but not human fetuses.
(did you catch the "fundy" slant there?)
I'm disappointed to see so many news agencies and readers taking this hype at face value. Before I even begin, can I just appeal to everyone to read up on Karl Popper's assertions regarding our ability to 'prove' anything using scientific insight? We can't! Especially, when we consider that deducing anything from a patchy fossil in an even patchier fossil record is a dodgy proposition to begin with... First: this is not a new taxon, as news agencies and apparently Tim White would like us to believe; Australopithecus anamensis has been known for quite some time now, and its exact position in the hominin lineage is still under dispute last time I heard (making the assertion that it's in a direct relational line to modern humans suspect). Second: is the evidence White cites convincing? Is linking these new A. anamensis specimens to Ardipithecus ramidus robust, or merely convenient (in other words, did White discover Ard. ramidus, as well)? Are they even comparable? I may be wrong, but I thought Ardipithecus ramidus was only represented by a few teeth and some postcrania... in which case, how convincing is White's evidence? If the new specimens can be successfully placed in A. anamensis based on the few specimens found, how can it also be so similar to Ardipithecus ramidus? I wish the popular media would ask such questions... maybe then every new fossil 'hominin' could be examined without quite so much bias, frenzy, and politics.
For all you evolutionist folks, you'll continue to belive anything a "scientist" puts in front of you.....
Sure, I'll get modded TROLL, but the fucktard partent get's modded insightful becuase he's against the "CRAZY RIGHT WINGERS!!!!!!!!!!"
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
...and this news comes from the same jokers that built "Java Man" from a broken took and a piece of a cow's jawbone. Darwinists (also know as dumbasses) are so anti-religious anything seems to be the missing link. I think slashdot.org has reported on 50 "found missing link" stories this year.
You guys want this to be true soooo bad :-/
Nothign to see here - move along....