Slashdot Mirror


New Fossil Sheds Light On Lucy's Family Tree

I_am_sci_guy writes "A new fossil of an older, and presumably male, specimen of the same species as the famed Lucy indicates that A. afarensis may have walked and moved more like humans than was currently believed. The features of the unusually complete skeleton 'denote a nearly humanlike gait and ground-based lifestyle,' according to anthropologist Yohannes Haile-Selassie and his team, who found the specimen they call 'Big Man' and published preliminary results online today at PNAS (abstract; full text requires subscription). The article includes plenty of viewpoints dissenting from the conclusion that A. afarensis walked, and possibly ran, like modern humans do."

89 comments

  1. Re:OpenBSD by gblackwo · · Score: 1

    /. not your personal army

  2. Hillbillies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Here's the thing, many eons ago the earth's sea level was way way higher than what it is now. So as it recedes we are finding fossils of 'people' that lived in the high country - the equivalent of modern day hillbillies. This is not a fair slice of everday life for that day and should not be taken as a typical 'man in the street'. We need fossils from downtown central to really get a flavour of life from way back then.

  3. In a stunning announcement by Dyinobal · · Score: 1, Funny

    In a stunning announcement The Creation Institute of America has moved that these two have actually been misnamed and are in fact Adam and Eve or bitch as head creationist Mike Comburg said in their press release earlier today. They are now demanding that school districts teach both sides of the name argument.

    1. Re:In a stunning announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Creationism is science - deal with it!

    2. Re:In a stunning announcement by shriphani · · Score: 2, Funny

      Creationists are on a mission to troll their kids.

    3. Re:In a stunning announcement by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Creationism is science - deal with it!

      How do they expect to fit creationism into the curriculum? My kids are already doing four hours of astrology and alchemy per week, and next semester the oldest starts graphology.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:In a stunning announcement by Mahalalel · · Score: 0

      Mod me down for a rant AND for being off topic but....

      I love how every time a story like this comes out somebody immediately, unprovoked, starts bashing Creationists. Is it because of insecurity or do you think it's cool? Well it isn't. It's puerile.

      Oh, and while I'm here, posting something and appending "you insensitive clod" is way too overused. Just like the "3. ?????? 4. Profit!!" used to be.

      I appreciate the informative posts that break out of the mold and actually give reasons, rather than an aping conformity to what is posted over and over again.

    5. Re:In a stunning announcement by millennial · · Score: 1

      It's done because Creationists are fucking imbeciles. I should know. I used to be one.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    6. Re:In a stunning announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creationism is science - deal with it!

      How do they expect to fit creationism into the curriculum? My kids are already doing four hours of astrology and alchemy per week, and next semester the oldest starts graphology.

      That is shocking and disappointing, sir. I am outraged, OUTRAGED to not see a full course load of phrenology, when your kids are clearly in the appropriate group for it!

    7. Re:In a stunning announcement by tsalmark · · Score: 2, Informative

      NO it is not. The funny thing about science is you can test your theories. The theories of Creationism all fail basic testing. Or are stated in such a way that they are not testable, therefore they are not science.

    8. Re:In a stunning announcement by steelfood · · Score: 1

      What, no tarot cards and divination? Ridiculous! What are they teaching in schools these days? No wonder everybody says public education is crap.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    9. Re:In a stunning announcement by jrade · · Score: 1

      And it isn't so much bashing, but more like making fun of.

      --

      Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at Sig.setCleverSig(Sig.java:42)
    10. Re:In a stunning announcement by tsalmark · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity has links to 50 some odd references and a few references to publications of tests including B. Bertotti, L. Iess and P. Tortora, "A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft", Nature 425, 374 (2003).

    11. Re:In a stunning announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're on a pretty high horse for somebody who doesn't understand the scientific terms "theory" and "law."

    12. Re:In a stunning announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well... creation science, certainly, is falsifiable, is it not?

      hehehe

    13. Re:In a stunning announcement by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The Theory of relativity is a theory that is not testable, I wouldnt exactly say that isnt science.
      It's testable in the sense it can be used to make predictions and those predictions can be compared to what actually happened and what other theories e.g. newtons "laws" say.

      Hence why they are called Theories, not Proofs or Laws.
      No physical theory can ever be conclusively proved (hence why we don't call them "laws" these days apart from a few that are called that for historical reasons) because there is always the chance that we will find a set of circumstances under which they break or find better experimenal methods that expose an inaccuracy but that doesn't mean we can't test them and document whether or not they are right to within the bounds ot experimental error.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    14. Re:In a stunning announcement by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

      Couldn't be Adam and Eve. Dick Clark said he knew Adam and Eve, and these two look nothing like them. Abe Vigota agrees.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    15. Re:In a stunning announcement by bmo · · Score: 1

      I love how every time a story like this comes out somebody immediately, unprovoked, starts bashing Creationists. Is it because of insecurity or do you think it's cool?

      It's been 150 years since the Origin of Species. The main thrust behind that book only gathers more evidence. 150 years later, the Origin of Species still stands as a testament to science and rational thought, much like Newton's Principia.

      The mentally ill simply cannot help themselves. It's not their fault that they aren't as intelligent as the average person. This is why it's in bad taste to "make fun of retards."

      But the average person has no excuse. If a person is of average intelligence and is a Creationist, that person *deserves* to be derided for buying into something that is a *parable* or an *allegory* and construe it as concrete fact when there are mountains of evidence that the two creation stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally.

      Because that person should know better.

      If you do not fight back against the ones who would drag us back into the dark ages, you deserve what happens to you and your children. Because they won't stop at banning Evolution.

      --
      BMO

    16. Re:In a stunning announcement by nanoakron · · Score: 1

      Mine just had his herbalism and phrenology exams. The stress he was under was just immense...

    17. Re:In a stunning announcement by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Except some herbs do have proven medical benefits. Aspirin, for example, is found in plants.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. No subscription required by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ummm... the full text of the PNAS article does NOT require a subscription. Just click the "Full Text (PDF)" link.

    Or at least, I have access using no logins and accessing via a standard ISP in Thailand. :-/

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:No subscription required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't work here. Canadian ISP...
      Maybe you're using university provided access that purchased access??

    2. Re:No subscription required by interactive_civilian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not at a university. And, I can access PNAS from both work and school and download at will. Maybe the National Academy of Sciences hates Canada? ;)

      --
      "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    3. Re:No subscription required by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Not working here in the UK (from work); I'm presented with a login screen.

    4. Re:No subscription required by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm... that's really strange. Has anyone else been successful in accessing the full text? I poked around the PNAS site and didn't see anything about certain countries having access and others not. There is never a login page for me, though if I click on the subscribe link, it tells me the instructions to subscribe as if I'm not a subscriber (which I'm not).

      Maybe the King of Thailand made a deal for Thailand to have access to early edition papers? I have no idea what's going on, but I have no problems accessing the full text PDF of this paper and pretty much any paper I have ever gone to read at PNAS. Weird.

      --
      "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    5. Re:No subscription required by Jainith · · Score: 1

      There is also a ridicoulsy long article (1/2 the mag) in this months National Geographic.

      http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/07/middle-awash/shreeve-text

  5. Re:Offtopic, I know by causality · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I know this will be modded offtopic, but I really need to know. Why has Slashdot done away with the D2 comment threshold bar entirely? There is literally no way to change threshold or get more than the standard 50( mostly collapsed )comments anymore.

    Is this their not-so-subtle way of forcing everyone to register accounts? The site is basically 100% unusable for comment browsing as it is.

    If it helps you, I think Slashdot fucked something up today. Despite using the AJAX interface, and having my account preferences set to do so, Slashdot is reverting back to the (very) old behavior today. As in, clicking "Reply to This" to write this post took me off of the discussion page and into a new page rather than doing everything in-line. Additionally there is no "quote parent" button. If I turned off Javascript entirely I doubt I would notice a difference.

    That threshold bar is JS driven and part of the new AJAX interface, so far as I know. I don't believe this is an intentional change but it'd be nice if Slashdot admin would have some little notice somewhere saying "yeah we know about this and are working on it" or something to that effect to avoid the confusion you're having.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  6. They blew the nickname by PapayaSF · · Score: 4, Funny

    They find the male counterpart of Lucy, and nickname him "Big Man"? It would have been much more fun to name him "Ricky."

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:They blew the nickname by Alarindris · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even better, call him Linus :)

    2. Re:They blew the nickname by lseltzer · · Score: 1

      Or Schroeder? Either way I feel sorry for him.

    3. Re:They blew the nickname by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like the scientists have some 'splainin to do.

  7. Re:Full of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's true, though.

  8. the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have never seen a story with so many top-level comments modded -1. Arthropologists, stop bullshitting, it ain't working.

  9. work and home by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1

    durhurrr... I can access from both work and home.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:work and home by jd · · Score: 1

      I prefer MySQL to Access.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  10. Biped by fermion · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the nature write up it appears that this, along with older fossils, seems to push back bipedal Hominini to about 3.5 millions year. Almost 2 meters tall, a pelvis that seems modern, and a long tibia. I am not so sure why the scientists are arguing about how these creatures walked, the agreement on a bipedal Lucy and relatives seems pretty impressive, and meant that our ancestors could run when they hunt the might dinosaur.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:Biped by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and meant that our ancestors could run when they hunt the might dinosaur.

      In that case it also meant they could time-travel more than 60 million years into the past...

    2. Re:Biped by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Almost 2 meters tall

      TFA says 5'6" max. That's nowhere near 2 metres.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Biped by skorch · · Score: 1

      our ancestors could run when they hunt the might dinosaur

      You're about 62 million years off putting these or pretty much any other hominid species alongside real dinosaurs. Seriously, it might sound cool but it makes no sense, and the public believing stuff just because it sounds cool has lead to a lot of trouble in this field.

    4. Re:Biped by Kozz · · Score: 1

      our ancestors could run when they hunt the might dinosaur

      You're about 62 million years off putting these or pretty much any other hominid species alongside real dinosaurs. Seriously, it might sound cool but it makes no sense, and the public believing stuff just because it sounds cool has lead to a lot of trouble in this field.

      YHBT, HAND.

      p.s. wtf is up with slashdot comment boxes? Where's my "quote parent" button? Why change the design?

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    5. Re:Biped by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      Almost 2 meters tall

      TFA says 5'6" max. That's nowhere near 2 metres.

      Well, not metric metres...

    6. Re:Biped by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am not so sure why the scientists are arguing about how these creatures walked,

      /. seems even more borken today than usual, but I'll try responding to this anyway (I'm assuming the dino joke was a joke...)

      It's been pretty clear for quite a while now that upright bipedalism was an early feature in human evolution, where "quite a while" means "at least 20 years". But as the persistence of Creationism after a century of obvious falsity suggests, humans are deeply wedded to myths about our origins, and within the paleoanthropological community as well as popular culture there has been a big effort to build myths around human evolution.

      Perhaps the largest of those myths is "man made tools and tools made man": the idea that once tool-use, including fire, became part of proto-human life we were on a slippery evolutionary slope to big brains. Upright bipedalism in this myth is necessary to free our hands to work with and carry tools.

      This myth is comforting to the weak-minded because it seems to suggest that evolution "toward" modern humans was a quasi-purposive process driven by the reproductive benefits of improved tool-making and tool-use [*].

      Early bipedalism blows this myth out of the water. If proto-humans were upright bipedal creatures so early on, those traits clearly had nothing much to do with tool use, and the certain fact that the evolution of our large, opera-writing, space-ship-building brains is nothing but the consequence of a huge series of unrelated accidents.

      We happened to have a body plan that resulted in us being able to do something more useful than tell dirty jokes after run-away sexual selection blew our brain out into its current magnificent proportions. Once that entirely accidental potential was realized, about 50,000 years ago, there has likely been some evolutionary pressure toward more effective tool use and whatnot, up until the last 200 years, anyway.

      But the process that got us here wasn't some million-year ramp we climbed. It was a fun-house ride that dumped us out at the end with a brain that could reflect on itself, and eventually ask how it got here, and learn by carefully examining the world what the answers were... all while some insane nutjobs were screaming nonsense and threatening violence if we instead didn't listen to their fantasic gibberish.

      Early upright bipedalism challenges all the myths, and people hate that.

      [*] Yeah, there's a joke in there, and since your brain was evolved specifically to entertain and be entertained by members of the opposite sex, it's one that pretty much everyone here is aware of since our brains were all the result of the same process.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    7. Re:Biped by Tisha_AH · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Looking at the small sampling of fossils I find it hard to accept that they can draw so many conclusions.

      Yes, you could definitely say that it is hominidae, most likely a Australopithecus but to infer that it is bipedal with a human-like gait is a stretch.

      'pithecus was around for a few million years and a great deal of evolutionary changes were occurring over that span of time. In the late Pleistocene look at how much 'homo changed with the extinction of habilis, neanderthalensis, floresiensis and denisova. We only have the ability to look at a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the evolutionary diversity of the hominid family.

      --
      Tisha Hayes
    8. Re:Biped by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Where's my "quote parent" button? Why change the design?

      Quote parent button? I've never seen a quote parent button on Slashdot.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Biped by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the largest of those myths is "man made tools and tools made man": the idea that once tool-use, including fire, became part of proto-human life we were on a slippery evolutionary slope to big brains. Upright bipedalism in this myth is necessary to free our hands to work with and carry tools.

      We happened to have a body plan that resulted in us being able to do something more useful than tell dirty jokes after run-away sexual selection blew our brain out into its current magnificent proportions. Once that entirely accidental potential was realized, about 50,000 years ago, there has likely been some evolutionary pressure toward more effective tool use and whatnot, up until the last 200 years, anyway.

      Early upright bipedalism challenges all the myths, and people hate that.

      Feh. Rubbish.

      The only necessary role of bipedalism in the "myth" that intelligence and tool use were positively selected for in human evolution is that it provided a skeletal structure that would support a larger brain and yes using tools.

      It is neither surprising nor crippling to the "myth" that bipedalism could have evolved far earlier and for other reasons. That's common with many biological traits -- they serve one purpose as they evolve, but once present have other advantages that allow other features to arise. If the only reason our two-legged gait was selected for was because it let us chase prey and run away from predators on the plains when we came down from the trees (or whatever), so what? It still freed our hands and supported our heads.

      What matters is that the fossil record shows skulls of human ancestors increasing in size, indicating selection for larger brains. Archaeological records show tool use millions of years ago, not fifty thousand. Yes there was an explosion of technological and societal growth in the relatively recent past. Yet humans had clearly been heading down a path of increasing their survivability through increasing tool use and intelligence for a long time.

      Why that's a myth equivalent to religion, which was a concept that came long after tool use, I don't know.

      I do appreciate your hypothesis that intelligence is the result of sexual selection, and I am not about to downplay the role. But... it seems likely that doing useful things with intelligence came before dirty jokes or similar means of pleasing the opposite sex. Jokes are actually pretty advanced concepts. Abstract thinking and problem solving would have certainly had to arise first. Before that, attracting mates was more about finding food, giving the same selective pressure towards tools and intellect as the need to find food for oneself. Intelligence was a survival trait.

      Though on the other hand intelligence and tool use -- at least human intelligence and tool use -- has yet to prove itself as a truly long-term survival trait. Let's see if we're around for another fifty million.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  11. PNAS? by Spykk · · Score: 1, Funny

    So I am supposed to read the results of "Big Man" over at PNAS? Why does this summary look like the contents of my spam folder?

  12. Re:Full of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "A great legend has grown up to plague both paleontologists and anthropologists. It is that one of; men can take a tooth or a small and broken piece of bone, gaze at it, and pass his hand over his forehead once or twice, and then take a sheet of paper and draw a picture of what the whole animal looked like as it tramped the Terriary terrain. If this were quite true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts." William W. Howells, Harvard, Mankind So Far p138

  13. Re:Offtopic, I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everybody, ctrl+f5! new versions of scripts/css, i guess.

  14. Re:OpenBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but I make non sequiturs.

  15. This is an Important Message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man is a beast.

    Yours,
    Dr. Zachary P. Zaius
    Minister of Science

  16. Re:Offtopic, I know by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 1

    Nope, that doesn't help.

    --
    (+1, Disagree)
  17. Oops. Free access for developing countries by interactive_civilian · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oops. I spoke too soon on that previous. PNAS offers free access to many developing countries, including Thailand. List here:

    http://www.pnas.org/misc/faq.shtml#developing

    Oh well... if anyone without access really wants to read the original paper, send me an email and I'll be happy to send you the PDF. Put something like "Slashdot - PNAS article PDF" in your subject line, please.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Oops. Free access for developing countries by Inda · · Score: 1

      c'mon, sharing is caring, so upload it somewhere like Rapidshare.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    2. Re:Oops. Free access for developing countries by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      PNAS offers free access to many developing countries, including Thailand.

      Didn't know that. Kudos to PNAS (not that they need it).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  18. Re:Offtopic, I know by torgosan · · Score: 1

    And moderation is jacked as well, since yesterday. What used to be a simple process [choose the mod selection and it would be immediately applied] is now b0rked, choose the mod selectiopn and nothing happens, no update, no Apply button at the bottom of the page, nada.

    --
    "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
  19. It was only a matter of time... by HRH+King+Lerxst · · Score: 1

    I guess they found Helo???

    --
    No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
  20. ...and I pronounce Linux as Linux by tepples · · Score: 3, Funny

    They find the male counterpart of Lucy

    Even better, call him Linus :)

    What does Mr. Torvalds have to do with Lucille Ball? Or maybe I just have peanuts for brains...

    1. Re:...and I pronounce Linux as Linux by Alarindris · · Score: 1

      Haha, I almost missed that...

  21. Ostrich == dinosaur by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dinosaurs still exist. They're just called birds now.

  22. Wooooooooossssh by RudeIota · · Score: 1
    Unforutnately, it would appear your humor gland is broken.

    I am not so sure why the scientists are arguing about how these creatures walked, the agreement on a bipedal Lucy and relatives seems pretty impressive, and meant that our ancestors could run when they hunt the might dinosaur.

    ou're about 62 million years off putting these or pretty much any other hominid species alongside real dinosaurs.

    --
    Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
  23. Re:Offtopic, I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That threshold bar is JS driven and part of the new AJAX interface, so far as I know. I don't believe this is an intentional change but it'd be nice if Slashdot admin would have some little notice somewhere saying "yeah we know about this and are working on it" or something to that effect to avoid the confusion you're having.

    Wouldn't it be funny if none of them noticed because like most of us who've been here for a while, the only thing we ever really wanted to do with D2 was turn it off? :)

    The metamoderation page (even with Javascript enabled) still only gives me posts from 2008 (!), no matter what I do with the threshold thingy. (Yes, every few months I turn on Javashit and try metamoderating, and every time it fails. It's been like that ever since they broke it some time a year or so ago.) I'd love to participate more, but I can't, because it just. doesn't. work. (Firefox 3.6, logged in or not, JS-enabled-or-not, metamod's borked for me.)

  24. Re:Offtopic, I know by Danse · · Score: 1

    And moderation is jacked as well, since yesterday. What used to be a simple process [choose the mod selection and it would be immediately applied] is now b0rked, choose the mod selectiopn and nothing happens, no update, no Apply button at the bottom of the page, nada.

    Yeah, this has been pissing me off. I thought maybe I had disabled something by accident through NoScript or something at first. But no, the problem is definitely on the /. side.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  25. Creationism is NOT science by Gavrielkay · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Science does not fall back on the invisible friend in the sky to explain what it does not currently understand. Scientists may not have all the answers, but at least they are looking for ways to find them. Hand waving and saying "God did it" is a dead end that can never expand human knowledge the way science can.

    1. Re:Creationism is NOT science by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Science does not fall back on the invisible friend in the sky to explain what it does not currently understand. Scientists may not have all the answers, but at least they are looking for ways to find them. Hand waving and saying "God did it" is a dead end that can never expand human knowledge the way science can.

      Pure Creationism only falls back on that for the very start of things being created. Creationism fully allows and promotes true scientific study.

      Comparatively, Evolutionism promotes and falls back on the Big Bang and primordial goo for the very start of things being created. You cannot test that, and it is very equivalent to the "invisible friend in the sky". The big difference is that instead of saying "God did it", the evolutionist says "nothingness did it - it was just a random act", where Theistic Evolutionism says turns that "nothingness did it" right back into the "God did it" just to justify the two.

      QED Evolutionism is no more science than Creationism.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    2. Re:Creationism is NOT science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The theory of Evolution as nothing to do with how life began. That is the domain of abiogenesys, a different field of science. Evolution deals only on how life evolved from a lower, already existing, form of life to what we have today.

    3. Re:Creationism is NOT science by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        Evolutionism promotes and falls back on the Big Bang and primordial goo for the very start of things being created.

        That statement shows just how ignorant you are. Evolution and cosmology are two entirely different fields of science, and the term "primordial goo" is mostly used by the media and idiots who write books about creationism.

        The rest of your post is just nonsense. Go get a real education.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    4. Re:Creationism is NOT science by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Evolutionism promotes and falls back on the Big Bang and primordial goo for the very start of things being created.

      That statement shows just how ignorant you are. Evolution and cosmology are two entirely different fields of science, and the term "primordial goo" is mostly used by the media and idiots who write books about creationism.

      You still know what I mean, and it's still valid. Evolution has many holes in it, and ultimately relies on the same basic unverifiable issues. Cosmology only applies for the Big Bang Theory, but Evolution still relies on some unknown, unverifiable ability to create life (any kind of life) out of nothing - whether "primordial goo" or something else, doesn't matter.

      The rest of your post is just nonsense. Go get a real education.

      Shows how much you know about opposing view points. While true - it's not going to popular here on /. to say that, it's true nonetheless.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    5. Re:Creationism is NOT science by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is English not your first language? Do you not understand the difference between "species" and "life"? Abiogenesis deals with how life started. If a book about it were to be titled similar to Darwin's work it would be titled "On the Origin of Life".

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
  26. Am I the only one? by ajdowntown · · Score: 2, Funny

    The article includes plenty of viewpoints dissenting from the conclusion that A. afarensis walked, and possibly ran, like modern humans do.

    Is anyone else as deeply offended by this as me? I, as a modern human, haven never, ever, in my life run, and am offended that I am associated with these prehistoric brutes.

    Oh the humanity!

  27. Anyone else dissatisfied with science? by Anomalyx · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if I'm the only one who feels this way, but it seems to me that Lucy is no more relevant to science than the chimp down at the local zoo. The only non-chimp aspect of her was the knee, which was found a whole mile and a half away from the rest of her and in a different rock layer, with nothing suggesting that it was actually her knee. They need to find something that says she actually was something other than pure chimp, rather than just speculating. As it is, it isn't enough to convince me Lucy was anything special

    --
    No, there is no "-1 I'LL NEVER ADMIT BEING WRONG!!!" mod.
  28. Goods Gets the Girls by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the largest of those myths is "man made tools and tools made man": the idea that once tool-use, including fire, became part of proto-human life we were on a slippery evolutionary slope to big brains.

    I've not heard it put that way, but I think the man/tool relationship holds, at least in part. There can be little doubt that using tools enhances survival, so those clever enough to use tools would have an edge over those not clever enough to do so. It also follows that those clever enough to improve on tools would have an edge over those that could not. Hmm... Has anyone done a study relating tool complexity and the structure of the hand (the opposability of thumbs, finger length, etc.)?

    However another theory posits that our bipedal gait freed our forelimbs to carry food, enabling us to forrage and gather across a wider range. More gathered foodstuffs->an edge in survival->more bipedalism. The guy with the goods gets the girl.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  29. It is the fossil of the unwritten Jesus. by dogzdik · · Score: 0

    Yes Jesus Christ walked the earth as an ape man to prove that creationism is wrong - and that it should be taught in the schools of the USA.

    --

    .

    Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.

  30. Re:Offtopic, I know by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    It screwed up for me, too. Ctrl-F5 didn’t help, and nothing in the D2 configuration settings seemed to help.

    This is how I was able to finally fix it:

    Help & Preferences
    Discussions - Viewing
    Turn off Enable Dynamic Discussions (D2)
    Reload the page (or maybe it did automatically)
    Discussions - Viewing (the D1 version – http://slashdot.org/my/comments)

    Now, at the very bottom of the page, there is an option to reset all the settings to default. In desperation, I clicked it. It will revert to D2 (the default). Re-visiting the settings page by its URL and adjust all the settings to what they were before you reset it, and you should be back to normal.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.