Family tree branches out

May 21, 2010 | Posted by: Noodly James | Full story: www.physorg.com

UNSW anthropologist Dr Darren Curnoe has identified another new early human ancestor in South Africa the earliest recognised species of Homo.

Comments
1 - 20 of 33 Comments Last updated Jan 20, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 21, 2010
 
"...the surprising number of new human and human-like species announced in recent years and the growing complexity of the human evolutionary story."

Really! It seems they're popping up left and right. This is really getting interesting. Exactly how bushy is our family tree going to get?
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 21, 2010
 
MikeF wrote:
"...the surprising number of new human and human-like species announced in recent years and the growing complexity of the human evolutionary story."
Really! It seems they're popping up left and right. This is really getting interesting. Exactly how bushy is our family tree going to get?
Hey, watch it now. Some of us like bushy.
Ted on diff machine

Montgomery, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 21, 2010
 
and ID'iots like marky will continue to use the supposed lack of evidnece for human evolution as a reason to ... well to be an ID'iot.

"You can lead a Creationist to Knowledge, but you cannot make him think!"
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 22, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Ted on diff machine wrote:
and ID'iots like marky will continue to use the supposed lack of evidnece for human evolution as a reason to ... well to be an ID'iot.
"You can lead a Creationist to Knowledge, but you cannot make him think!"
You are one habitually utterly stupid human being. You never read it and just throw out the mindless Creationist shtick. You dope the other dope in the artical is claiming evolution.

Ted you are an example of how evolution is false. Someone as utterly stupid as you would have "evolved" to be self inflicted dead a long time ago.

==
“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table .. The collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present.”

John Reader, New Scientist 89, March 26, 1981, p. 802.

==

“I don’t want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there’s a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments.”

Greg Kirby, address at meeting of Biology Teachers’ Association, South Australia, 1976 [Flinders University professor].

==

“The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.”

Timothy White, quoted in New Scientist 98, April 28, 1983, p. 199 [University of California anthropologist].
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 22, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
“The entire hominid collection ..."
Why do "creationists" think that a quote (usually taken out-of-context) about the Theory of Evolution has any relevance as to whether the ToE is a valid theory or not?

A quote (often by someone outside of the biological sciences) is NOT a logical, well reasoned and scientifically supported argument against the ToE.

A quote-mined item (taken out-of-context) is NOT a research paper showing a critical error in the ToE.

A quote (that is fabricated or LIED about) is NOT new empirical evidence calling the ToE into question.

So, why do "creationists" do it?

The reason is two fold.

Fundamentally, of course, it is that they have NOTHING else. "creation science" has been a dismal failure. In 4000+ years worth of looking, the "creationists" have found NOTHING of any scientific value in support of their position. Without LOGIC, REASON, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, RESEARCH and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE all they are left with is words in the form of "apologetics", marketing campaigns, strong arm legislation and propaganda.

But when viewed from a "creationist" standpoint one can see why they think it would be convincing. As a "creationist" your whole world view is dictated by THE WORD (cue dramatic thunderous music). ALL theology, ALL philosophy, indeed ALL KNOWLEDGE comes from THE WORD.

IF everything you think and believe is based on the AUTHORITY of the words you read in your holy book, IF you accept the AUTHORITY of those words in the face of vast contradictory evidence, IF you prefer the AUTHORITY of the words over the reality around you, IF you actually believe that your god resides in those words, THEN those words become more real than the reality around you and it becomes incomprehensible that other people can't be convinced by those words as well.

Transfer that absolute reliance of "knowledge by authority" onto a science debate and one can easily see how a "creationist" would think that the "authoritative words" of a physicist from 1932 would be convincing. The "creationist" assumes that "authoritative words" are irrefutable evidence for other people because they are for the "creationist". They believe that "authoritative words" should be the ONLY evidence that matters because it is FOR THEM. They assume that everyone uses "authoritative words" as the main well spring of knowledge because that is all that THEY understand.

"If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't true."

"The only evidence I need are the words in the Bible."

"The words of the Bible are God's words so they can't be false."

"This physicist says right here that the Theory of Evolution is false so therefore it is."

LOGIC, REASON, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, RESEARCH, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and SCIENCE be damned ... "creationists" have something much better, they have "quotes".
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 22, 2010
 
Unfortunately for the "creationists" like "juniors", REAL SCIENCE will continue to progress and advance, producing REAL result son a DAILY basis.

Keep watching those headlines. New discoveries, new technologies, the presentation of new scientific evidence can be found EVERY SINGLE DAY.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/

"creationism" OTOH is still stuck back in the bronze age. NO research, NO empirical evidence, NOTHING of any scientific value in support of "creation science" in the 4000+ years they have been looking.

But people like "juniors" don't want to to be bothered with that FACT. They prefer to IGNORE the ABYSMAL FAILURE that "creationism" has been and keep on ranting against the Theory of Evolution despite the VAST amount of supporting evidence that already exists and the ABUNDANT evidence that is being discovered almost every day.

They can claim that there is no evidence for the ToE all they want, but anyone with any intelligence and an internet connection (or access to a local museum, university or library) can EASILY expose the "creationists" for the LIARS that they are.

Of course, "juniors" won't really care, because, in his mind, his everlasting salvation depends upon whether the universe is 6000 years old or not, so in that respect, it is NOT the world he is LYING to, but himself.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 22, 2010
 
It is obvious to the casual observer that evolutionists on this forum don't really believe in evolution as much as they just desperately want to prove creationism wrong.

This thread is a prime example.

Why such desperation.

To have creationism you must have a creator.

Rumor has it that we will be held accountable to that creator.

It is kind of like the tantrum throwing child that hits, bites and otherwise viciously rebels against authority figures - like a parent - like a creator.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 22, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
It is obvious to the casual observer that evolutionists on this forum don't really believe in evolution as much as they just desperately want to prove creationism wrong.
This thread is a prime example.
Why such desperation.
To have creationism you must have a creator.
Rumor has it that we will be held accountable to that creator.
It is kind of like the tantrum throwing child that hits, bites and otherwise viciously rebels against authority figures - like a parent - like a creator.
JRS posts this same trash on different threads, where it has already been refuted. What a shame that he lacks the integrity that would prevent him from doing that.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
May 22, 2010
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
JRS posts this same trash on different threads, where it has already been refuted. What a shame that he lacks the integrity that would prevent him from doing that.
From doing what?
Your sentences makes no sense.
There is no declaration of what I should be doing but don't:
"JRS posts this same trash on different threads, where it has already been refuted. What a shame that he lacks the integrity that would prevent him from doing that. "

And to think you are the Information Literacy Librarian
at University of South Florida - Tampa Campus Library
http://www.tblc.org/newtblc/members/showperso... [record_id]=585

You can't even formulate a simple few sentences with any continuity. It just goes to show that any idiot can be a librarian. Or that any evolutionist can be an idiot.

The readers should shoot you an email at the site address and coach you how to rewrite what you posted to have continuity in the embarrassingly few sentences that you stumbled on.

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 22, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
From doing what?
Your sentences makes no sense.
Ah ha! We've found the problem.

JRS is incapable of understanding that sentences have to do with one another. Everything he reads is a complete independent statement with no attachment to anything that came before or after.

No wonder he fails so miserably at science and logic

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
May 22, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
From doing what?
From posting material that has already been refuted, as I said.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 22, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
And to think you are...
Funny that you can't seem to admit who *you* are. Are you that ashamed of what you write?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 22, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
From doing what?
Your sentences makes no sense.
Using JRS's own brand of "logic", his statement "Your sentences makes no sense" itself makes no sense, as it fails to identify who "Your" refers to.(It also makes no sense to say "sentences makes", because it should be either "sentences make" or "sentence makes". Poor JRS, he can't even keep his grammar straight.)

As Nuggin pointed out, JRS apparently ignores context when he reads, and as a result, fails to understand what he reads.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
May 22, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
It is obvious to the casual observer that evolutionists on this forum don't really believe in evolution as much as they just desperately want to prove creationism wrong. Blah blah blah
It is obvious to the casual reader that the "creationists" on this forum don't really have anything of any substance to either invalidate the Theory of Evolution or support their own position.

This explains the DESPERATION on the part of the "creationists" because they know they are losing the battle.

They have to resort to marketing schemes, strong arm political tactics, apologetics, misinformation, propaganda, quote-mining, flat out LYING and threats of eternal damnation to "convince" people that their childish, goat-herder interpretation of a bronze age book of myth, fables and fairy tales is "scientifically valid".

4000+ years worth of "creation science" with NOTHING to show for it. 4000+ years, NO results. 4000+ years, not a single shred of supporting evidence. Heck, they can't even find the big wooden boat, and their "science textbook tells them EXACTLY where to look.

On the other hand the Theory of Evolution has support from BILLIONS of bits of information, data and empirical evidence, studied and researched by MILLIONS of scientists and technicians, from EVERY scientific discipline, from EVERY religious denomination, in TENS OF THOUSANDS of museums, universities, research laboratories, excavation sites, observatories, hospitals, etc. all around the world.

REAL science, based firmly on LOGIC, REASON, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, RESEARCH and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, producing RESULTS on a DAILY basis.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
May 22, 2010
 
The casual reader will note that the "creationists" can NEVER point to anything that "creation science" has ever come up with. ALL they ever do is try to point out what they think is wrong with science, usually without understanding the science that they are criticizing. What they SHOULD be doing is some research and science that "proves" their "creationism".

There are any number of scientific observations that would support "creation science". A partial list might include the following:

1) Adam and Eve's mummified remains. This would support "creation science".

2) Archeological evidence of the Garden of Eden. This would support "creation science".

3) Botanical evidence of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge and an analyses of the chemical properties of their fruit which could impart knowledge and immortal life. This would support "creation science".

4) Cherubim fossils. This would support "creation science".

5) Archaeological evidence of giants. This would support "creation science".

6) Fossil evidence of unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs, angels and demons. This would support "creation science".

7) Fossil remains of snakes with vocal chords. This would support "creation science".

8) Metallurgical/anthropological evidence of the massive flaming sword that guarded the entrance to Eden. This would support "creation science".

9) Medical/anthropological evidence of certain members of a small Middle Eastern bronze age tribe living 600+ years. This would support "creation science".

10) The ark. This would support "creation science".

11) Positive scientific evidence for the process a global flood uses to create thousands of sedimentary layers of varying compositions miles deep. This would support "creation science".

12) Fossil remains of dinos mixed in with those of Noah's neighbors. This would support "creation science".

13) Evidence for the hyperspeciation and radial migration away from a single point in the Middle East beginning approximately 4000 years ago, of EVERY living organism we find today. This would support "creation science".

14) Anthropological/DNA evidence that all the peoples of the earth are descended from 6 people approximately 4000 years ago (assuming Noah, who was exactly 600 years and two months old when the flood started, and his wife were too old to have children). This would support "creation science".

15) Archaeological/anthropological evidence that all the pre-existing civilizations that were destroyed by the global flood were repopulated by Noah's children mere months after the flood and that they immediately took up writing and recording the histories of those destroyed civilizations in the various languages as if the flood never happened. This would support "creation science".

16) Positive empirical evidence that EVERY dating method (using diverse dating methods and from diverse scientific disciplines) is incorrect (some by factors of MILLIONS). This would support "creation science".

17) Geological empirical evidence that the earth is only a few thousands of years old. This would support "creation science".

18) Cosmological/astronomical empirical evidence that the universe is only a few thousands of years old. This would support "creation science"..

Etc.

.
.
.

Amazingly, NO such evidence has ever been found ... despite 4000+ years worth of "creation scientists" looking for it.

Heck, even people like "juniors" can't question this very obvious FACT. Of course, he will refuse to ever acknowledge it and will quickly try to change the subject if it ever comes up.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
May 22, 2010
 
The evolutionists on this forum are such incredible amateurs.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
May 22, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
...
There is no declaration of what I should be doing but don't:
You don't get it.
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
"JRS posts this same trash on different threads, where it has already been refuted. What a shame that he lacks the integrity that would prevent him from doing that. "
...
It's not just the same trash on different threads but you repeat it incessantly. You may think that if you post it enough times that it might make sense to someone beside yourself but it just ain't gonna happen.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
May 22, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
The evolutionists on this forum are such incredible amateurs.
We're still kicking your a$$, Mr. "professional creationist".
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
May 22, 2010
 
Hey, "juniors" how much do you get paid for being a "professional creationist"? Do you work in the "creation science" marketing department or their legislative lobbying group? Do you do the door to door proselytizing or are you in "creation science" education and destroying the futures of little children like malarkeyman11?

Obviously, we KNOW you don't work in research, because everyone KNOWS that "creation science" doesn't do science.

Do you get a special parking space out front of your church?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
May 22, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
The evolutionists on this forum are such incredible amateurs.
Lacking any actual ability to refute the theory of evolution, JRS resorts to personal insults. Has he no shame?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••

Berkeley News Video

•••
•••

Berkeley Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Berkeley People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Berkeley News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Berkeley
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••