herpguy Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 The skull of what may be the "missing link" between us humans and Homo Erectus may have been discovered in Ethiopia. The skull was a rare find, as it had almost all of its pieces. It is from a time that little is known about, the time where Homo Erectus made its transition into Homo Sapiens, some time around 250,000 years ago. Hopefully, the skull will tell us more about this time and how humans have evolved. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060327/ap_on_re_af/ethiopia_ancient_skull;_ylt=AnnG.29CXodh.7NcIlFvP_0PLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 on christianityforums.com, someone thinks it is good for creationism. she thinks it is "another missing link hoax." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 on christianityforums.com, someone thinks it is good for creationism. she thinks it is "another missing link hoax." unless it a scientist trying to make a name for himself, it doesn't look that way to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 What would it matter to them even if it were a hoax? We already have a bunch of other possible "missing links" between the two as it is. Even if this one was fake, it wouldn't mar the validity of the others. Of course they claim they're all hoaxes or misinterpretations too.... Anywho, more and more the term "missing link" is starting to bug me for some reason. Maybe it's just the public's mangled interpretation of the term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Anywho, more and more the term "missing link" is starting to bug me for some reason. Maybe it's just the public's mangled interpretation of the term. I know what you mean... whenever I hear the term 'missing link' I think of some sort of Ape-man dressed as a lawyer walking around New York city. Like those SNL skits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silkworm Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Anywho, more and more the term "missing link" is starting to bug me for some reason. True, this is another unfortunate dramatization that skews the perception of science. Tracing species B back to species A will not have a transitional species A+B/2 which I think is what everyone is expecting. Evolution is a gradual process where many things are effected through generations. There are many many many links along the way, and I'm sure many of those will never be found. Unfortunately this missing link term seems to imply in the public's mind that we'll find an A+B/2 between human and ape, which if one were found won't satisfy skeptics because what A+B/2 is cannot be clearly defined. AP are these the skulls you showed me earlier? I just heard about this and want to see them. But the way, here's a link to a picture of a man holding the skull in question. http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/news/images/news_gawis_hominid_lg.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 AP are these the skulls you showed me earlier? I just heard about this and want to see them. Naw, these are an as of yet unnamed human species somewhere between sapiens and the much older erectus; the ones I showed you were Homo sapiens idaltu, a slightly older subspecies of Homo sapiens than we are (H.s.sapiens) Tracing species B back to species A will not have a transitional species A+B/2 which I think is what everyone is expecting. It's ridiculous, they wouldn't be satisfied unless the skeleton had half full-formed chimp-bones and half full-formed human-bones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silkworm Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Naw, these are an as of yet unnamed human species somewhere between sapiens and the much older erectus; the ones I showed you were Homo sapiens idaltu, a slightly older subspecies of Homo sapiens than we are (H.s.sapiens) Right. It's ridiculous, they wouldn't be satisfied unless the skeleton had half full-formed chimp-bones and half full-formed human-bones. Yeah, but what does that even mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Yeah, but what does that even mean? Hell if I know, it doesn't make any sense at all, but it's what the idiot's want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now