Australopithecus sediba and the creationist response

The upper limbs are long, and similar to other australopithecines. Many features of the hip, knee and ankle bones show it was bipedal, like other australopithecines, but the foot bones are still quite primitive. However Berger et al. list many other features of the skull, teeth, and pelvis in which it resembles early Homo fossils.

Fascinating image of MH1 showing the actual bones superimposed over the speculative majority of missing stuff. I like jigsaw puzzles but my hat is off to the folks who created so much from so little. Well done.

I hope they find more and can piece together a more definitive lineage.

"In spite of having an almost complete skull of sediba, AIG still can’t decide whether it’s an ape or a human. The fact that they can’t tell is strong evidence that it is intermediate, because modern apes and humans are extremely easy to distinguish."

I don't think AIG's inability to distinguish fossils - these or any others - ever qualifies as "strong evidence."

Chris said: "In spite of having an almost complete skull of sediba, AIG still can’t decide whether it’s an ape or a human. The fact that they can’t tell is strong evidence that it is intermediate, because modern apes and humans are extremely easy to distinguish." I don't think AIG's inability to distinguish fossils - these or any others - ever qualifies as "strong evidence."

AiG is not a scientific group but a political one. Their opinion on science is like asking George W Bush about the constitution. There is no connection.

Thomas even disputes the claim that sediba was bipedal, saying:

"Really, they didn't find any shoes!"

How odd. I have read this post 10 minutes are returning from Maropeng at the Cradle of Humankind (http://www.maropeng.co.za/) where I saw the very same picture as in this post, but life-size, along with heaps of other hominid fossils and fossil replicas.

If they can’t tell if it’s an ape or a human, they obviously can’t rule out the possibility that it is an intermediate.

Sounds like the hobbit has freaked AIG out. Are they abandoning brain size as a criteria for membership in Homo?

afarensis, FCD said: Sounds like the hobbit has freaked AIG out. Are they abandoning brain size as a criteria for membership in Homo?

AIG: When complete fossils are found, they are easy to assign clearly as either ‘ape’ or human, there are only ‘ape-men’ where imagination colored by belief in evolution is applied to fragmented bits and pieces.

The researchers found "hints of a potential brain remnant," as well as "what could be fossilised [sic] insect eggs." ... to expect someone to believe that brain tissue escaped decay for 1.9 million years is asking far too much.

MikeMa said: Fascinating image of MH1 showing the actual bones superimposed over the speculative majority of missing stuff. I like jigsaw puzzles but my hat is off to the folks who created so much from so little. Well done. I hope they find more and can piece together a more definitive lineage.

MikeMa said: AiG is not a scientific group but a political one. Their opinion on science is like asking George W Bush about the constitution. There is no connection.

Just to get back on topic, yes, that piece from Carl is an excellent summary as to what we ought to see with regards to the "shape" of the hominim family tree across the period from approximately 3.5 to 1.8 million years ago. At the very least, this new fossil merely illustrates not only that the australopith phylogenetic "bush" was wider than we thought, but does illuminate a bit more knowledge regarding how the earliest Homo hominims divulged from their australopith relatives.

As for the nonsense from AiG and ICR, I'll leave at that, since it's mendacious intellectual pornography that I have no desire to comment further on

John Kwok said: Don't want this to digress into a political battle, but if you want to take a swipe at Bush, then, sadly, a virtually identical observation can be made for the present POTUS:

MikeMa said: AiG is not a scientific group but a political one. Their opinion on science is like asking George W Bush about the constitution. There is no connection.

This find just increases the number of gaps!!111!!!eleven!!!

Just a minor quibble "but the foot bones are still quite primitive" could be read as implying some directionality in evolution. "but the foot bones are more similar to earlier fossils" would have been better.

DiscoveredJoys said: Just a minor quibble "but the foot bones are still quite primitive" could be read as implying some directionality in evolution. "but the foot bones are more similar to earlier fossils" would have been better.

RBH said:

MikeMa said: Fascinating image of MH1 showing the actual bones superimposed over the speculative majority of missing stuff. I like jigsaw puzzles but my hat is off to the folks who created so much from so little. Well done. I hope they find more and can piece together a more definitive lineage.

There's another specimen, MH2, that adds some additional information. I suggest that "speculative" is inappropriate. Reconstruction of hypothesized skeletal anatomy from bits and pieces is not an exercise in free-floating speculation. Read a bit about Cuvier for an introduction to some of the techniques that were worked out well before Darwin.

RBH said:

MikeMa said: Fascinating image of MH1 showing the actual bones superimposed over the speculative majority of missing stuff. I like jigsaw puzzles but my hat is off to the folks who created so much from so little. Well done. I hope they find more and can piece together a more definitive lineage.

There's another specimen, MH2, that adds some additional information. I suggest that "speculative" is inappropriate. Reconstruction of hypothesized skeletal anatomy from bits and pieces is not an exercise in free-floating speculation. Read a bit about Cuvier for an introduction to some of the techniques that were worked out well before Darwin.

Even if the mainstream news doesn't cover this accurately, or if anti-evolutionists still want to tow the party line and call it a "mere ape," I still get all giddy over finds like this. I love it when we find pieces of the puzzle that increase our knowledge of the natural world; it fills me with hope for our species.

One last gripe: it was depressing to see how many newspaper headlines used the term “missing link”.

e-dogg said: I like this little gem from the ICR article:

The researchers found "hints of a potential brain remnant," as well as "what could be fossilised [sic] insect eggs." ... to expect someone to believe that brain tissue escaped decay for 1.9 million years is asking far too much.

I'm not sure who actually asked this guy to believe that, but I suspect it's the voices in his head...

Chris said: I don't think AIG's inability to distinguish fossils - these or any others - ever qualifies as "strong evidence."

e-dogg said: I like this little gem from the ICR article:

The researchers found "hints of a potential brain remnant," as well as "what could be fossilised [sic] insect eggs."

AiG seems to be overly cautious about making any positive claims lately. They did the exact same thing with the Noah's Ark story. I guess they finally got burned one too many times. Perhaps they are capable of learning.

i think AIG gave a intelligent and conservative responce.
First creationists are not studying these bits of bones.
So the only way to judge is from reports of how alike they are with humans or apes.
In fact there is a great sameness between people and apes in mere skeleton looks.
It probably is just apes of a type.
The clincher would be if a female was found in which it could be seen if the body had the configuration that would give pain at childbirth like our women.
Animals, apes, don't have pain for structural reasons.

Robert Byers said: ... The clincher would be if a female was found in which it could be seen if the body had the configuration that would give pain at childbirth like our women. Animals, apes, don't have pain for structural reasons.

Robert Byers said: i think AIG gave a intelligent and conservative responce.

First creationists are not studying these bits of bones.

So the only way to judge is from reports of how alike they are with humans or apes.

In fact there is a great sameness between people and apes in mere skeleton looks. It probably is just apes of a type.

The clincher would be if a female was found in which it could be seen if the body had the configuration that would give pain at childbirth like our women. Animals, apes, don't have pain for structural reasons.

Jim Foley said:

Robert Byers said: ... The clincher would be if a female was found in which it could be seen if the body had the configuration that would give pain at childbirth like our women. Animals, apes, don't have pain for structural reasons.

Just a warning: we are not going to have another interminable discussion about whether animals feel pain giving birth! That topic was beaten to death in the recent hobbit thread.

Article seems like wishful thinking. AIG hasn't changed position.

AIG: When *complete* fossils are found, they are easy to assign clearly as either ‘ape’ or human...

PT: In spite of having an almost complete skull of sediba, AIG still can’t decide whether it’s an ape or a human.

I'd bet AIG doesn't have "an almost complete skull," or even seen more of it than the picture in the article.

AIG: The bones have been examined by only one group of scientists... Creationists, in particular, do not routinely have access to such finds until much time has passed...

According to Thomas, AIG says "the bones have been examined by only one group of scientists."

According to mplavcan, "the team is being very good at showing the fossils around."

Major discrepancy there.

Apparently, AIG has come up with their new position that they won't assign human or ape status until the fossil is "complete." Since even well-preserved skeletons like the Neanderthal of La Chappelle-aux-Saints are probably missing a few small pieces, that means AIG never has to choose at all, do they? Seems like a major retreat to me.

hoary puccoon said: According to Thomas, AIG says "the bones have been examined by only one group of scientists." According to mplavcan, "the team is being very good at showing the fossils around." Major discrepancy there. Apparently, AIG has come up with their new position that they won't assign human or ape status until the fossil is "complete." Since even well-preserved skeletons like the Neanderthal of La Chappelle-aux-Saints are probably missing a few small pieces, that means AIG never has to choose at all, do they? Seems like a major retreat to me.

I don't really care what AIG or Byers think. Clearly this is an intermediate between ancestral apes and modern humans by any reasonable definition.

I also don't want this to degrade into another "pain of childbirth" fiasco. However, I would just like to point out in passing that in a recent National Geographic program, they documented attempts to reintroduce bison into wilderness areas. One scene showed a female who had complications with a delivery and died after a prolonged period of suffering. If Robert thinks that humans are the only animal that suffers during childbirth, or that this is somehow a species specific character, he should give it a try. Until then he should keep his ignorant opinions to himself.

What happened to it is that creationists have been slapped around by reality:

Article seems like wishful thinking. AIG hasn't changed position.

AIG: When *complete* fossils are found, they are easy to assign clearly as either ‘ape’ or human...

PT: In spite of having an almost complete skull of sediba, AIG still can’t decide whether it’s an ape or a human.

I'd bet AIG doesn't have "an almost complete skull," or even seen more of it than the picture in the article.

AIG: The bones have been examined by only one group of scientists... Creationists, in particular, do not routinely have access to such finds until much time has passed...

No doubt AIG will claim they cannot distinguish between ape or human because they won't be given direct access to these bones.

If you follow AIG very much you will recall that they often bemoan the fact that 'evolutionist' scientists won't allow creationist 'scientists' to examine their fossils.

Why don't creationist 'scientists' go find their own hominid fossils? Why not do some real science instead of spending millions on a creationist museum? Why not find their own hominids and put the lie of evolution to rest once and for all? (And win the Nobel Prize for doing it!)

I'd like Ken Ham to answer that one. (Although I can guess the answer.)

Stanton said:

Jim Foley said:

Robert Byers said: ... The clincher would be if a female was found in which it could be seen if the body had the configuration that would give pain at childbirth like our women. Animals, apes, don't have pain for structural reasons.

Just a warning: we are not going to have another interminable discussion about whether animals feel pain giving birth! That topic was beaten to death in the recent hobbit thread.

Robert Byers is too stupid to care that he's wrong. Or that he's lying out of his ass.

John Vanko said: No doubt AIG will claim they cannot distinguish between ape or human because they won't be given direct access to these bones. If you follow AIG very much you will recall that they often bemoan the fact that 'evolutionist' scientists won't allow creationist 'scientists' to examine their fossils. Why don't creationist 'scientists' go find their own hominid fossils? Why not do some real science instead of spending millions on a creationist museum? Why not find their own hominids and put the lie of evolution to rest once and for all? (And win the Nobel Prize for doing it!) I'd like Ken Ham to answer that one. (Although I can guess the answer.)

John Kwok said: Wish you didn't indulge in yet another instance of feeding that incorrgible troll, Booby Byers. I'm seriously thinking of ignoring him next time:

Stanton said:

Jim Foley said:

Robert Byers said: ... The clincher would be if a female was found in which it could be seen if the body had the configuration that would give pain at childbirth like our women. Animals, apes, don't have pain for structural reasons.

Just a warning: we are not going to have another interminable discussion about whether animals feel pain giving birth! That topic was beaten to death in the recent hobbit thread.

Robert Byers is too stupid to care that he's wrong. Or that he's lying out of his ass.

John Vanko :
...Why don’t creationist ‘scientists’ go find their own hominid fossils? Why not do some real science instead of spending millions on a creationist museum? Why not find their own hominids and put the lie of evolution to rest once and for all? (And win the Nobel Prize for doing it!...

I understand your frustration, but think how awful that would be. Suppose by some strange mischance they actually found an important fossil. Creationists by definition don't have the requisite scientific training, so all information about its context would be lost (they know its less than 6000 years old, so why use radiometric dating on the rock strata it was found in?). They wouldn't be able to identify it or properly publish it. They certainly wouldn't allow real scientists to examine it.

Helena Constantine said: Suppose by some strange mischance they actually found an important fossil. Creationists by definition don't have the requisite scientific training, so all information about its context would be lost (they know its less than 6000 years old, so why use radiometric dating on the rock strata it was found in?). They wouldn't be able to identify it or properly publish it. They certainly wouldn't allow real scientists to examine it.

stevaroni said:

Helena Constantine said: Suppose by some strange mischance they actually found an important fossil. Creationists by definition don't have the requisite scientific training, so all information about its context would be lost (they know its less than 6000 years old, so why use radiometric dating on the rock strata it was found in?). They wouldn't be able to identify it or properly publish it. They certainly wouldn't allow real scientists to examine it.

You mean like the group that claims they've found Noah's Ark... Q. "How do you know it's 4800 years old" A. "We know it's that old because that's when Noah's Ark was made" Q. "I only see one small room in the picture" A. "We know there will be more as soon as we dig it out". Q. "Maybe it's something else". A. "That's impossible - what else could it be? Q. "Where is this structure". A. "That's a secret." etc...

Keelyn said: Actually, they say it's already been carbon dated (that was quick). I assume that's the same carbon dating creationists say is so unreliable.

Stanton said: If we should not feed the troll, then why is the troll allowed to post the exact same stupidity on every thread with absolute impunity?

John Kwok said: Wish you didn't indulge in yet another instance of feeding that incorrgible troll, Booby Byers. I'm seriously thinking of ignoring him next time:

Stanton said:

Jim Foley said:

Robert Byers said: ... The clincher would be if a female was found in which it could be seen if the body had the configuration that would give pain at childbirth like our women. Animals, apes, don't have pain for structural reasons.

Just a warning: we are not going to have another interminable discussion about whether animals feel pain giving birth! That topic was beaten to death in the recent hobbit thread.

Robert Byers is too stupid to care that he's wrong. Or that he's lying out of his ass.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/latest_ark_finding_is_a_fake.php I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details). To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut's men to the site saw the wood, but couldn't get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters - something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.

You know, I actually don't mind Byer's ranting. He's so disconnected from reality that I find him funny, and unlike AIG or the No Discoveries Institute, he's got no ability to influence people.

cosmosmagazine.com: Christians attack hominids in Kenya museum Saturday, 9 September 2006by Lillian Omariba NAIROBI, Kenya, 9 September 2006: The debate between scientists and conservative Christians over evolution has hit Kenya, where an exhibit of one of the world's finest collections of early hominid fossils is under threat. As the famed National Museum of Kenya prepares to re-open in 2007 after massive European Union-funded renovations, local evangelicals are demanding the display be removed or at least shunted to a less prominent location. The Origins of Man exhibit, comprised of prehistoric finds from around Africa's Great Rift Valley considered by many to be the cradle of humanity, is offensive as it promotes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, they say. "When museums put it out there that man evolved from apes, theologically they are affecting many people who are Christians, who believe God created us," said Bishop Boniface Adoyo, who is leading a campaign against the exhibit. "It's creating a big weapon against Christians that's killing our faith," he added, calling evolution theory an "insult" and dangerous to youths. "When children go to museums they'll start believing we evolved from these apes. This is not the truth," said Adoyo, pastor of Nairobi's Christ is the Answer Ministries and chairman of the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, which claims to represent churches of 35 denominations with nine million members. "I can't stand it, neither can other Christians."

The Ark is a fake. Even Price, below, who is a Liberty U. creationist says it is.

— raven

There is a good reason why no one wants creationists anywhere near hominid fossils. There have been threats against the fossils themselves in the past and everyone is afraid they might simply destroy them.

— raven

Poor AIG-- trying to sell a radical theory without any evidence. Here's a tip. The Smithsonian website has a large collection of hominid fossils available for study online.

But if it's really true that those mean ol' scientists won't give AIG access to research materials-- then why on earth should we pay attention to anything AIG has to say about human origins, when they freely admit their conclusions are based on absolutely no data?

raven said: I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. ... In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site.... I was there at the time and knew about the hoax

stevaroni said: Well, that didn't take long. Creationists are not only bad scientists, they're not even good lairs.

Dave Luckett said:

stevaroni said: Well, that didn't take long. Creationists are not only bad scientists, they're not even good lairs.

No, most creationists are not sharp dressers. Flash as a rat with a gold tooth. (Little Australian joke, there.)

raven said: There is a good reason why no one wants creationists anywhere near hominid fossils. There have been threats against the fossils themselves in the past and everyone is afraid they might simply destroy them.

In support of Mike Elzinga's point... Consider Forrest Mims (very) short job with _Scientific American_ and just *why* it was so short.

As a very interested lay-person, and just looking at the bones shown on the given picture, I would assume the following:1.) The skull, jaw, and teeth, are well preserved, giving 'experts'(ie. people who actually study this stuff)significant information about diet, and relative intelligence, including insights into possible language abilities; perhaps. 2.)The elongated arm and shortened leg suggest intermediate characteristics between apes and hominids; but I'll let the people that understand anatomy interpret this for me, not being an expert myself you understand.3.)But most significantly, the hip-thigh joint which suggests upright locomotion, or so I am reliably informed by experts who study this every hour, of almost every day, of their lives, and dammit, I am actually persuaded.

Now, what does Mr Byers come up with? Sorry, but that ham sandwich has just got to be kicked in his nethers!

They have the femur, including its ball-joint, and the pronounced curve at the top that anchors the gluteus medius muscle. Most of the acetabulum is also evident. The angle of the ball with the neck of the femur is close to the human standard of 125 degrees. Separately these would strongly indicate upright bipedal walking, but together are quite definite. The icing on the cake would be a knee-joint.

Interestingly, this looks somewhat less gracile than A. afarensis, especially about the arms and shoulders, and this might support the conclusion of the discovery team, that this is a late Australopithecine, not ancestral to humans. That is, this is not a forebear, it's a cousin.

robert van bakel said: As a very interested lay-person, and just looking at the bones shown on the given picture, I would assume the following:1.) The skull, jaw, and teeth, are well preserved, giving 'experts'(ie. people who actually study this stuff)significant information about diet, and relative intelligence, including insights into possible language abilities; perhaps. 2.)The elongated arm and shortened leg suggest intermediate characteristics between apes and hominids; but I'll let the people that understand anatomy interpret this for me, not being an expert myself you understand.3.)But most significantly, the hip-thigh joint which suggests upright locomotion, or so I am reliably informed by experts who study this every hour, of almost every day, of their lives, and dammit, I am actually persuaded. Now, what does Mr Byers come up with? Sorry, but that ham sandwich has just got to be kicked in his nethers!

Now, what does Mr Byers come up with?

raven said: So, the creationist god fools his creatures by making the 6,000 year old earth look 4.6 billion years old and then sends them to hell to be tortured for eternity when they don't believe in it.

stevaroni said:

raven said: So, the creationist god fools his creatures by making the 6,000 year old earth look 4.6 billion years old and then sends them to hell to be tortured for eternity when they don't believe in it.

Not only that, but he makes everything work like it's the end product of a billion-year proscess, to the point that you really can't do serious medicine or agriculture or animal husbandry without treating the physical world exactly as if it is not only evolved, but as if evolution is a continuing process.

Congrats on not getting into it with the troll, folks... I know I am usually total troll-bait. It's hard to resist antagonism, but it helps in this case that it's so transparently a cry for attention. (Same off-topic subject that elicited several replies before? Really?)

On topic, nice post, Stevaroni. I dismissed the "god tricked you" theory of planted evidence so quick I hadn't noticed that obvious extension of it. The "false evidence" God or Satan or whoever planted must be ongoing...

When creationists try to pigeonhole these fossils into man or ape, what do we call it? Is there a category tag for it? It happens often enough.

CS Shelton said: Congrats on not getting into it with the troll, folks... I know I am usually total troll-bait. It's hard to resist antagonism, but it helps in this case that it's so transparently a cry for attention. (Same off-topic subject that elicited several replies before? Really?) On topic, nice post, Stevaroni. I dismissed the "god tricked you" theory of planted evidence so quick I hadn't noticed that obvious extension of it. The "false evidence" God or Satan or whoever planted must be ongoing... When creationists try to pigeonhole these fossils into man or ape, what do we call it? Is there a category tag for it? It happens often enough.

Vince said:

stevaroni said:

raven said: So, the creationist god fools his creatures by making the 6,000 year old earth look 4.6 billion years old and then sends them to hell to be tortured for eternity when they don't believe in it.

Not only that, but he makes everything work like it's the end product of a billion-year proscess, to the point that you really can't do serious medicine or agriculture or animal husbandry without treating the physical world exactly as if it is not only evolved, but as if evolution is a continuing process.

But you CAN do serious medicine, agriculture, animal husbandry, and even chemistry without even having to consider evolution AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM! Professionals of all sorts do so every day. The real question is: HOW DO YOU GET THEM TO THINK? The answer, sad to say, is that in most cases you CAN'T - and this comes after 30 plus years of trying to educate, entertain, and inculcate students in "higher education". (Can you tell I just finished grading my intro and non-major bio classes and am feeling, well, sort of depressed...).

Apehole? Nice one, Vince.

Hm... How about "He ain't monkey, He's my brother" ? Too long... Um, "ApeHomoSaysWhat?" no... I got nothing.

CS Shelton said: Apehole? Nice one, Vince. Hm... How about "He ain't monkey, He's my brother" ? Too long... Um, "ApeHomoSaysWhat?" no... I got nothing.

Thomas said: Article seems like wishful thinking. AIG hasn't changed position. AIG: When *complete* fossils are found, they are easy to assign clearly as either ‘ape’ or human... PT: In spite of having an almost complete skull of sediba, AIG still can’t decide whether it’s an ape or a human. I'd bet AIG doesn't have "an almost complete skull," or even seen more of it than the picture in the article.

AIG: The bones have been examined by only one group of scientists... Creationists, in particular, do not routinely have access to such finds until much time has passed...

This is a bit off topic, but I know of a major paleontological discovery which will be published soon. Can't say anything more about it since it is embargoed news until the scientific paper is published. Will be fascinating to see how - or whether will - the usual agitprop creo mendacious intellectual pornographers (e. g. Ham, Luskin, Nelson) will react once it is published (And no, it's not another australopithecine fossil.).

John Kwok said: This is a bit off topic, but I know of a major paleontological discovery which will be published soon. Can't say anything more about it since it is embargoed news until the scientific paper is published. Will be fascinating to see how - or whether will - the usual agitprop creo mendacious intellectual pornographers (e. g. Ham, Luskin, Nelson) will react once it is published (And no, it's not another australopithecine fossil.).

But you CAN do serious medicine, agriculture, animal husbandry, and even chemistry without even having to consider evolution AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM!

The very fact that people can do good work in agriculture, medicine, etc., while mindlessly reciting "the world is 6000 years old. Species are fixed," proves evolution is a fact.

True story: A member of a biblical-literalist church got the plumb job of managing a church-owned cattle ranch. Since he 'knew' evolution was 'just a theory' he 'knew' he could ignore breeding programs and save the church money by buying the cheapest bulls on the market. His boss, also a biblical literalist who supposedly didn't 'believe' in evolution, took one look and said, "Get your knife out and cut [i.e., castrate] those things. They won't even make good steers." But the manager was strong in his belief that evolution was 'just a theory.'
As a result, the ranch's calf weaning weights plummeted, the manager was fired and his boss hired a manager who denied evolution on Sunday morning, but treated it as fact all the rest of the week.

Evolution is a fact because even people who don't 'believe' in the 'theory' have to accept that it's true to get their jobs done.

For the very reason I gave. Am sure the creos will miss completely its significance (of which more will be known quite soon, trust me). Am eagerly awaiting whether they'll be as dense as they have been with this new hominid.

John Kwok said: This is a bit off topic, but I know of a major paleontological discovery which will be published soon. Can't say anything more about it since it is embargoed news until the scientific paper is published. Will be fascinating to see how - or whether will - the usual agitprop creo mendacious intellectual pornographers (e. g. Ham, Luskin, Nelson) will react once it is published (And no, it's not another australopithecine fossil.).

robert van bakel said: As a very interested lay-person, and just looking at the bones shown on the given picture, I would assume the following:1.) The skull, jaw, and teeth, are well preserved, giving 'experts'(ie. people who actually study this stuff)significant information about diet, and relative intelligence, including insights into possible language abilities; perhaps. 2.)The elongated arm and shortened leg suggest intermediate characteristics between apes and hominids; but I'll let the people that understand anatomy interpret this for me, not being an expert myself you understand.3.)But most significantly, the hip-thigh joint which suggests upright locomotion, or so I am reliably informed by experts who study this every hour, of almost every day, of their lives, and dammit, I am actually persuaded. Now, what does Mr Byers come up with? Sorry, but that ham sandwich has just got to be kicked in his nethers!

It's called "evidence", Byers. I know you don't understand the idea. Just as you can't understand the difference between expert evaluation of it and your own ignorance, prejudice and unreason.

It’s called “evidence”, Byers. I know you don’t understand the idea.

— Dave Luckett

Your contrariness comes easily. Indeed if its not just about “experts” then why not list points? First intelligence is not from skull size. There is no evidence that measuring heads determines intelligence, but if it is useful in distinguishing apes and humans. All they can do is speculate on intelligence by how close the head size is to people, which is plenty good enough since intelligence is not the issue. Many historically did it with people too by the way, which is irrelevant. Gibberish. If legs/arms are widely not like people then they are just apes of a type, even though they have combinations of characters that are distinctly human. I don’t know about the hip/thigh thing. However it shouldn’t just suggest but determine if a creature is upright. By the way if so then by evolutionists position the women should be having pain at birth like ours and unlike apes, which is also completely irrelevant, since this is not considered to be a species characteristic by anyone. Drawing such great conclusions on a few skeletons is poor research, so it is a good thing that we have lots of skeletons of many different intermediates. Creationists could do better as usual, but as usual they don't do anything but whine and complain.

Robert Byers said:

robert van bakel said: As a very interested lay-person, and just looking at the bones shown on the given picture, I would assume the following:1.) The skull, jaw, and teeth, are well preserved, giving 'experts'(ie. people who actually study this stuff)significant information about diet, and relative intelligence, including insights into possible language abilities; perhaps. 2.)The elongated arm and shortened leg suggest intermediate characteristics between apes and hominids; but I'll let the people that understand anatomy interpret this for me, not being an expert myself you understand.3.)But most significantly, the hip-thigh joint which suggests upright locomotion, or so I am reliably informed by experts who study this every hour, of almost every day, of their lives, and dammit, I am actually persuaded. Now, what does Mr Byers come up with? Sorry, but that ham sandwich has just got to be kicked in his nethers!

Your persuasion comes easily. Indeed if its just about "experts" then why list points? First intelligence is not from skull size. There is no evidence that measuring heads determines intelligence. All they can do is speculate on intelligence by how close the head size is to people. Many historically did it with people too by the way. Gibberish. If legs/arms are widely not like people then they are just apes of a type. I don't know about the hip/thigh thing. However it shouldn't just suggest but determine if a creature is upright. By the way if so then by evolutionists position the women should be having pain at birth like ours and unlike apes. Drawing such great conclusions on a few skeletons is poor research. Creationists could do better as usual.

John Kwok said: Don’t want this to digress into a political battle, but if you want to take a swipe at Bush, then, sadly, a virtually identical observation can be made for the present POTUS:

MikeMa said: AiG is not a scientific group but a political one. Their opinion on science is like asking George W Bush about the constitution. There is no connection.

President Obama is a trained attorney, who graduated from one of the nation's top law schools. It would be perfectly fair to say that you nevertheless disagree with his opinion about the constitution, or that you believe that his policies are not always consistent with his demonstrated exposure to and ability to understand the constitution. In fact, I believe the second statement myself. But to suggest that there is "no connection" between his opinions and established constitutional expertise is simply incorrect, based on his educational background and record of public statements. No more comments on this matter from me.

Guys, PLEASE go to a different forum for political discussions.

but my hat is off to the folks who created so much from so little.

Alex H said: Guys, PLEASE go to a different forum for political discussions.