NationStates Jolt Archive

My apologies if this has come up in the last day, i've been busy.

I'm thinking this kind of information has been on the back burner too long - the sooner verification can be reasonably attained, the better.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-skull26.html

Skull found in Ethiopia could be a missing link

March 26, 2006

BY DAGNACHEW TEKLU




ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia -- Scientists in northeastern Ethiopia said Saturday they have discovered the skull of a small human ancestor that could be a missing link between the extinct Homo erectus and modern man.

The hominid cranium -- found in two pieces and believed to be between 500,000 and 250,000 years old -- "comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human," said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia.

Archeologists found the early human cranium five weeks ago at Gawis in Ethiopia's northeastern Afar region, Sileshi said.

Sileshi, an Ethiopian paleoanthropologist based at Indiana University, said most fossil hominids are found in pieces, but this near-complete skull provided a wealth of information.

The face and cranium of the fossil are recognizably different from that of modern humans, but the fossil also bears unmistakable anatomical evidence that it belongs to the modern human's ancestry, Sileshi said.

---
For people who want a little more angle on the issue ... :

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article353698.ece

This is what i consider to be a follow-up to a rather important find last April (or so) also in the Afar region of a series of skeletal remains that, although implicative in the same nature, caused less of a seemed declaration of "missing link".
If i can't find the in the Forum Archive, i'll post from my archives later.

EDIT: Here is an excellent link of skeletal sources/reference to this topic before this particular issue:

http://www.crystalinks.com/earlyhumanoids.html

-

This isn't the same source but this was the story garnering attention at the time of the issue in question:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121091108.htm
January 21, 2005
Anthropologists Find 4.5 Million-year-old Hominid Fossils In Ethiopia
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and seven other institutions have unearthed skeletal fossils of a human ancestor believed to have lived about 4.5 million years ago. The fossils, described in this week's Nature (Jan. 20), will help scientists piece together the mysterious transformation of primitive chimp-like hominids into more human forms.

(article continues)

Well, I guess this throws a wrench in the gears of my ultimate "That hair guy from high school, y'know the one.....HE'S the missing link" theory.

Stupid stupid stupid......that sucks. I need a new crackpot theory to run with.

Simonist']Well, I guess this throws a wrench in the gears of my ultimate "That hair guy from high school, y'know the one.....HE'S the missing link" theory.

Stupid stupid stupid......that sucks. I need a new crackpot theory to run with.
I have faith in your capacity for theory - don't rule out the guy having been temporally displaced and transplanted!
After all, Doctor Who is up running, new & "improved" on SciFi now!

Ah, i found the one i'm talking about (different source though):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1316872.htm
Saturday, March 5, 2005. 9:45pm (AEDT)
Scientists unearth world's oldest biped skeleton
A joint Ethiopian-United States team of paleontologists has announced the discovery of the world's oldest biped (two-footed) skeleton of a human ancestor to be unearthed so far, dating it to between 3.8 and four million years old.

"This is the world's oldest biped," Bruce Latimer, director of the natural history museum in Cleveland, Ohio, told a news conference in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa, adding that "it will revolutionise the way we see human evolution."

The bones were found three weeks ago in Ethiopia's Afar region, at a site some 60 kilometres from Hadar where Lucy, one of the first hominids, was discovered in 1974.

The Leakey Foundation, which funded the team who found Lucy, dates her 40 per cent intact skeleton back 2.8 million years, but other paleontological sources have said she may be as old as 3.2 million years.

Mr Latimer and his Ethiopian colleague Yohannes Haile-Selassie said the newly discovered skeleton had been determined to be capable of walking upright on two feet because of the nature of the ankle bone.

"I couldn't explain in detail how it walked yet," he said, "but looking at the ankle, we know it is a biped."

Researchers at the site in north-east Ethiopia have in all unearthed 12 hominid fossils, of which parts of one skeleton were discovered.

"Portions recovered thus far include a complete tibia, parts of a femur, ribs, vertebrae, a clavicle, pelvis, and a complete scapula of an adult," he said.

"Normally, you find one bone or two from an individual and you are happy. Now we have found parts of a skeleton, this is very rare.

"It says a lot more on the individual than isolated bones."

"But we have hundreds of pieces that have to be reconstructed and we haven't finished excavating ... it is already clear that the individual was larger than Lucy, it has longer legs than Lucy ... but it is older which is strange."

The skeleton is the fourth ancient hominid to be found since Lucy, with others discovered in Ethiopia and in South Africa.

The researchers have yet to determine the species and sex of the latest discovery.

what makes you think any 'link' was ever 'missing' in the first place?

=^^=
.../\...

what makes you think any 'link' was ever 'missing' in the first place?

=^^=
.../\...
Well, i'd say "undiscovered", or perhaps even "misplaced", but you know how people like catch phrases. And i, sad to say, aren't in charge of those kinds of things.

Unfortunately, this whole "missing link" issue is moot, if one knows anything about evolution at all. Evolution doesn't follow a straight transition from Species A turning instantly into Species B(which is what most people who are against evolution believe it does). Instead, Species A slowly changes so that it becomes Species B after a certain time.

Another problem with the damn people who say "Show me the missing link" is that once you find an intermediary specimen, they then want a "missing link" between that new species and us. Goddamn annoying.

So, onto the point: Meh. There are quite possibly thousands of different "missing links" out there, each one represent a closer and closer step towards us. There is no single "missing link".

Unfortunately, this whole "missing link" issue is moot, if one knows anything about evolution at all. Evolution doesn't follow a straight transition from Species A turning instantly into Species B(which is what most people who are against evolution believe it does). Instead, Species A slowly changes so that it becomes Species B after a certain time. Which is why i allotted a supplementary link clarifying.

Another problem with the damn people who say "Show me the missing link" is that once you find an intermediary specimen, they then want a "missing link" between that new species and us. Goddamn annoying. Shell games, yes indeed. I've been on the dis-gruntled end of that carousel. :mad:

So, onto the point: Meh. There are quite possibly thousands of different "missing links" out there, each one represent a closer and closer step towards us. There is no single "missing link".The difference is what we're able to find within region and timeframe, which is definitely narrowing it down. The difference is, the least amout of mutability while also being a fulcrum of interspecial reference, for which the posts on this thread are both current and specific to function.

Why are people always expecting a missing link? With all the hundreds of thousands of years that have gone by and with all the guessing games that anthropoligists do when finding something, how can we be sure of anything? As it always is with scientists you get one who says that it HAS to be THIS. but then another will say that the former is wrong and that it HAS to be THIS. I'd just ignore anything they say.

As it always is with scientists you get one who says that it HAS to be THIS. but then another will say that the former is wrong and that it HAS to be THIS. I'd just ignore anything they say.
It reads as such:
"Skull found in Ethiopia could be a missing link"

Perhaps thou doth protesteth too much?

It reads as such:
"Skull found in Ethiopia could be a missing link"

Perhaps thou doth protesteth too much?

Ah, or scientists will remain indecisive on an issue for eternity and no decision will be made one way or the other. Sorry I left that one out.

Unfortunately, this whole "missing link" issue is moot, if one knows anything about evolution at all. Evolution doesn't follow a straight transition from Species A turning instantly into Species B(which is what most people who are against evolution believe it does). Instead, Species A slowly changes so that it becomes Species B after a certain time.

Another problem with the damn people who say "Show me the missing link" is that once you find an intermediary specimen, they then want a "missing link" between that new species and us. Goddamn annoying.

So, onto the point: Meh. There are quite possibly thousands of different "missing links" out there, each one represent a closer and closer step towards us. There is no single "missing link".

Very good, right on. The term "missing link" was first used in the media rather than in the scientific community. Its just a catchy phrase that stuck, and continues to be used by religious fundamentalists that deny evolution. You won't find any scientific texts or institutions of worth talking about a link that is missing that bridges some inexplanable gap between one species and another.

This article is a good example of how the term "missing link", first created and used in the media, has become so popular that its still used in the media. There never was any real missing link, although they may have found a transitory specimen between two species.

Ah, or scientists will remain indecisive on an issue for eternity and no decision will be made one way or the other. Sorry I left that one out.
Now remember, the whole nature of scientific endeavour has been argued ad nauseum here, so i'll just leave you with that reminder.
As long as there is a reasonable option of doubt, as was pointed out earlier, SOMEONE will advocate. That's the beauty of the *scientific* aspect of the rigmarole.

You won't find any scientific texts or institutions of worth talking about a link that is missing that bridges some inexplanable gap between one species and another.Perhaps you should rephrase this.

This article is a good example of how the term "missing link", first created and used in the media, has become so popular that its still used in the media. There never was any real missing link, although they may have found a transitory specimen between two species.I've gone through a smidge of trouble qualifying the issue, and frankly, you're making it sound like you caught the title and didn't bother with the rest. Perhaps you'll argue the other links i provided the same way?

Perhaps you should rephrase this.

I've gone through a smidge of trouble qualifying the issue, and frankly, you're making it sound like you caught the title and didn't bother with the rest. Perhaps you'll argue the other links i provided the same way?

Like I stated, the term "missing link" is used by the media rather than the scientific community. Note that in the articles you provided, you have the media putting their spin on the story and saying "oh lookie, its a missing link." Its a term that generally isn't used in the scientific community. Just the term "missing link" gets a lot of play, because there is a common myth that there is some huge link missing between modern humans and our ancestors that is needed to prove evolution.

If I was unclear, there are transitory species and specimens that fall in between species in the fossil record. There are links, but there is no one grand "missing link" that everyone is questing for like those who deny evolution would have us think.

Like I stated, the term "missing link" is used by the media rather than the scientific community. Note that in the articles you provided, you have the media putting their spin on the story and saying "oh lookie, its a missing link." Its a term that generally isn't used in the scientific community. Just the term "missing link" gets a lot of play, because there is a common myth that there is some huge link missing between modern humans and our ancestors that is needed to prove evolution.
That's why i included more than just the media notice. The media notice indeed fulfills its function of getting people's attention, and that is why i did this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10647704&postcount=7
Well, i'd say "undiscovered", or perhaps even "misplaced", but you know how people like catch phrases. And i, sad to say, aren't in charge of those kinds of things.
-
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10653341&postcount=9
Which is why i allotted a supplementary link clarifying.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10647353&postcount=1
EDIT: Here is an excellent link of skeletal sources/reference to this topic before this particular issue:

http://www.crystalinks.com/earlyhumanoids.html
--

If I was unclear, there are transitory species and specimens that fall in between species in the fossil record. There are links, but there is no one grand "missing link" that everyone is questing for like those who deny evolution would have us think.Agreed. It ends up being a semantic argument, in large part, due superficial discrimination ... where an issue like "being first upright found" is the kind of thing that merits more definition to an argument of *a" "missing link".


Thank you for your clarification.

I think it's clear wat is going on here. Jesus made the skull and buried it to test our faith against proof when scientists eventually found it. Evolution! Pah:rolleyes:

I think it's clear wat is going on here. Jesus made the skull and buried it to test our faith against proof when scientists eventually found it. Evolution! Pah:rolleyes:
Actually, that just reinforces my faith in Jesus' willingness to betray and humiliate me, just like his old man.