13 Replies to “Washington Post’s ten fossils that explain life on Earth

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to this claim,,,

    10. Homo heidelbergensis
    Homo heidelbergensis, like this example found in Africa in 1921, is estimated to be between 200,000 and 300,000 years old. Although undeniably human in general appearance, the skull has a huge face and eyebrow ridges, as well as a low forehead. Scientists estimate that Homo heidelbergensis would have had a stature close to that of modern humans, with a skull capacity allowing for a brain only about 14 percent lighter than that of the average modern human. This find has particular importance in human evolution, as many scientists interpret it as the last ancestor of modern humans.

    And yet, just last summer,,

    Good-bye Heidelberg Man: You Never Existed – July 11, 2014
    Excerpt: “If someone kills one person they go to jail,” anthropologist Zeresenay Alemseged of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco noted last month at a meeting here in France’s deep south. “But what happens if you kill off a whole species?” The answer soon became apparent: anguished debate. In the balance was Homo heidelbergensis, a big-brained human ancestor generally seen as a pivotal figure, (common ancestor of modern humans and our extinct closest cousins, the Neandertals), during a murky period of evolution. At the invitation-only meeting, researchers debated whether this species really was a major player—or “no more than a paleoanthropologists’ construct”.
    http://crev.info/2014/07/heide.....r-existed/

    also of note, another supposedly ‘lynchpin’ fossil for human evolution, discovered during the same time period (i.e. 1920’s), also recently lost its ‘lynchpin’ status:

    Smithsonian Evolution Storytelling – Sept. 18, 2014
    Excerpt: Discovered in 1924 in South Africa, models of the skull have long since been duplicated for natural history museums as evidence for human evolution worldwide, including the Smithsonian. Found near Taung, South Africa, the lynchpin skull was tagged with the common name of Taung Child because of the fossil’s estimated age of 3 years, then, later named Australopithecus africanus meaning the “southern ape from Africa.” Hollow’s new high-resolution CT scan images, however, undermine the long-held pre-Homo fossil status of the skull.,,,
    In the words of ScienceDaily, the Taung skull was once “South Africa’s premier hominin… the first and best example of early hominin brain evolution.”,,
    The evidence undermines the the long-held pre-Homo status of the skull. In an article published in the John Hopkins News-Letter entitled “Taung child’s skull compared to human’s,” writer Elli Tian points to the glaring problem for human evolution –
    “The evolution of our species, and what makes us human, is much more complicated than we’ve assumed in the past.”
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....rytelling/

    Along that line was this major shakeup in the field from last year

    Skull “Rewrites” Story of Human Evolution — Again – Casey Luskin – October 22, 2013
    Excerpt: “I think it’s probably premature to dump everything into Homo erectus,” Johanson told NBC News. “This is what you’re going to find the most opposition to.”,,,
    “There is a big gap in the fossil record,” Zollikofer told NBC News. “I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don’t know.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....78221.html

    supplemental note: brow ridges are severely overrated as to being ‘proof’ of archaic humans,,,

    Modern Australian Aboriginal with prominent brow ridge – picture
    http://mmmgroup2.altervista.org/aborig2.jpg

    Aboriginal peoples
    Excerpt: Because Aboriginals have slightly larger eyebrow protrusions, a more downwardly slanted jaw and a smaller brain volume than Western peoples, they were thought to be living examples of transitional species. In order to produce proofs of evolution, evolutionist paleontologists together with fossil hunters who accepted the same theory dug up Aboriginal graves and took skulls back to evolutionist museums in the West. Then they offered these skulls to Western institutions and schools distributing them as the most solid proof of evolution.
    Later, when there were no graves left, they started shooting Aboriginals in the attempt to find proof for their theory.
    http://harunyahya.com/en/Evolu.....al-peoples

    Along that line,,

    Early human skull has inner ear “long thought” unique to Neanderthals – July 9, 2014
    Excerpt: Re-examination of a circa 100,000-year-old archaic early human skull found 35 years ago in Northern China has revealed the surprising presence of an inner-ear formation long thought to occur only in Neandertals.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nderthals/

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    Do they explain the functional specificity of transcriptional repressor checkpoints controlling NSC differentiation programs?

  3. 3
    Dionisio says:

    Do they explain the role of the Dynamic Microtubule Cytoskeleton?

  4. 4
    Dionisio says:

    Do they explain the emerging relationship between 3D genome organization and lineage-specific transcriptional regulation?

  5. 5
    Dionisio says:

    Do they explain how NSC* in vitro models correspond to in vivo brain?

    (*) NSC here stands for Neural Stem Cells

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    of supplemental note to the Luskin cite;

    Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray – OCT. 17, 2013
    Excerpt: Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.,,,
    If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis, H ergaster and possibly H habilis.
    http://www.theguardian.com/sci.....-evolution

  7. 7
    Dionisio says:

    Do they explain how to use in vitro organotypic models in order to elucidate the complicated cascades of signaling mechanisms that occur in vivo?

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Dionisio you ask,,,

    “Do they explain”

    The molecular details as to how such transitions are possible are never explained by Darwinists,,,, i.e. the main laboratory of Darwinists, where all the ‘real’ proof for Darwinian evolution is provided, is the human imagination.

  9. 9
    Dionisio says:

    Do they explain the underlying mechanisms of the global programmed switch in neural daughter cell proliferation mode during CNS* development?

    (*) CNS here stands for Central Nervous System

  10. 10
    Dionisio says:

    BA77

    I see your point. Thank you.

    In that case, if they can’t explain those basic fundamental issues scientists are struggling with now, then what do they explain? Nothing?

    Those ‘n-D e’ media headlines are just click baits for the ignorant out there, who can swallow anything without chewing it and digesting it. Pathetic state of affairs in this world.

  11. 11
    Dionisio says:

    BA77 @ 8

    You brought up a very interesting point. Thank you.

    No wonder they have started their “third way” of evolution blog, after realizing the “second way” (i.e. ‘n-D e’) is sinking fast like the Titanic. Just because they don’t want to accept the First Way, which is The Only Way, and was referred to as The Way in the first century of this Age of Grace.
    Notice the thread about the ‘third way’ is flooded with many references to real research problems serious scientists are working on very hard these days. And that’s only a very small fraction of the growing number of biology-related questions that are published out there in the specialized media. It’s simply mind-boggling challenging. But it’s also fascinating and very exciting.

    🙂

  12. 12
    Mung says:

    The imprints of ten dead carcasses explains life.

    Go figure.

  13. 13
    Dionisio says:

    12 Mung

    The imprints of ten dead carcasses explains life.
    Go figure.

    We have to humbly accept that some people have more creative imagination than we do.

Leave a Reply