FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-21-2002, 11:57 AM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Wichita, KS, USA
Posts: 2,514
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Ergaster:
<strong>We're a very long way from drawing any conclusions about the skull yet. Don't take Senut's comments as any more authoritative than anyone else's right now. She's not exactly a disinterested party in this. She's touting her *own* find, and Robertson ain't gonna accept that one any faster than this one....

Lots of experts have seen the Sahelanthropus skull, and they don't see "gorilla".

(Just to keep it in perspective, though--the discovery of a fossil member of the gorilla clade would indeed be a Very Good and a Very Exciting thing--but it has to be shown to be "gorilla" in the same way any hominin fossil has to be shown to be "hominin")

</strong>

Hey Ergaster, just to keep my players straight, is Senut on the team that found "Orrin"?

BTW, love your handle.

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>
ksagnostic is offline  
Old 07-21-2002, 12:25 PM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA
Posts: 2,115
Post

The closer we get to finding the common ancestor, the more
difficult it will be to correctly assign it to a taxon. The comments by Dr Brigitte Senut, of
the Natural History Museum in Paris, France, that S. tchadensis looked to her like an
ancient female gorilla, sound to me like sour gapes. Senut, and her collegue Martin
Pickford announced their newly discovered fossil, Orrorin tugenensislast year. It
reminds me of Mark McGwire bad mouthing Barry Bonds last year.

Pickford, by the way, is intensely political and has a reputation for attacking anyone he
sees as competition.

I should have added a link to
<a href="http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/" target="_blank">http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/</a>

They have an interesting discussion of some issues related to the discovery and analysis of Orrorin tugenensis .

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>
Dr.GH is offline  
Old 07-21-2002, 09:03 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 3,092
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by MOJO-JOJO:
<strong>From Focus on the Family's daily Newsletter to "the flock";

<a href="http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/A0021434.html" target="_blank">Distorting the Facts again</a></strong>
Here is an interesting quote from this article:
Quote:
Scientists date the fossil at 7 million years old — more than twice the supposed age of Lucy, the oldest hominid fossil before this discovery.
This little quote shows the utter unfamiliarity of the writer with what he is writing about. Lucy was never the oldest hominid fossil. If one wants to be generous and suppose that "Lucy" was used to refer to all of A. afarensis and not just to the single fossil skeleton than it has not been true for almost a decade and this has been fairly well-publicized.
Valentine Pontifex is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:41 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.