Lucy was constructed from a pigs tooth and a lot of imagination..look into it yall

That was piltdown man, genius. Maybe you should do your own research before blurting out embarrassing comments on a public blog... or maybe you didn't realize you were embarrassing yourself?

Pretty cool article, thanks Alan..:)

ditto..great read.

I find you hilarious.

I'm going to make a tub of popcorn and wait for him to post again. Maybe this time he'll shed some light on who put the "ram" in the "rama-lama-ding dong"

P.S. David Koresh proved it was the Egg that came first, 'bout 100 years ago. Case closed.

I believe that a Mr. Charles Darwin provided the theory some time ago. FYI approximately 99% of your DNA is a perfect match with that of certain primates.

Do you not believe in science?

you might want to read your post's before you send them..

Actually, Greek philosophers provided the theory long before Darwin's take on it. Why is it that so many who consider themselves to be learned evolutionists don't even know where the theory came from? Very odd.

DaveB- The idea that organisms change over time was indeed proposed many times. The theory that this was caused by random mutation and natural selection did not come about until Darwin.

Correct. Although Darwin was not the sole originator of those ideas either, merely the first to officially publish a paper. (Poor Alfred Wallace.) Now someone needs to explain this to tapdancintgirl @ post #3.3.

I guess you would also have a problem going to any museum on this planet, or any historical site, where they recreate a monument or add the rest of the statue to give the viewer a clearer picture. Its not necessary to have the entire building to imagine how the rest of the colosseum looked in its hayday, just like it's not necessary to have the ENTIRE skeleton of a human (or subspecies) to create an image of how he/she was when she was alive. According to you scientists and historians made up half the history you see around you!

Funny- you say man is always talking for god....who do you suppose put ink to paper and wrote the stories in the bible...god??

man physically put pen to paper but only as a secretary taking dictation. God authored every word in those scriptures. Why do you think they are called holy scriptures and not something like Mans history Voume I. The Bible was written for you DLO-1906612. God wants you to know him personally, not by hearsay. try reading it in context.

Oh that's right. God authored every word in the old and new testament and that's why we have ... what? four different accounts of the story of Jesus? And it must be all true considering that the entire earth was flooded completely over for a month and the Earth was repopulated by two of each species. The bible was a man-made account of some-parts history(based loosely on) and most-parts fluff and metaphoric story-telling. Parables. It is the world's oldest and best-selling self-help book. It should be taken as a guide of living and not a literal accout. If you believe God wrote every single word of the bible, then please.. go watch the episode of South Park about the origin of Mormon belief.

Sid, can you tell me then why God didnt write a book that didnt contradict itself, that didnt get things right the first time, that didnt take into consideration the factor of Time and the knowledge that man would gain in the future.

By the way free will is an illusion that bible created to pacify the blind followers, would you like to know why? Because you cannot have free will with an Omnipotent all Knowing God when he will know what you will do regardless of your supposed "Free will"

Seriously if you ask cold hard questions about bible passages it all starts to fall apart into absurdity. Now this in itself proves the bible was mans word written by man. Sure the bible has some true stories, most writings are based on events but as everyone know stories change, are made more colorful.

And just so you know I am a deist, I do believe in God but not a vengeful God with all these humanistic emotions so since I am not in the JC club I guess I am going to burn, not.

Sid...,

If God indeed authored every word in the Holy Scripture then why is it so full of factual errors? The Church tells us that the Holy Scripture is a collection of metaphors and lessons, not a literary account of historical facts. Why then the various sects, denominations, as well as host of devout lay Catholics continue to insist on literal interpretations?

Good one, P.C.

That's basically how I feel about the Bible. But you're always so much better at explaining things (not being sarcastic at all.) I've always admired your comments.

The devil was a very busy person to make all those fossils just to fool silly people like us HUH

One of the more interesting theories I've encountered.

Well of course God is perfect. That is why he created the devil--he was lonely. He needed us like we need a story. And that is why I am going to hell because God is perfect and he gets mad at me for not believing in him. Of course I am too stupid to understand what is God's purpose. Of course, that's why I have religion so I have purpose but yet I am too stupid to understand his purpose.

God and the Devil, two ends of the same continuum, concepts simplified through anthropomorphism for simple minds so that they can at least identify the two ends of the wide spectrum. The duality makes the whole. Can't we drop the cartoon images in favor of the reality of a multi-verse, vibrating strings, and angels dancing on pin heads? Or must we stick with Tom and Jerry forever just because it was one of the original cartoons?

Let's hope he put a pastrami on rye in your kitchen.

"If God has created man in his own image, we have more than reciprocated." ~ Voltaire

you have a partial pelvis and walking upright does not make it a human ancestor

Has anyone considered that man may have been fooling around with the chimpanzee and came up with this species??

Mom3-

Different species cannot mate and have a successful, viable offspring typically due to the different number of chromosomes of each organism not matching up in meiosis. Hate to break your idea.

Andy-

Hate to break your idea also but having a partial pelvis and walking upright is a very clear indication of some sort of evolutionary relationship. But it is extremely necessary to recognize what Darwin's theory of evolution is saying---that we, as in all organisms, have a COMMON ANCESTOR. Not that we are monkeys/came from them. Darwin would roll over in his grave if he heard his theory so misconstrued.

In addition, I advise anyone who attempts to criticize or fight Darwin's theory of evolution that you go sit in on a Biology 2 college class....that way you can combat your opinions with legitimate facts.

Forget common ancesters, I'm waiting to hear about the beginning. Don't tell me primal pool, Big Bang, or any other event (with no way to prove anyway - so said my physics professor) - those are just events in time, not the real beginning. If you really feel you just have to chase this, then the real question is "where did matter come from?" - you know, in the beginning, there is nothing, then there is matter. Funny how no one brings this up. Frankly, I can't think of anything you can tell me that's not just another event in time, not the beginning. Although there's really no way our finite minds can truly understand God either, logically, God makes more sense as the beginning. So, go ahead, take your best shot. I'm still waiting.

But what is your argument that a god made the first matter, who made your god.

But it is extremely necessary to recognize what Darwin's theory of evolution is saying---that we, as in all organisms, have a COMMON ANCESTOR. Not that we are monkeys/came from them. Darwin would roll over in his grave if he heard his theory so misconstrued.

LOL. Speaking of which... Darwin did not originate the theory of evolution. It originated as Greek philosophy. Darwin is one of the people that came up with the twist that species evolve through competition of acquired traits. His ideas have since been debunked by scientists on a number of fronts. (For instance, since most members of a given species are eliminated by various means before they reach adulthood, the "fittest" genetic specimens rarely survive to compete with fully developed traits. Oops.) Yet Darwinists still insist on venerating him, as they were told to do in school. So since accurate knowledge is clearly not the motivating factor in their behavior, one is left to wonder just what their obeisance is based upon?

Dave;

Your statements do not in any way invalidate evolution. Do you have an hypothosis that can explain the evidence? One that will withstand scrutiny? One that doesn't resort to "god did it"? I know you don't because if you did you'd be famous.

DaveBoo-

I was not saying Darwin originally proposed the idea of evolution. Actually, it is quite clear that the idea of evolution arose many, many years prior to Darwin. What I was refering to was Darwin's postulate which is called 'Darwin's theory of evolution.' He provided legitimate toWAYS evolution occurs.

And as for your statement that 'scientists have debunked' his theories I would really like to view your source. Remember people, just because it is on the internet doesn't mean its true--which I advise everyone, even on this blog to consider. Take everything you read with a grain of salt, even my own statements not excluded, and go research it yfor ourself in published books with valid sources. Then you can generate your own stance.

Well, back to what I was saying..... DaveBoo was trying to give us a science lesson. First off, you need to take a step back and realize what you're saying. Yes, many members of a species die off before adulthood---but why is this? Because they were not suited to compete and thrive in their given environment. So the ones who did survive and actually reproduced MUST mean they had an advantage. So by surviving and reproducing they passed on their beneficial traits. How do you not understand this?? You can look at it from todays stand point... men who are successful and have things to offer a women will in fact get the girl and reproduce! Those men without anything to offer fail to reproduce, hence their 'unsuccessful' genes are not passed down. This kind of occurence, which happens in large numbers WILL lead to progress within that species. (Because you must remember, evolution does not simply occur with one individual. Its over time and with a large population). In addition, DaveBoo used the word "fittest" incorrectly. By being fit it means you are succesful at surviving AND you were able to pass these traits on. Being "fit" simply does not mean you are the strongest organism of the population.

Much love.

DaveBoo1: "Yet Darwinists still insist on venerating him,"

I don't know what you mean by "Darwinist," because the word is never used in scientific disciplines. But Darwin is "venerated" among evolutionary biologists because he came up with the first workable theory of evolution, and because he defended it with an amazing scientific thoroughness. But he did get some things wrong, of course (although not the one you mention). He was just another scientist; not infallible.

Actually, most evolutionary biologists haven't even read Darwin, so they can't very well be attached to the details that he got wrong or right.

I'm sorry, I just had to read/repost it again. How comedic!

"..the "fittest" genetic specimens rarely survive to compete with fully developed traits."

----DaveBoo

Really Dave? You have got to be kidding me? Anyone with a brain can see this statement is so far from accurate.

Yes, many members of a species die off before adulthood---but why is this? Because they were not suited to compete and thrive in their given environment.

Incorrect. The vast majority of a population die arbitrarily while they are very young. Eggs and young get eaten indiscriminately by a predators with their ability to swim, fly, procreate or make tools never even entering into the picture. This puts additional pressure on a rather glaring problem with macroevolutionary theory: Not only do new and improved traits need to evolve, they must do so repeatedly and independently to ever have any statistical hope of successfully entering into a gene pool.

In addition, DaveBoo used the word "fittest" incorrectly. By being fit it means

LOL. Now you're a linguist wishing to debate semantics? Congratulations. Have a cookie.

I don't know what you mean by "Darwinist,"

Then you could always educate yourself by looking it up.. You do have an internet connection..

Darwinist (n): One who subscribes to, or a proponent of, Darwinism.

Darwinism (n): A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.

Oh Dave....

I'm only going to point out one fault, since others have addressed other ones.

"Fittest"?! "Survival of the fittest" is NOT a biological evolutionary Darwinian term. It was never used by Darwin. It IS a SOCIAL DARWINIAN phrase. It was coined by sociologist Herbert Spencer.

"The vast majority of a population die arbitrarily while they are very young. Eggs and young get eaten indiscriminately by a predators with their ability to swim, fly, procreate or make tools never even entering into the picture." -Dave

You cannot tell me that you are arguing that the VAST majority of a population die when they are young. If this was the case then this species would be EXTINCT. But when it comes to evolution it only deals with organisms that actually do mature and REPRODUCE. Its all about the reproduction, buddy.

In addition, yes I am going to correct you for using a word incorrectly in your argument thus making your point invalid. (And still waiting for that source about scientists proving Darwin incorrect)

Fitness-Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the "physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than others. Thus by you saying the "fittest" genetic specimens rarely survive to compete" this must mean they were unable to reproduce thus making them not fit, proving your statement incorrect.

I'm only going to point out one fault, since others have addressed other ones.

"Fittest"?! "Survival of the fittest" is NOT a biological evolutionary Darwinian term. It was never used by Darwin. It IS a SOCIAL DARWINIAN phrase. It was coined by sociologist Herbert Spencer.

You're half right. Not bad. Herbert Spencer is indeed credited with coining the phrase. Unfortunately for you, Darwin himself starting using it by 1869 in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species. It's generally best to avoid shooting from the hip... less chance of shooting yourself in the foot.

Here's a link so you can read up on it.

DaveB001 - My point was that "Darwinism" is a meaningless term within science. Science subscribes to theories, not people. Modern evolutionary theory is considerably different from what Darwin first published (although the essential core is still there). Most biologists haven't even read Darwin.

Dave, I apologize, its been a few years since I've read the "Origins of Species" while working on my undergrad degree in Anthropology (also read Spencer).

However, I stand by my assertion that the manner you use the phrase is inaccurate. And I will you use your link to prove it:

"Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.^[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape" ^[4]. Hence, it is not a scientific description,^[5] and is both incomplete and misleading."

Cheers!

You cannot tell me that you are arguing that the VAST majority of a population die when they are young.

Certainly, I can. Many species produce dozens, hundreds or even thousands of young at a time. Are you arguing that the majority of these reach adulthood?

In addition, yes I am going to correct you for using a word incorrectly in your argument thus making your point invalid. (And still waiting for that source about scientists proving Darwin incorrect)

My use of the term is accurate, if you were paying attention. I stated: "For instance, since most members of a given species are eliminated by various means before they reach adulthood, the "fittest" genetic specimens rarely survive to compete with fully developed traits." As I've already pointed out, the vast majority do not survive long enough to compete as adults for food or mates, thus they fail to pass on their genetic information. That you somehow feel your apparent lack of reading comprehesion makes my point "invalid" is curious indeed.

Concerning your repeated request for a source (as though that will change your opinion on anything) I have one for you. I suggest you make a careful reading of the source I linked to in post #10.16. It notes how scientists no longer agree with certain Darwinian ideas and concepts. It should sound familiar, since you plagarized phrasing found in the 5th paragraph on that page in the last paragraph of your post #10.15. (Seriously, if you're going to cut and paste that much in an attempt to sound knowledgable, you should probably find a less obvious source, or else acknowledge you're just quoting someone else's words. There's no shame in a quote.)

Dave, I apologize, its been a few years since I've read the "Origins of Species" while working on my undergrad degree in Anthropology (also read Spencer).

No problem. I appreciate your candor.

However, I stand by my assertion that the manner you use the phrase is inaccurate. And I will you use your link to prove it:

I recognize the the phrase "survival of the fittest" is no longer considered scientifically accurate, which is why I alluded to it in the first place. I invoked the term "fittest" as I believe Darwin intended it, in reference to Darwin's idea that those animals (or plants for that matter) with the "best" genetic traits can be expected to survive and pass on said traits. This particular simplified idea/metaphor from Darwin is no longer considered acceptable in evolutionary circles for a variety of reasons, as alluded to in the quote you included in your post.

Dave-

Just as you have defined Darwinism and Darwinist in 10.13, I was also defining Fitness. Hints the paragraph break and dash. Its cute you think you know everything.

Also, if what you say is correct about mass amounts of offspring for particular species dying at a young age it still does not come into play with the idea of evolution. Since reproduction is the key to evolution, and these young deceased clearly did not reproduce and contribute to the future gene pool the idea you would even bring that up is still beyond me. It simply does not apply to evolution.

And still, when it comes to your definition of fitness I do not understand how many times I must repeat myself. REEEEEEEPROOOOOOODUCCCCTIONNNNNNNN. I WAS CORRECTING YOUR USE OF FIT BECAUSE YOU CANNOT APPLY FITNESS TO AN ORGANISM THAT HAS NOT REPRODUCED. As seen below:

"..the "fittest" genetic specimens rarely survive to compete with fully developed traits.."

DaveB001 - My point was that "Darwinism" is a meaningless term within science. Science subscribes to theories, not people.

For most within the scientific community, I must agree with you. My comment concerning Darwinism was not directed at scientists but, rather, people in the general population who consider themselves evolutionists without really having any substantial knowledge of it. Scratching the surface, as it were. A quick Google returns hundreds, if not thousands, of sites and blogs set up by such people. (Check out many of the posts in this vine, for that matter.) Indeed, the religious portion of the population is positively infested with the same type of people: Showing faith in an idea, willing to latch on to an icon, but lacking real knowledge concerning what they believe. Their faith tends to be very weak as a result.

Modern evolutionary theory is considerably different from what Darwin first published (although the essential core is still there). Most biologists haven't even read Darwin.

Which is really the point I was trying to get at in the first place concerning Darwin. But I believe you've phrased it much more clearly. Thank you.

Just as you have defined Darwinism and Darwinist in 10.13, I was also defining Fitness. Hints the paragraph break and dash. Its cute you think you know everything

"Hints"? I even specifically included the (n) to make it absolutely clear that I was quoting a dictionary and not relying on my own phrasing. I certainly hope you noticed. I didn't blend it in with my own words. But I guess that's just me.

It simply does not apply to evolution.

Fine. You don't get it. I give up.

I WAS CORRECTING YOUR USE OF FIT BECAUSE YOU CANNOT APPLY FITNESS TO AN ORGANISM THAT HAS NOT REPRODUCED. As seen below:
"..the "fittest" genetic specimens rarely survive to compete with fully developed traits.."

Precisely. They would need to survive to adulthood to compete for resources and mates. Competing for mates is necessary to reproduce. This is not complicated.

Dave I give up as well! It seems we just have a big misunderstanding. But atleast we are arguing about the details of evolution and not that evolution is false. Thanks for taking the time to post and with that I'm out! ....Overall great article/great find. Hoping for more things like this to happen..

DaveB001 - Since Spencer used the word "fitness" in a non-scientific way, then Darwin may have just confused things by picking it up. I've only read the first edition, so I wouldn't know. But it doesn't matter what Darwin said about it. Today in biology, "fitness" is defined as lifetime reproductive success. Genes that are in organisms that have higher fitness will increase whether they are "beneficial" or not. Fortunately, enough are beneficial that the adaptation of the population usually improves over time. There are numerous equations that have been derived and tested to show this.

You must be right since it comes from the intelligent design community who are synonomous with scientific method.

Junk science. Rak is comparing apples to oranges and coming to, at best, specious conclusions. And where does scientific method come to play in 'intelligent design'? You have a test that we can all perform to prove the existence of God? Please share your data.

you must belong to the tea party movement

And God said, "Let there be light." ( as he struck the match that ignited the fart that was the big bang that created a universe that was filled mostly with flammable gas and dark matter that contained many scorched planets along with a few that had "organic" environments where plants could grown and animals could evolve into unexpected forms that claimed to be intelligent, wise and understanding, but are mostly full of sch!tt. Go figure.) At least that's the way I understand it from last weeks conference call... ~_o (lighten up, mega sarcasm)

If God created the universe, but he isn't from here and, it's probably reasonable to presume he doesn't have a Green Card, wouldn't he be an "illegal alien landlord?" (rhetorical) D'oh!!!

Spiddas,

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you!!!! A knowledgable person commenting on this article!

Correct but some people aren't evolving, they peaked along time ago.

People don't evolve. Populations do.

There is no evidence for millions of years, or most of darwin's theories.

Karl- Of course there is. The theories are based off of the observed evidence. That's what scientific theories do - attempt to explain the observations. Choosing to ignore teh evidence is not the same as there being no evidence.

Good point Chaos.

That is the pessimestic view. However, I think we have been a very successful species and there is no reason why we can't continue...accept that God will probably flood the planet again.

...chit...we will nuke ourselves into extinction long before that...

...or the aliens who seeded this planet with our species will come back to harvest 7 billion slaves...

Actually, Bell, if I remember the story correct, "He" won't flood it again, that's what rainbows are supposed to mean.

They only like science when it suits them such as theories on how Moses really could have crossed the red sea or Jonah could actually have been spit up on the beach by a whale.

THANK YOU DOCTOR.

Took the word right out of my mouth!

Not true creationists believe in science well at least when they go to the Dr.

Oh, I think you know why they are nervous... You know, with debunking the Adam and Eve thing...

I agree with initial post. I don't go to their church to dispute their logic, they should have the good manners to stay out of a converstion in the field of science.

Most wars were started due to religious differences and fairytale beliefs.

Could you document that statement, please? Not that it has anything to do with the article, of course..

the theory of evolution was a product of a man who was (understandably) frustrated with organized religion. I ask that you only put as much blind faith in these 'scientists' as you would a clergyman. look at the evidence, all of it, and decide. think for yourself

I have. I was raised a christian, believed it too. Studied biology, then evolutionary biology in college. Then I thought for myself after wieghing the facts. there's nothing 'blind' about science.. just more and more mounting evidence for evolution of all things, not just humans.

Andy,

Oh, how you are mistaken....Charles Darwin was as Christian as most men of his era. His wife was a DEVOUT Christian, and he even put off his famous publication "Origins of Species" not to hurt her.

andy: "look at the evidence, all of it, and decide. think for yourself"

We did. We do. I suggest you do the same.

It's amazing that someone with no training can figure that out, while scientists with years of experience are unable to solve that problem. Please, leave the science to the scientists and your opinion to your self.

This is an incredible find that I'm certain will bring forth a lot of new insight into human evolution. As for your awful evolution analogy, so much fail in such a short span of words. Please, read a few books on human evolution from real scientists and not those put out by the dreadful Discvoer Institute or the like. I promise, it will really open up the world of evolution and biology in general for you.

Looks like a Femur and Fibula to me! I am guessing you dont know your anatomy because a Fibula is much smaller then the Tibia. Hence why one looks different from the other! You do know you have 3 major bones in your leg right not JUST two bones?

Also i did not see a picture of what this "Creature" looked like posted. One of Lucy yes but they never said it looked the same. It is of the same species and they can tell this by bone density and DNA testing of each bone. It may not have looked the same at all like Lucy but it is of the same species!

Your entitled to your own opion about things but before you make statements that make you look like a idiot you might want to educate your self before making comments of the sort.

JustCallMeAl,

I do happen to have a degree in Physiology, so, I am NOT just making a statement here out of the blue. The fibula is much smaller, true, but it also fits nicely into the joint at the head of the femur. The diameter of the two bones is way out of wack, and the heads of the bones do not match up either. That is a professional opinion, and NOT guesswork.

As for the evolution illustration ... that IS how evolution is described. It is a scientific IMPOSSIBILITY for two things that are small to collide and create things that are bigger. If two atoms collide (Big Bang Theory) they cannot create planets OR anything larger than pieces of themselves. Two, "Science" must be observable and repeatable or it is just theory. So, by calling this science is to deny the very basics of science. This is a RELIGION. It has a name, and has had a name for centuries. The name of this religion is humanism. The belief system that puts humans at the top of all that is good, and makes them the deciding factors in all that is right and wrong.

@Chris-1906510 Ridiculous. You have a 'Physiology' degree, not an physics or astrophysics degree. atoms collide, and attract each other because of gravity (another 'theory') in a vacuum, like space, and that is a proven fact. How do you think the sun ignited and the planets formed?

I'm not even sure where to start with this....first, your understanding of "Big Bang Theory" is seriously lacking as is your understanding of evolution. It's like reading a page out of the ID handbook. I'm not sure what books you've been reading, but neither one of your examples describe either evolution or bbt. I'll gladly give you some very good books to read that might help clarify things for you. Secondly, I don't doubt your degree in Physiology, you might even be an expert in the field, but I hold a degree in Anthropology and Archaeology and I see no major problems with this find.

As for your humanism comment, you again show a lack of understanding. Humanism is neither a religion, nor does it make some wild claim that humans are the top of all that is good. Go out, talk to some atheists/humanists, it will change your mind.

Ummm...Chris, I'm guessing that the Pysiology you studied was for modern man.

monkeymonkey

@Chris-1906510 Ridiculous. You have a 'Physiology' degree, not an physics or astrophysics degree. atoms collide, and attract each other because of gravity (another 'theory') in a vacuum, like space, and that is a proven fact. How do you think the sun ignited and the planets formed?

Monkey, Thank you for your response, but, please use you superior knowledge to correct a few grammatical errors first. would be not "a" physics degree (which I believe you are lacking, too. Am I right?) Gravity is not a "theory" either. It is a Law. That is because it works and is repeatable as many times as I want to prove it. The issue here in physics is not one of attraction, rather one of small things becoming large things. When you break a piece of bread, are the pieces now larger than the whole? How about when I smash a sledge hammer into a concrete driveway? Are those pieces now larger than the whole? This is a simple fact of science that is repeatedly ignored. It CAN'T happen.

As for the answer to your question about the sun and the planets ... that is easy. If God created all of this, the He ignited the sun and formed the planets. Not that hard to understand from the right perspective.

would be not "a" physics degree

LOL! there I go ... "would be "a" physics degree"

correct myself

Chris - the head of the femur is the part that inserts into the acetabulum to form the hip joint - the fibula does not fit into the head of the femur - it articulates with the posterior aspect of the lateral condyle of the tibia. This is the typical structure for primates. Because the fibula is not a weight bearing bone, there is no need for it to articulate with the femur. I am admittedly not an expert in ancient primates - they could be slightly different, however, I do have a degree in biology and am now in medical school. In fact, I passed anatomy with a 98% in medical school - so, I'm absolutely confident in the layout of the bones of the leg of humans. Before I posted, I did verify that the anatomy for humans is the same as in other primates. It is for the most part. Some New World monkeys have the distal part of the fibula fused to the distal part of the tibia. However, your description that the fibula articulates with the femur is inaccurate for primates (in fact, it's inaccurate for horses, and many other species).

Chris-1906510 your are just proving your ignorance here, evolution wise it looks like your gene line has peaked, maybe several generations ago.

Chris-1906510 I did take physics as a part of my degree. I'm also an amateur astronomer and a terrible speller. You said "If two atoms collide (Big Bang Theory) they cannot create planets OR anything larger than pieces of themselves" First, the big bang was not a collision, it was a rapid, faster then the speed of light expansion of matter. Second, all matter has gravity. In space, when matter is present, it attracts other matter. This is what formed the sun and all the planets and all the galaxies and all that there is. there's plenty of information out there on both of these subjects. google it and learn. start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disc. It's really not hard to understand this stuff.. pretty high school if you ask me.

Shoot, I'm late to this party here and Summer beat me to that particular answer regarding anatomy. However I will also correct you, Chris, on your 2nd comment.

Science is the study of causation, plain and simple (that's cause and effect if you didn't know). It starts with a hypothesis or supposition (usually based on an observation) and then is rigorously tested, modified if necessary, until it provides consistent observable results which any peer can reproduce. At that point, it is elevated to the status of a 'Theory". There are few laws, they are called laws because without any one of them cause and effect no longer apply, not that they can tested over and over again as you say they are.

To make any law or theory fact, you have to test for all conditions which is impossible unless you consider the possibility of higher superset of....'universes' (for a lack of a better term), or that you can precisely describe this universe which may still depend on having a superset.

I take issue with people who do not understand scientific terminology and try to use it indiscriminately, especially people like you.

Mitchell

I don't think a certificate in sports rehab is the same as a degree in physiology.

Chris1906510 - "As for the evolution illustration ... that IS how evolution is described.'

No, it is not. If you don't even know what the theory says, how can you be so sure it is wrong? It sounds like you have made that decision before even understanding what you are talking about.

"In technical applications, machines are basically energy conversion devices. Thus, such devices can only be driven by convertible energy. The same applies to biological organisms. The product of thermal energy (or the equivalents of thermal energy) and entropy is "already converted energy". This is the reason why Rudolf Clausius in 1850 coined the term entropy"

As per stated before to "Justcallmeal" educate your self before making comments! I do listen and educate myself hence why i am not bothered. Except for idiotic comments made by people that make statements that make them seem educated and when they are just idiotic comments!

Nevermind... Enviroman covered it for me. ;)

I assume you mean to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics with regarding your mention of entropy. Since it appears you don't understand what it is, it's the law of increasing entropy in an isolated system(to be brief). This has to do with energy and equilibrium states of a closed system. Biology happens to fit quite nicely into it. In fact, entirely depends on it.

Don't believe me? Go take a molecular biology class. Until then, don't pretend to know what it is you're talking about.

Mitchell

Hmm.. if only there were something pumping energy into these systems that would allow them to grow despite the entropic fallout. Something like a giant nuclear furnace in the sky, perhaps 92 million miles away for safety's sake.....

Why would God care

Could it really be that the Evolutionists are grasping at straws because a Creator-God would have the right to demand a lifestyle pleasing to Him.....

Prove it.

MrFrost

Could it really be that the Evolutionists are grasping at straws because a Creator-God would have the right to demand a lifestyle pleasing to Him.....

Prove it.

If you and your wife "make" a child together (I do realize this a bad way of saying this), do you not as parents have the right to raise that child in what is right and wrong? Is that not based on your opinion and not the opinion of your neighbor ... who happens to be a drug addict, alcoholic, sex offender, or worse? (Again, I dont know your neighbor, so no slight intended towards him) YOU have that right. I build a tree house when I was a kid. When I decided that it was not needed, I tore it down. I could do that, because I BUILT IT. Anything I build, or own, I have the right to do with as I please, as long as it doesnt interfere with the rights of someone else. God would be no different. As a matter of fact, your response to how you treat and want others to treat what you own proves my point for me.

You're saying that god has a right to do with us as he pleases because we are his children? So by that logic Chris, if you made a child you could lock it away in the basement near a furnace and torture it simply because it had ideas about things that you didn't teach it? Nope. That child has rights beyond simply being a plaything for his overbearing parents. God can kiss my arse if he thinks he's gonna throw me in hell for simply using my brain. If god makes the rules and his rules say that he answers to no one and can do as he pleases then why do I have to follow any morality at all? What kind of an example does a vengeful god give us? Oh wait I see, this is how people justify wars on infadels and forcing whole continents into slavery - now I get it!

I think I'll chose science, rationality, and humanism thank you very much!

As a matter of fact, your response to how you treat and want others to treat what you own proves my point for me.

Um, have we met? I think not... And I meant, prove that God exsists, sorry for not being more clear.

I think I'll chose science, rationality, and humanism thank you very much!

Can I get an "AMEN!!!" to that..

Chris I love how religious people apply humanistic emotion to an Omnipotent God thinking that God would take the time to throw us into an everlasting pit of fire, pain and damnation just because we didnt follow the rules of his Book that is full of holes, contradictions, evil acts and not even mentioning its words being stuck 2000+ years in the past or join the JC club.

One would think a supreme God that is supposed to have infinate knowledge and intelligence would be able to write a book that was perfect the first time, that couldnt be twisted to mans desired meaning, and would be able to apply to mans modern knowledge and understanding.

Instead the bible is rooted in the past, as man understood the past. If you ask hard questions about passages in the bible you find many holes in its story.

God is supposed to be Omnipotent, Yes? So How is that Free will working for you when God already knows what you are going to do?

Exactly! And if God was a "God" in the way that some need to believe, I'd turn "him" into a "her."

Maybe they got that in the Bible wrong too. You know those boys (who wrote the Bible) did away with Mary Magdalene's book. F-ing male, chauvinist pigs (who wrote the Bible, NOT you males on this blog. Don't tar and feather me this time around.)

When the bible was glued together from all the gospels the ruling order determined what gospels were to be put into the bible, This in itself makes one wonder what gospels were omitted because those gospels didnt support the ruling orders dogma or power to keep the masses under their sway? How complete is the Bible, how much was edited or changed to suit the needs ot that time frames rulers, both religious and political?

Lets face it people we are talking about Man here and history has proven that power greed and corruption is something man is very very skilled at.

After reading this far down the list of comments, I just couldn't control myself anymore.

If there is one thing finding a pile of old bones has taught me here, is that there are bunch of people out there that still haven't learned the simple basics of life. You have definitely proven that both the religious folk and scientist can equally rude to each other. Each willing to speak as if they are spewing facts that they have witnessed. The creation of time. What GOD is.

Why is it so important to impose your beliefs? How dare all of you speak as if you truly know the facts of existence when you are limited to knowledge that has been passed down. This very same knowledge that is constantly evolving and changing when someone has the courage to question the status quo. Hello, Pluto!

What is so important about knowing where we came from or who can prove it? What difference does it make if GOD exists? None of this matters. Not really. It makes for a great conversation and really the more ignorant the more interesting it gets.

Go out and make it a better day by connecting with people. We are here together, today, regardless of intelligence, religion, and or race. The common goal should be to treat each other better everyday. Can you do that? Can you live a better life by trying to be a better person today than you were yesterday? If you're a parent, can you have a little more patience today?

Education is great. Learn to think, not to regurgitate what you read. Religion is important for some. People need some guidance or a place to feel like they belong. Help make them feel like they have a purpose, here, today.

Let's try to get over living our lives trying to figure out the deaths of others, or living our lives for our death. We are given a great gift. Each one of us. Everyone of us. A chance to breathe, see, smell, taste and feel. We are Beings of energy given the chance to have a human experience, and the best way to experience is to share your thoughts and feelings with other Beings sharing the same experience, in the same existence.

Don't forget... You have been dying from the minute you were born. Do you really want to spend your time (YOUR TIME), the time you have, for this human experience debating and arguing. Sure, have a discussion, give your opinion, move on. Some will listen others won't. You don't need to force others to think like you think. It is our ability to have human relationships that make life more interesting. It makes it interesting, but it doesn't make it life. It is the experience of these relationships that makes it life. So, when you look back, with your last breath perhaps you'll think of this passage and just be grateful that you changed for the better by trying to be a better person. You'll know that you made a difference by being a positive influence with the others who you had the chance to share your human experience.

Good job to those that found these bones, and thank you all for the lively discussions.

@ Opi Nion

I get where you are coming from but you are forgetting one important factor. This is a science blog and this subject has nothing to do about religion. If the bible thumpers want to practice their “Harvesting” on a subject on a science blog then they will get slammed with cold hard truth.

Personally I don’t care what people believe, if their beliefs make them warm inside then more power to them but don’t come to this blog and post religious dribble when the subject matter has nothing to do with any religion.

If they want to discuss religion then start a blog/discussion on newsvine, This is Cosmic Log. End of story

Opi Non: "What is so important about knowing where we came from or who can prove it?"

We want to know because we are human. The scientific process gives us an opportunity to understand our world, to satisfy our curiosity, and to expand our knowledge. Being a good person is important too, but can't we do both?

@ Pirate C - Point taken. Some people need guidance. Help them see the light.

@jock59801 - Absolutely! Our curiosity is what makes us want to expand our knowledge.

@ both of you - Just be nice :)