Setanta wrote:rosborne979 wrote:edgarblythe wrote:I had hopeful delusions when it started . . .
Is there a particular aspect of the new discovery you wanted to discuss?
It's a fantastic discovery, and it's always nice to add more data to the fossil record, but does this fossil tell us anything new, or does it just add detail to the 'Lucy' epoch?
It is more detail, but that is not a "just adds detail" situation. Johanson, who found Lucy, acknowledged the importance of the inferences about arboreal life (rather grudgingly, it seems)--which is important, both because of the view which one would have of
australopithecus afarensis, and because it demonstrates how science works. When the data contradict the existing thesis, the existing thesis is modified to conform to the evidence.
You can bet the loony-tunes characters in this thread did not notice that significance on their own, and are likely to ignore that significance if they are not beaten over the head with it.
I did not purposely pass over rosbourne's post, just somehow overlooked it. Setanta gave a very good answer.
edgarblythe wrote:Setanta wrote:rosborne979 wrote:edgarblythe wrote:I had hopeful delusions when it started . . .
Is there a particular aspect of the new discovery you wanted to discuss?
It's a fantastic discovery, and it's always nice to add more data to the fossil record, but does this fossil tell us anything new, or does it just add detail to the 'Lucy' epoch?
It is more detail, but that is not a "just adds detail" situation. Johanson, who found Lucy, acknowledged the importance of the inferences about arboreal life (rather grudgingly, it seems)--which is important, both because of the view which one would have of
australopithecus afarensis, and because it demonstrates how science works. When the data contradict the existing thesis, the existing thesis is modified to conform to the evidence.
You can bet the loony-tunes characters in this thread did not notice that significance on their own, and are likely to ignore that significance if they are not beaten over the head with it.
I did not purposely pass over rosbourne's post, just somehow overlooked it. Setanta gave a very good answer.
I agree. I thought Set made some good points.
It would be interesting to know where the transition to bipedalism fits into the sequence of things.
Here's another article.
Selam is her name.
Thanks. Good reading.
Some so desperately want or need to be linked to apes. If there was conclusive proof of anything, there would be no need to grasp at every new article that is written.
Some are hysterically desperate to keep others from appreciating this line of study.
The knowledge of hysterical processes was advanced by the work of Jean-Martin Charcot, a French neurologist. However, many now consider hysteria to be a legacy diagnosis (i.e., a catch-all junk diagnosis), particularly due to its long list of possible manifestations: one Victorian physician catalogued 75 pages of possible symptoms of hysteria and called the list incomplete.
Intrepid wrote:... one Victorian physician catalogued 75 pages of possible symptoms of hysteria and called the list incomplete.
And just think - back then, nobody'd even thought of The Discovery Institute yet.
Intrepid wrote:The knowledge of hysterical processes was advanced by the work of Jean-Martin Charcot, a French neurologist. However, many now consider hysteria to be a legacy diagnosis (i.e., a catch-all junk diagnosis), particularly due to its long list of possible manifestations: one Victorian physician catalogued 75 pages of possible symptoms of hysteria and called the list incomplete.
This is one example of how the religious try to steer a discussion away from the original topic, an effort to stop the other side from keeping it going.
Marvellous discovery, isn't it.
I'm so glad to be alive now - in one of this planet's great periods of discovery and exploration. Very energizing.
Thanks for posting this edgarB. I'd been following this elsewhere. Good to see it here as well.
Hi. ebeth. I would love to get as much information as possible about this subject on this thread. Not sure how successful the attempt will be.
I know what you mean, EB.
I've asked for specifics and gotten nothing.
As timber pointed out, the case for bipedalism does not rest on the reconstructive method they used on the foot. They obviously were just working out a "most likely" foot model until more fossils are found. What's hard to understand? When new information is found, it will either confirm or alter their model. None of which negates the other evidence.
edgarblythe wrote:Intrepid wrote:The knowledge of hysterical processes was advanced by the work of Jean-Martin Charcot, a French neurologist. However, many now consider hysteria to be a legacy diagnosis (i.e., a catch-all junk diagnosis), particularly due to its long list of possible manifestations: one Victorian physician catalogued 75 pages of possible symptoms of hysteria and called the list incomplete.
This is one example of how the religious try to steer a discussion away from the original topic, an effort to stop the other side from keeping it going.
Why do you try to bring religion into everything? I don't bring atheism into everything. Is that all you can provide...oh, they are religious so they don't know anything. Get a grip. You were the one to bring up hysteria.
Intrepid wrote:Why do you try to bring religion into everything? I don't bring atheism into everything. Is that all you can provide...oh, they are religious so they don't know anything. Get a grip. You were the one to bring up hysteria.
You started with this:
Intrepid wrote:Some so desperately want or need to be linked to apes. If there was conclusive proof of anything, there would be no need to grasp at every new article that is written.
We
are linked to apes. We're linked to everything on this planet. When you make a statement like you did above, you are obviously implying something different, and we all now what it is, so don't try to claim Edgar brought religion into the discussion.
I find the use of an expression such as "desparately need" to be rather revealing, and self-revelatory of the religiously fanatical. The desparation is all on their side, and it comes from having fought a rear-guard action, unsuccessfully, against the advance of scientifically derived knowledge, for a century and a half.
Oh no, Timber is quoting the bible. We're doomed
rosborne979 wrote:Intrepid wrote:Why do you try to bring religion into everything? I don't bring atheism into everything. Is that all you can provide...oh, they are religious so they don't know anything. Get a grip. You were the one to bring up hysteria.
You started with this:
Intrepid wrote:Some so desperately want or need to be linked to apes. If there was conclusive proof of anything, there would be no need to grasp at every new article that is written.
We
are linked to apes. We're linked to everything on this planet. When you make a statement like you did above, you are obviously implying something different, and we all now what it is, so don't try to claim Edgar brought religion into the discussion.
Other than your vivid imagination, where does it say anything about religion. Some people are far too paranoid.
Setanta wrote:I find the use of an expression such as "desparately need" to be rather revealing, and self-revelatory of the religiously fanatical. The desparation is all on their side, and it comes from having fought a rear-guard action, unsuccessfully, against the advance of scientifically derived knowledge, for a century and a half.
Everything has to be us and them. Your fanaticism with those who try to be reasonable is also quite revealing. You are entitled to your speculative opinion.
Intrepid wrote:Other than your vivid imagination, where does it say anything about religion. Some people are far too paranoid.
Ok. So what was the point of your comment?
We already know we're related to apes and to everything else, so why do you think we're 'desperate' (as you say)?
