Re: Adaptations (was POLITICS - Evolution |- the fossils

February 28, 2004

> Where are the fossils of animals changing to humans?

> ----- Original Message -----

>

----> Look at the hominid lines of which Lucy is one of the most

famous in the fossil record. She belonged to a species called

Australopithecus afarensis coming around about 3 1/2 million years

ago.

The Australopithecus's provide the links between apes and the early

evolution of the Homo lines. (homo meaning man)

Lucy is very interesting as her brain was small, very similar to

chimps as well as other parts of her body. But she showed the

beginning of bipedialism - the ability to walk upright like us.

(probably to help her adapt to living on the ground as the climate

changed vegetation)

Lucy's line eventually disappeared giving way to the homo line of

which there are multitude of fossils building up in more human-like

characteristics. Neanderthal and Cro-magnum being the best known

evolving out of the early homo lines. Neanderthal died out probably

because of climate change and possible competition with Cro-magnum.

Cro-magnum is identical to us in stucture, brain and tooth size. The

lines continued on and fossils show that over the past 200,000 years

we really haven't changed that much anatomically.

The other interesting thing is that all the major amino acid

sequences our protiens are the same in chimps and apes.

(there are plenty of fossils showing these changes ....there are not

hundreds of thousands because most early hominids and humans lived

in fairly moist and forested areas. Bones got scattered and

destroyed easily. Same as with species of dinosaurs..we've have

examples of species but not thousands of examples of the same

species. It takes a lot right conditions to make a good skeletal

fossil remain)

Okay now there's my tiny, quicky lecture on evolution of man.

That said .....I've been teaching biology for 23 years in high

school. I teach evolution as a theory just like I teach cell theory,

atomic theory, genetic theory, chemical theories etc. There is

tangible evidence for these theories. When the evidence changes

(evolves LOL) then the theories change. And it happens occasionally.

As it stands currently there is NO tangible evidence for

creationism. It is a belief.

I have taught many kids who do not believe in evolution. My goal is

not to force this down anyone with tax payer's dollars (as I've

heard I do). Most the science teachers I know including one in my

dept who believes in creationism are very open to discussions with

students on alternatives to this theory. Our goal is to expose kids

to thought provoking substance. I want my students to learn to

think! When kids start asking me questions that show they're

thinking that's when I know I'm making headway. And I have students

say it's cool to read about all this but I don't believe it and they

tell me why. I say great now you have both sides of the issues and

you're thinking and making your own decisions as to what correct for

you.

(So eventually they learn the skills they need to make good

decisions about nutritional " theories " floating out there!)

Well....I held out as long as I could on this topic trying to let

politics threads die a natural death and couldn't. Sorry !!!

BTW...all kids seem absolutely fascinated by these topics ...I guess

kinda the same as we are...

Take care,

Lynn

February 28, 2004

*******

Our goal is to expose kids to thought provoking substance. I want my

students to learn to think! ....

(So eventually they learn the skills they need to make good

decisions about nutritional " theories " floating out there!) - Lynn

*******

Hi Lynn. You might enjoy reading this news bit, although it's quite dated.

It covers many of the off topics that have been debated recently.

http://www.aps.org/apsnews/1100/110018.cfm

Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not without its flaws (concerning

assumed constants that aren't so constant after all). But it's pretty darn

close as evidenced thus far. Someone suggested violating the laws of

thermodynamics recently. Ha! They are called laws for a reason, as they

are not subject to debate as theories are. When in doubt, try to violate

them and see what happens.

Anyway, I remember when the Big Bang was a possible good thing for

creationists, as it pretty well debunked the steady state theory of the

universe, showing an " in the beginning. " They dropped the ball in favor of

the young earth/universe idea.

Here's to critical thinking!

Deanna

February 28, 2004

In a message dated 2/28/04 3:27:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,

nativenutrition@... writes:

> Anyway, I remember when the Big Bang was a possible good thing for

> creationists, as it pretty well debunked the steady state theory of the

> universe, showing an " in the beginning. " They dropped the ball in favor of

> the young earth/universe idea.

How could they not, in face of all that evidence-- such as the earth's

magnetic field changing at a constant rate, and minerals leaving the ocean at a

constant rate, with no input-- the earth just can't be more than 10,000 years

old.

Actually, it depends on what mineral you measure-- one of them proves the

earth is no more than 200 years old! LOL!

Chris

February 28, 2004

In a message dated 2/28/04 10:49:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

myers_45@... writes:

> Do you believe in spontaneous generation (life coming from nonliving

> matter)?

" Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the earth. "

--Genesis 2:7

February 28, 2004

>I have taught many kids who do not believe in evolution. My goal is

>not to force this down anyone with tax payer's dollars (as I've

>heard I do).

I would like to say one thing about the teaching aspect ...

if ANYONE goes into science, they have to learn the prevailing

theories, whether or not they agree with them. For instance,

we here have studied a lot about cholesterol and heart

disease and what is said about fats, even though we don't

agree with it. When my kids go to school, I expect them

to learn the prevailing theories (even the darn food pyramid)

because that is what EXISTS in the world they are entering.

And really, they should learn Creationism, and the Epic of

Gilgamesh, for that matter, for the same reasons. School

is a place to teach kids to think, not to shelter them

and teach them propaganda. If there is controversy about

a subject in society, the school should teach both sides

of the controversy.

And when they come home from school, I explain exactly

WHY the food pyramid is a bad idea ...

My kudos to all science teachers though! I had some good

ones and they taught me to think and research and take

nothing for granted.

-- Heidi Jean

February 28, 2004

In a message dated 2/28/04 10:57:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,

myers_45@... writes:

> Logical and reasonable questions must be dealt with before presenting as

> fact to our young people. Such questions as:

>

> a.. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

Evolution doesn't teach this.

> Where did matter come from?

Evolution has nothing to do with this.

> What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other

> eight

> or ten kinds?

What?

> How did matter get so perfectly organized?

It isn't.

But as to how it's organized the way it is, well, that's what evolutionary

theory is all about.

Chris

February 28, 2004

>(there are plenty of fossils showing these changes ....there are not

>hundreds of thousands because most early hominids and humans lived

>in fairly moist and forested areas. Bones got scattered and

>destroyed easily. Same as with species of dinosaurs..we've have

>examples of species but not thousands of examples of the same

>species. It takes a lot right conditions to make a good skeletal

>fossil remain)

>

>Okay now there's my tiny, quicky lecture on evolution of man.

thanks lynn - that supports what i learned in my anthro-biology courses in

college. i'm interested in how creationists explain fossils such as Lucy,

cro magnon, etc.

>

>I have taught many kids who do not believe in evolution. My goal is

>not to force this down anyone with tax payer's dollars (as I've

>heard I do). Most the science teachers I know including one in my

>dept who believes in creationism are very open to discussions with

>students on alternatives to this theory. Our goal is to expose kids

>to thought provoking substance. I want my students to learn to

>think! When kids start asking me questions that show they're

>thinking that's when I know I'm making headway. And I have students

>say it's cool to read about all this but I don't believe it and they

>tell me why. I say great now you have both sides of the issues and

>you're thinking and making your own decisions as to what correct for

>you.

this is exactly what makes a GREAT teacher. i bet you are just that :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

February 28, 2004

Dear Lynn,

With all due respect, as a science teacher for 23 years, you may want

to do a little more investigating on this evolutionary topic. About 60 percent

of Lucy's skeleton, including most of the skull, was missing. I'd like to

answer the Neanderthal and Cro-magnum myths, but for now let's consider " Lucy. "

But don't take my word for it.

" All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes

of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees

of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used

to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for

grasping to hold onto branches. Many other characteristics-such as the details

in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their

mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs-constitute evidence

that these creatures were no different from today's ape. However, evolutionists

claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes,

they walked upright like humans.

This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that has been held

by paleoanthropologists such as Leakey and C. Johanson for

decades. Yet many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on

the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the invalidity of that

argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two

world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and

Prof. Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in human

manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years

thanks to grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of

five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an

ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is

an evolutionist himself ( Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger

Publications, New York, 1970, pp. 75-94).

Correspondingly, E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionary anatomist

famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of

australopithecines to that of modern orangutans ( E. Oxnard, " The Place

of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt, " Nature, vol. 258,

4 December 1975, p. 389).

The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie made the subject

the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline " Adieu Lucy " -Lucy being the

most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensis-the

magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be

removed from the human family tree. In this article, based on the discovery of

another Australopithecus fossil known simply as St W573, the following sentences

appear:

AFARENSIS AND CHIMPANZEES

On top is the AL 444-2 Australopithecus afarensis skull, and on

the bottom a skull of a modern chimpanzee. The clear resemblance between them is

an evident sign that A. afarensis is an ordinary species of ape, with no human

characteristics.

GOODBYE, LUCY "

Scientific discoveries have left evolutionist assumptions regarding " Lucy, "

once considered the most important example of the Australopithecus genus,

completely unfounded. The famous French scientific magazine, Science et Vie,

accepted this truth under the headline " Goodbye, Lucy, " in its February 1999

issue, and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of

man.

Another important discovery concerning Australopithecus is the realization

that this creature's hands were used for walking, just like those of present-day

apes. Apes employ a four-legged model of walking in which they lean on the

knuckles of their fingers. Known as " knuckle walking, " this is one of the major

structural differences between apes and man. The skeletal studies performed on

Lucy, the best known of the Australopithecus fossils, in 2000 by two

evolutionist scientists called Richmond and Strait, resulted in a conclusion

that astonished the two evolutionists: Lucy's hand possessed a four-legged

" knuckle walking structure, " just like those of the apes of today. Strait's

comment in an interview regarding this discovery in Nature magazine, which

carried the detailed results, is striking: " I walked over to the cabinet, pulled

out Lucy, and-shazam!-she had the morphology that was classic for knuckle

walkers. " - Stokstad, E., " Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked " , Science

287(5461):2131, 2000

(Taken from Darwinism-watch.com)

-- Original Message -----

From: Lynn Razaitis

Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 2:41 PM

Subject: Re: Adaptations (was POLITICS - Evolution |- the fossils