The new species of hominid, the evolutionary branch of primates that includes humans, is to be revealed when the two-million-year-old skeleton of a child is unveiled this week.
There is no incongruity if one doesn’t isolate the text and insert ellipses like that.
It says that both one PARTICULAR skeleton has been found that is of the greatest interest due to being unusually complete, and also other skeletons have been found at the same site that belong to other individuals, for which there is no claim of being as nearly complete.
It does take deduction to determine why one sentence speaks of a skeleton and another of skeletons plural, but the information is all there if the text is not isolated and chopped.
Perhaps this will help:
The reporter probably has a 15 minute or half hour tape of him speaking with the scientist.
The article is not going to have the entire thing.
Sometimes the scientist is speaking of the skeleton that is remarkably complete.
Sometimes he is speaking of the entire find, which includes other skeletons.
On your other concern:
Different things are being spoken of.
A fossil “has” been discovered. That is a fact.
It “may have been” what some would call the missing link. The term “may” is used because that is a matter of judgment. For example I suppose the fossil found might represent a population which does not have man as a descendant, but rather dead-ended. Whether that is so or not might be resolved only with a great deal of study, if ever, and therefore it is not going to be said that it is a fact that this fossil represents an intermediate stage in our development.
OK, listen.
My conclusion at this point is that you are being willfully obstinate. The meaning is very plain here, keeping in mind the realities of reporters writing articles, editors putting in headlines; a scientist speaking, journalists trying to sum it up, etc.
You for your own reasons are determined to insist on contradiction.
Fine. Operate in non-understanding of what was said here all you want. Clearly you don’t actually want it explained to you and actually understand it. You want to stand in objection to it for whatever reason which has nothing to do with the facts of the case.
If you actually do want to understand it then what you need is already provided.
Give it up push. Bill called you out, let it go and don’t do it again.
Push, while the reporter or editor’s reading comprehension from the transcript may not have been 100% but merely reasonable for a “layman” (so to speak), their reading comprehension on this one beats yours.
You have an axe to grind, clearly, and there is nothing going on here except that. You cannot say a thing of merit with regard to the science that would aid your position, whatever it is, so all you can do is what you have done above. Ridiculous.
Over and out.
Changing, therefore, away from anything derived from that finding or article, as we have both concluded that on that matter discussion on our parts is completed:
Let us see if you are intellectually honest and consistent on this general subject, since you obviously have an issue with it.
Do you say that Homo habilis were human beings according to your definition of human beings?
Do you think that Adam predated Homo habilis or was a more primitive form, structurally speaking? (In terms of skeleton and so forth.) Or if not Adam, the first created human being or set of human beings, if you argue such.
Well, here’s the problem:
Wasn’t your position regarding any “missing link” – certainly the standard objection is – that there is nothing deemed clearly transitional between ape and man: the problem being that species such as Homo habilis still aren’t far enough back to the ape to be transitional?
I have known creationists who definitely had that position yet when I ask them if such as Homo habilis are according to their definition human – a question they don’t expect – their answer is no.
So you are implacable. Nothing can satisfy you.
So which is it: Homo habilis is too far back to be “the missing link,” or not far enough?
Nothing will be a “missing link” to you. Not a predecessor to Homo habilis, as is ordinarily being looked for for a missing link, nor later examples such as Homo rhodesiensis, Homo antecessor, or anything.
Because of your predetermined conclusion, nothing can be a missing link to you.
If a skeleton is found that really is halfway between an ape and a hominan, you’d insist that that still wasn’t the missing link, because why, the missing link would be something at some point AFTER Homo habilis, what with Homo habilis maybe being an ape and all.
Or if we find something that is closer than ever before to Homo sapiens while still not being Homo sapiens, you’d deny that as being the missing link, too.
If you would just admit that that is your position, then that would obviate any need for further discussion.
And incidentally, your claiming that Homo habilis might be an ape proves you actually do not know anything at all on the subject.
Rather than arguing “skeleton” vs “skeletons” and so forth, it would be briefer and much more valid to just say “I don’t believe it for religious reasons and that’s that.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, here’s the problem:
Wasn’t your position regarding any “missing link” – certainly the standard objection is – that there is nothing deemed clearly transitional between ape and man, with the problem being that such as Homo habilis still weren’t far enough back to the ape to be transitional?
I have known creationists who definitely had that position yet when I ask them if such as Homo habilis are according to their definition human, their answer is no.
So you are implacable. Nothing can satisfy you. [/quote]
Be wary of satifaction, Bill. Be very wary of “firm facts” about the distant past where observation and experimentation is very limited. [/quote]
I notice you had no direct response. Well, no wonder.
As for your advice, it really has no relation to anything I said and in no way undoes or weakens any of it. I suppose it was your best escape attempt though.
[quote][quote]Nothing will be a “missing link” to you. Not a predecessor to Homo habilis, as is ordinarily being looked for for a missing link, nor later examples such as Homo rhodesiensis, Homo antecessor, or anything.
Simply because of your methods and definitions, nothing can be a missing link to you. [/quote]
You may indeed be right. Does that make you right overall and me wrong? [/quote]
If you have a system where you will always deny anything as being a missing link, either always claiming it to be too early or too late, or too near to man or too far from man, then your arguments denying any given thing to be a missing link are intellectually dishonest if they go anything beyond simply asserting that you deny that man evolved from earlier creatures no matter what fossils may be found.
If inherently you will accept nothing as being a missing link in any case – and it sounds like you would not – then arguments from you about missing links or lack thereof are meaningless. You might as well be saying “But no one has found a Snark!” as supposedly proving your point when you will accept nothing as being a Snark anyhow, no matter what.
For example in this case, it doesn’t seem you’re even decided nor does it matter to you whether the problem with this fossil potentially being an example of “the missing link” is that it is too early or too late. You’re just not going to accept it no matter what: the reason is not because one paragraph reads “skeleton” and the next reads “skeletons” or whatever particular objections you might cite regarding a given discovery. That’s not really your basis.
Au contraire. Habilis does have ape like morphology. For you to deny this might be to reveal that indeed it is you that actually knows nothing at all about the subject. I actually think you’re a smart enough guy to where you do know some things in this regard but you would do well not to sling that particular barb less ye be caught with your pants down. [/quote]
I did not take your use of the word “ape” to include man, though scientifically the family Hominidae, called the great apes, includes man. I understood you to use the word in a sense meaning a hominoid other than a hominan.
What, you mean you consider man an ape? Did I misunderstand how you use words or was it somehow a wrong thing for me to communicate with you using a word in the same sense you use it?
[quote][quote]Rather than arguing words and so forth, it would be briefer and much more valid to just say “I don’t believe it for religious reasons and that’s that.”
[/quote]One thing I don’t need is for you to place words in my mouth. [/quote]
There you go again with the reading comprehension. I put no words in your mouth. Not one. I said that the above would be more valid, which I continue to say it would be. It would have some validity, whereas your “skeleton” vs “skeletons” etc nonsense had none.
[quote]In fact, you yourself might consider not arguing words and so forth; it would be briefer and much more valid to just say “I don’t believe it for what I think are scientific reasons but in essence are religious reasons and that’s that.”
[/quote]
Well, the fact that I have said things that you don’t understand does not mean that the cause must be or is what you are asserting here. It just might be for the causes that I say. Could be, just maybe.