Scientists found first walking human ancestor

Scientists have discovered four-million-year-old fossils that they believe are the remains of the earliest human forebear to have walked on two legs.

The bones were discovered by the team of US and Ethiopian scientists in February at a new site called Mille, in the northeastern Afar region of Ethiopia (Africa).

They say the fossils form a link between older creatures with more ape-like characteristics and the upright-walking species Australopithecus afarensis, which was identified when a 3.2-million-year-old fossil, later named Lucy, was uncovered in 1974 at a site just 37 miles away from Mille.

The remains include a complete lower leg tibia, parts of a thigh, ankle bone, ribs, vertebrae, a collarbone, pelvis and a complete shoulder blade.

Bah, who still believes in Darwin's fairy tale entitled evolution today? The quest for the "missing link" will go on forever, because a good narrative like Darwin's does not rely on facts. Creation is more miraculous than we think, it defies explanations offered by defenders of evolution theory.

Yeah, you are so right! If we just make up the facts, then they will explain everything we've been spending so many years trying to discover. Brilliant!

Yes, of course, creationism is based on facts... what were we thinking. Facts like the devil and Adam and Eve... I feel so much better now, we can stop searching.

Prior comments by the person calling themself "b.e." are indicative of
someone who relies on faith instead of data. Unlike science, these kind
of views are not open to revision -- they are views of the "true believer".
We must do better in our schools so that at least the kids today do not
grow up to be ignorant of science in general and natural history in particular.

b.e. -- wake up and smell the coffee!

I agree with b.e. After all, how can Darwin explain crop circles? Don't you rubes realize the coast guard and Starbucks are in control of the world bank, and are using ELF communications to control our very thoughts? You scientists are so close-minded, and yet you find meaning in digging up old bones.

Most people don't agree with Darwin's theory because they look at it wrong. Darwin's theory of evolution does not mean that we came from apes. It means that apes and humans have a similiar ancestor. That is all that it is saying that some species along time ago broke off and some became apes, while others became humans so that common link is there. We did not come from apes, but our ancestors our similiar. Also, Darwin's theory is just a theory, but it is supported by alot of evidence. We will never be able to prove it, but the same applies for creation. We will never be able to prove creation, but we can support it with many facts. Take the theory of Spontaneous Generation. It was disproved by a simple jar of meat. So, both ideas will have to life together forever because nobody will ever accept one or the other and nobody will ever be able to prove one more right than the other. We must learn to accept both ideas on a scientific level.

"someone who relies on faith instead of data"

There is plenty of scientific data to support the faith based creationism.
See this webpage that is supported by many scientists around the world
http://answersingenesis.org/

Please let's not reduce the discussion to shouting at each other.

There are now so many independent facts which Darwin's theory continues to explain in the most elegant fashion that it really is an accepted "theory" by 90% of the scientific world, not an hypothesis. Evolutionary Theory is the most economical way to explain the fact that the enormous diversity of life (unknown millions of species) on the earth all uses the same mechanisim of DNA to pass on the blueprints to succeeding generations.

What could be more miraculous than that all life on the Earth or in the Universe may be connected? That still leaves the wondrous, awesome, question of whether there is a Creator of it all up for grabs. Darwin is not in conflict with most theologies.

For an excellent review of all the threads of evidence please read "What Evolution Is" by the late (Died in Feb 2005) Ernst Mayr, who wrote it at age 97 specifically to educate those of us who are not scientists. It is beautifully written and clear as a bell.

You bet Darwin is a good story, because these kinds of discoveries are the origins of the human story. The Creation Story, on the other the other hand, is just a children's story. In the children's story you will find a lesson to guide a child's mind. In Darwin's story you'll find our roots.

Linda Lewis-Weissenger is 100% incorrect. The religious-based refutations posted on AIG have been soundly falsified and have no scientific credibility.

Only a tiny percentage of fringe scientists reject evolution and usually they have a political and religious agenda for doing so. This they are certainly free to do but it cannot be called science.

The "Theory of Evolution" is so solid and so well established that it is better understood and less controversial than the "Theory of Gravity".

The propagation of energy through space is based on scientific beliefs called the "Theory of Light". I guess, since "light" is just a so-called theory, I must be imagining the photons that are striking my eyes at this very moment.

Uh-oh. Hold on to your seats. Our understanding of Gravity is just based on theories, too.

You forget that a theory is a hypothesis that has been accepted by a majority of the world based on evidence. You can never make a theory a "fact", but you can come pretty damn close. I agree with evolution and I don't agree with creationism, I just didn't want to start something, but since something has already been said...might as well state where I stand.

There is not one shred of legitimate scientific evidence to support "creationism". This is why they promulgate the lie that criticism of Darwin constitutes "proof" of creationism.

Evolution, per se is not a theory. It is an inescapable inference derived from an overwhelming amount of observational data. The Theory of Evolution is a structured, organized attempt to explain how and why evolution occurs. The theory still has plenty of controversy in it as new developments and ideas occur on a regular basis as more ecological, genetic, paleontological evidence accumuilates. Evolution itself is not in the least controversial in the scientific community of the Life Sciences, the primary group in a position to judge the matter. Evolution is accepted as incontrovertible fact, no more controversial than the Atomic Theory of Matter or the idea that all the planets rotate around the sun. The controversy lies in the explanation of its mechanisms.

Evolution is simply a formal scientific statement about living things that derives from the non-controversial idea that all things change. The genetic code of all living things contains the capacity for unlimited change. Take dogs for example; there are no jungles containing wild poodles, nor are there packs of wild chihuahuas in the deserts of Mexico. All dogs are derived from wild Eurasian wolves and were domesticated about 15,000 years ago. Human selection in that time has created an incredibly diverse variety of critters from that same basic stock, all capable of genetic stability in their new forms and breeding true to their kind. Dogs have undergone irreversible changes from their former wolf state and remain dogs even when they go wild. If we continue the forces of human selection another 100,000 years, we won't have different breeds of dogs but different species of dogs. What has happened to dogs shows the powerful plasticity of the genes of living beings. What so clearly and evidently happens under human selection also must happen under natural selection, though usually much more slowly. This is the crux of Darwin's Theory as to why evolution happens and the logic behind it is as inescapable as the logic behind the idea that it is the Earth that turns round and not the Heavens. The devil, however, lies in the details and this is where the controversies originate.

A belief in "creationism" is a damning indictment of a person's fundamental and culpable ignorance about the world they live in. You might as well be a charter member of the Flat Earth Society. At the beginning of the Dark Ages, several Christian scholarly works were published to refute the "heresy" that the Earth was spherical. Creationism is just as abysmally superstitious and profoundly ignorant.

Sternly in Defence of the Truth,

JerryBear

Linda Lewis-Weissinger is 100% incorrect. The religious-based refutations posted on AIG have been soundly falsified and have no scientific credibility.

Only a tiny percentage of fringe scientists reject evolution and usually they have a political and religious agenda for doing so. This they are certainly free to do but it cannot be called science.

The "Theory of Evolution" is so solid and so well established that it is better understood and less controversial than the "Theory of Gravity".