Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Fourth echelon

Lucy had a neighbor, new early human species discovered

8 posts in this topic

CLEVELAND, May 27 (UPI) -- Scientists have identified a new species of human ancestor they believe lived alongside Lucy, the famous Australopithecus afarensis specimen.

The newly identified species is called Australopithecus deyiremeda, named after close examination of a unique set of fossils found in the central Afar region of the East African Rift Valley. The fossils are 3.3 million years old, roughly the same age as Lucy's bones.

They were unearthed roughly 20 miles north of where Lucy was discovered. The researchers responsible for the latest discovery say they even found A. afarensis alongside A. deyiremeda fossils at the revelatory dig site.

"This new species from Ethiopia takes the ongoing debate on early hominin diversity to another level," lead researcher Yohannes Haile-Selassie, a scientist with the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, said in a press release.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/05/27/Lucy-had-a-neighbor-new-early-human-species-discovered/2651432747796/?spt=rrs&or=6

 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucy was a hoax.

Lucy Dethroned

You might well be asking yourself why this charade has been allowed to go on this long. The answer—woven around power, fame, and money—can be found in Johanson’s own words.

There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where 

Homo

 did start. You begin straining your eyes to find

Homo

 traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but also biased. 

I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain

 (Johanson and Edey, 1981, pp. 257,258, emp. added).

He went on to admit: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).

Some are asking if A. afarensis is more primitive than A. africanus, or if they are one and the same? Others point to the many chimp-like features, and question whether Lucy ever walked upright at all? But, in the March 1996 issue of National Geographic, Donald Johanson himself admitted: “Lucy has recently been dethroned” (189[3]:117, emp. added). His (and Lucy’s) “fifteen minutes of fame” are over. As Lee Berger declared: “One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree” (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Fascinating, how often the hominid family tree is pruned!

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucy story is all a farce, and everyone who knows anything at all also knows
that she was put together with a piece from here, and another piece from there.
They should really stop all the bullshit making claims that old broken down pieces
of a monkey are a new species oh human.

Boy, I'll tell ya, they never ever stop reaching, now do they? The bullshit gets thicker
every year!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's been known for some time now that Lucy is a fake, pieced together and distorted...
Yet somehow these scientists were not informed that Lucy was a Chimp and only 40% complete?

"Because the two species of hominin were found in such close proximity -- both chronologically and geographically -- researchers suggest they likely featured different skill sets and took advantage of different food resources.
Tim White, a researcher at the University of California, 
told NewScientist
 that more fossils are needed to prove differentiation worthy of a separate special classification. He thinks the new species could just be party of Lucy's family."

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now since I've already known since I was knee high to a grasshopper that there have
been multiple earth ages other than the one which we are now in, I have always agreed
that there was a serious misinterpretation in the beginning of the book of Genesis, and
which states as follows:

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

(Genesis 1:2 KJV)

The above verse cues me into the fact that the earth was already there before God
recreated it as the spirit of God moved upon the face of the water that were also already
there.

That would mean that the earth was actually destroyed before the Genesis account, and
maybe even more than once. I know I always say "we were at this same point in time many
times before", but of course, I cannot say that it's happened more than once before our
current earth age, but I can say without any doubt that its happened at least once before!

It would also seem that the fossil records from that previous age have survived, and even
though these fossil records of both ages could have washed and mixed together after the
worldwide deluge, it is still somewhat possible to separate the two.
It should be noted here
that this fossil record does not show any kind of technology except for organic life.

Obviously this Lucy story has happened at some point in our own earth age as geologic
time waits for no man, but that being said, it is painfully obvious that this current age is
not just 6000 years old like young earth theorist believe, but instead many billions of years
old.

It is my opinion that the earth is also many times older than the 4.6 billion years that science
claims it to be. I would even bet that the earth is at least millions of eons old if not billions
of eons, and those kinds of numbers are unfathomable indeed! One eon, (or aeon as some may
claim) is equal to one billion years.

If true, what has been here before?

 

Edited by Cryptic Mole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He went on to admit: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).

Whew, it took forever to get out of the red quote box.

It is refreshing to see a scientist admit his bias. Now if we get as much honesty from Nasa/Jpl. I'm not holding my breath to hear from any. They know which side their bread is buttered on. Live side up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whew, it took forever to get out of the red quote box.

It is refreshing to see a scientist admit his bias. Now if we get as much honesty from Nasa/Jpl. I'm not holding my breath to hear from any. They know which side their bread is buttered on. Live side up.

Yeah, I hate that red quote box. Shep says to hit control-a-delete.​ That resets
everything. It works.

What's so hard for them to just admit that just maybe there is/was an intelligent
designer, and that evolution is all bullshit!?!? Or is everyone just too damn proud
to ever admit that we don't have all the answers?

I just think its pretty damn degrading to say we all came from a monkey and that
we evolved, and which is horseshit in the first place. There is no such thing! If so,
why are both lines/species still here? Maybe their next arguement about that will
be one species was cut-off by eroding land bridges or some other bullshit. lol.

The most one can ever have is adaptation, and not evolution. They are two
completely different things. Evolution is species change, and to adapt is just what
it says it is.

If for some reason humans were forced to move into the earth, and out of the daylight,
it would take time for their eyes to adapt to the darkness, and maybe over a generation
or two, but that is not evolution. That's adaptation, and with no species change needed!
They would never change into another species, they would just adapt.

Besides, I think the Scriptures pretty much summed it up when it said "Each species after
their own kind."

Edited by Cryptic Mole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main thing evolutionists can't explain is Rh negative blood types.
Older articles always said "unknown origin". Now they say "possible mutation".
Rh positive blood has never been observed naturally mutating to negative. They can't even clone it.
Only a small percent of humans are Rh negative and no other species on the planet is.
This fact also blows away The Out of Africa Theory.
It's all B.S. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.