Her skeleton has been described as one of the most important discoveries of the past century, and she is changing basic ideas about how our earliest ancestors looked and moved. |
"The authors"? Plural? Seriously? Because the article's author's name is 'Ann Gibbons' instead of 'Ann Gibbon', you think the 's' at the end signifies that multiple authors wrote it? Wow! I suggest you contact Ann Gibbons and ask her if she is multiple authors, and report back.of course not. it seemed to be what 7 took from the article. i suggested he contact the authors to see if his reading was accurate. chances he will do that??
oh my, is this a clue that you really did not read the article? Gibbons wrote an article for"The authors"? Plural? Seriously? Because the article's author's name is 'Ann Gibbons' instead of 'Ann Gibbon', you think the 's' at the end signifies that multiple authors wrote it? Wow! I suggest you contact Ann Gibbons and ask her if she is multiple authors, and report back.
7, the Gibbons article is 14 years old and perhaps some of those referenced have moved on but a quick google search suggest that C. Owen Lovejoy mentioned in the article is still at Kent State. Give him a call. I'll be he would be delighted to hear from you"The authors"? Plural? Seriously? Because the article's author's name is 'Ann Gibbons' instead of 'Ann Gibbon', you think the 's' at the end signifies that multiple authors wrote it? Wow! I suggest you contact Ann Gibbons and ask her if she is multiple authors, and report back.
@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>
- By the author's phrase, "our earliest ancestors", is she referring to single-celled organisms? Yes or No?
@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>
- Is the author telling us that dug-up skeletal fragments are "changing basic ideas about" how single-celled organisms looked and moved? Yes or No?
Wait, you want me to call someone who is not you and ask him if you are he!? Huh!? I think your crayons are melting, Shakespeare.Give him a call. I'll be he
the article's author's name is 'Ann Gibbons'
no and no. your glaring failure to understand basic science is obvious.I asked @Avajs:
@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>
I asked @Avajs:
@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>
Your glaring failure to answer these easy, Yes/No questions about the article is you admitting that you have not read the article, @Avajs. And now, you've gone and further admitted that you have not read the article by your glaring blunder of claiming the article has multiple authors, rather than just one author.
no but that’s ok. have a nice lifeWait, you want me to call someone who is not you and ask him if you are he!? Huh!? I think your crayons are melting, Shakespeare.
The idea that mankind "evolved" from a single-celled organism by a long series of mistakes is one the dumbest ideas ever invented.
“invented”? not really the correct word.The idea that mankind "evolved" from a single-celled organism by a long series of mistakes is one the dumbest ideas ever invented.
I was going to mention that that is really where it all starts.Typical for ideas that reject God.
I was talking about the big picture of your ridiculous belief system...“invented”? not really the correct word.
but rather than quibble over your word choice—-the Smithsonian article referenced a number of hominids ancestral to H. sapiens—-what is your explanation for those creatures? and, did they become extinct before or after the flood?
- By the author's phrase, "our earliest ancestors", is she referring to single-celled organisms? Yes or No?
Correct.
- Is the author telling us that dug-up skeletal fragments are "changing basic ideas about" how single-celled organisms looked and moved? Yes or No?
Correct.and no.
What you wrote, there, reads like a fortune-cookie fortune (except that, unlike you, the Japanese know to capitalize the initial of a sentence in English). Which is kind of apt since a fortune-cookie fortune is, similarly, text that comes out of a dark, empty space inside dough.your glaring failure to understand basic science is obvious.
a fortune-cookie fortune . . . the Japanese . . . a fortune-cookie fortune
how about an answer to the question of what happened to all the 15 or so species and genera discussed in the article? extinct pre or post flood and how can you tell?I was talking about the big picture of your ridiculous belief system...
Humans are humans.
Apes are apes.
Monkeys are monkeys.
etc. etc. etc.
None of which "evolved" from a single-celled ancestor.