Normally, I don't copy and paste whole articles. However, since you seem to labor under the illusion I have NO idea what I'm talking about when I write about science (an assumption you've made twice now, this time in the field where I *can* read primary source material) I am going to provide you with the text of an ENTIRE article from Discovery magazine on the same topic as the Yahoo article. You claim that the article, based upon once phrase you misinterpreted, shows that 'Darwin's little theory' is in trouble. You are wrong. Here is a longer article on the same subject in its entirety.

She swung in the trees like a chimp but had long dexterous fingers for tool-making and hybrid feet for walking upright, a major study on the ancient hominid Australopithecus sediba suggested.

Until now, the first tool-maker was widely believed to be Homo habilis, based on a set of 21 fossilized hand bones found in Tanzania that date back 1.75 million years.

But a close examination of two partial fossilized skeletons of Au. sediba discovered in South Africa in 2008 suggests these creatures who roamed the Earth 1.9 million years ago were crafting tools even earlier, and could be the first direct ancestor of the Homo species.

"This is an immensely ground-breaking study. It tells a story never told before. It definitely calls for science books to be re-written," project leader Lee Berger said.

Berger, an American who is a professor at South Africa's University of the Witwatersrand, and his nine-year-old son discovered the fossil site of Malapa, north of Johannesburg, in 2008.

The area is located within the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage site, and has since yielded more than 220 bones from at least five individuals; some babies, juveniles and adults.

A close analysis of the pelvis, brain, feet and hands of Au. sediba are described in five papers published in the journal Science.

Based on the most complete hand specimen ever found, Au. sediba had an extra-long thumb and powerful fingers, which it could have used to make tools despite still having a small ape-like brain.
The rare discovery of hand bones belonged to an adult female who may have been about 20 or 30 when she died. Her remains were found near a young boy, whose fossilized bones were also included in the study.

"The sediba hand reveals a surprising mix of features that we wouldn't have predicted could exist in the same hand," said co-author Tracy Kivell from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.


"It has this long thumb, but surprisingly this thumb is even longer than we see in modern humans," she said.

"The wrist was better able to deal with larger loads that it might experience during tool use for example," and it had long narrow fingers "capable of powerful grasping," she added.

"So this mix of morphology suggests to us that sediba likely still used its hands for climbing in trees... but it was likely also capable of making the precision grips that we believe are necessary for making stone tools."

Au. sediba had a small but advanced brain. Its pelvis reflected an upright posture, and it possessed a unique foot and ankle that "combines features of both apes and humans in one anatomical package," said Berger.

The female's foot and ankle bones, some of the most complete specimens ever found, surprised paleoanthropologists because of their odd mix of a human-like foot arch and Achilles tendon, but a heel and shin like that of an ape.

"If the bones had not been found stuck together, the team may have described them as belonging to different species," said co-author Bernard Zipfel from the University of the Witwatersrand.

The analysis by a team of 80 international scientists offers new clues into how the transition from ape to human may have occurred, but also raises plenty of questions about the evolution of our species.

Scientists aren't sure if the Homo genus, which includes contemporary humans, evolved directly from the Au. sediba, or if Au. sediba was a so-called "dead-end" species and the Homo genus evolved separately.

One of the main problems facing paleoanthropologists is that little is known about the skeletal characteristics of the Homo habilis, so even though sediba is well-defined there is an absence of evidence for comparison.

"The fossil record for early Homo is a mess," said co-author Steven Churchill of Duke University in North Carolina. "Many fossils are either questionably attributed to various species or their dating is very poor."

But a long list of all the advanced traits that sediba shared with other Homo species like habilis and rudolfensis "suggests it's a good ancestor of the first species that everyone recognizes in the Homo genus: H. erectus."

So that you won't think I've just made this up off the top of my head:

http://news.discovery.com/human/huma...er-110909.html

Now, you will, no doubt, zoom in on the statement above in green. However, at no point will you find *anything* in the article saying that evolution through natural selection is at all challenged or questioned. In fact, this article assumes that variation and natural selection works. It takes it as read in the same way that it takes as read that if Homo sediba fell, it would hit the ground because of gravity.

There is not a single phrase in that article that supports your conclusion, Ebon. Not a single one. Your arguing by assertion that it does doesn't change anything about that matter. Darwinian theory does NOT hinge upon whether a particular event happened at a particular time in a particular way. It doesn't. So even if we had NO idea how we moved from being very like chimps to being us, the theory of evolution through natural selection would still be useful *and* robust. Because the theory isn't about the specifics of how humans came to be.

Darwinian theory states that in a given population, living in a given environment, there will be variation. If that variation provides ANY advantage then, statistically, individuals within that population will leave around more descendants either because they are more fecund, better able to resist disease, able to attract more or better mates, better able to avoid being eaten or to catch prey. Given sufficient time and these variations will accumulate until a population splits in two becoming two distinct species.

NONE of that is questioned above, Ebon and unless you can find me an article in a *reputable* journal on this subject where your conclusion is supported, I'm not going to pretend that your desire to be right trumps reality. You aren't right, Ebon. Evolutionary theory--which IS Darwin's theory--is not in the least bit challenged by the find written about in the Yahoo article. The fact that you think it does, means either you didn't read the article, didn't understand what you read, or just SO want to be right that you conjured up the meaning that led you to the conclusion

And this:

You're saying that Darwin's 'little theory' is wrong. I'm saying you don't know what Darwin's 'little theory' says just that *whatever* it says you think it is wrong. You will find no one in biology or anthropology who would agree with you that the Yahoo article or the lengthier article above threatens Darwinian evolution in the least bit. Yet, you assert that it does. Now, I think I've established my bona fides on this subject enough to be taken seriously about it. I had written out a longer post, composed primarily of my own explanation, but then thought I'd quote the Discovery article because, as I said at the head of this post, you clearly think I don't know what I'm talking about. I find that ironic because, in fact, I could give a fuller explanation for how Darwinian theory *could* be disproved than you can, even though you are certain that it is wrong. I can assert that definitively because if you knew what Darwinian theory does and does not say, you would know what it does and does not predict. It doesn't predict WHEN hominid females started to have wider pelvises to accommodate the enlarging heads of hominid babies. It doesn't predict WHEN we developed tool use. It doesn't predict whether we started growing larger brains *before* the changes in our hands and skeleton or after. The article above is about those kinds of things. Things that only make sense if Darwinian theory works as the backdrop.

You can assert that you know better about this subject than I do all you wish but until you can demonstrate that--and right now your assertions that my eyes are closed aren't a demonstration of anything other than your ability to make an ad hominem attack--why should I or anyone else believe that the article says what you so desperately want to believe it does? Because the interpretation you are giving to the article isn't supported in the words.

Cheers
Aj

http://news.yahoo.com/planet-star-wa...181404397.html

Planet has 2 suns.

I saw that :). It's like Star Wars.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/whoknew-...-26637702.html


Moby Dick

http://news.yahoo.com/officials-beav...224513566.html

Beaver teeth.

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged...161920724.html


Gamers crack AIDS puzzle

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...0_speed23.html

The linky icon stopped working on my iPhone.

One of the pillars of physics and Albert Einstein's theory of relativity — that nothing can go faster than the speed of light — was rocked Thursday.

European researchers said they clocked an oddball type of subatomic particle called a neutrino going faster than the 186,282 miles per second long been considered the cosmic speed limit.

European researchers said they clocked an oddball type of subatomic particle called a neutrino going faster than the 186,282 miles per second long been considered the cosmic speed limit.

help
 

Ok I have been trying to find some answers, and researching every science website , physics journals and blog I can find but to no avail. So I thought I'd try here why not. I don't expect you to be able to answer my questions but maybe you can point me in the right direction. I have been hunting for 3 days now. Ever since I read the story about the new discovery in physics, that may upset the apple cart so to speak. If you haven't heard, scientist have made a discovery that could change the foundation of physics. Physics as we know it, is pretty much based on the fact that nothing is faster than the speed of light 186,282 miles per second. It has been discovered that neutrinos from a particle accelerator can travel up to 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. If the findings hold true, the fundamental laws of physics would have to be revised. Since are all based on energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Which has been perfect up until now.
Okay so here is my question or questions.
My first question is, can neutrinos sustain that speed infinitely, as speed of light does?
Also , how fast do neutrinos normally travel without the help of a particle accelerator?

Hello Jagg!

These links might interest you and hopefully give you some answers :)

http://physicsforme.wordpress.com/20...ght-neutrinos/

http://profmattstrassler.com/2011/09...-have-we-here/

Jagg:

I'll try to do my very best on this one. The answer to both questions require a little bit of background on what a neutrino is and why whether or not they can exceed the speed of light is an interesting question.

So neutrinos are very small, *very* weakly interacting subatomic particles. They are the result of atomic decay (called beta decay) and are electrically neutral. They are weakly interacting because the two forces that will act on neutrinos are either very weak or very short-range. The first is weak nuclear force which is responsible for atomic decay. It is very short-range falling off to nothing pretty much outside of the range of the nucleus of an atom. The other is gravity which is long range but very weak (gravity seems strong because gravity is caused by mass and the Earth has a LOT of mass but gravity is the weakest of the four foces). How rarely do neutrinos interact with other matter? A neutrino from the sun could pass through the the Earth without *ever* interacting with another particle. This would be true even if the Earth were solid lead and lead is very dense (which is why it's used for shielding)!

The other really interesting thing is that neutrinos have very little mass while not being completely massless. The mass of a neutrino is so small that it is measured in terms of its energy. It is 50 meV (megaelectron volts). To give you an idea of just how small a number this is equivalent to this portion of a gallon of gasoline 0.0000000000000000000607991. (Recall that Einstein demonstrated that you can convert energy to mass) The reason why it is interesting is that if the neutrino were precisely massless it would always travel the speed of light (because anything with zero mass will travel the speed of light). Since the neutrino appears to have a very small, but non-zero mass, this means it can accelerate toward but can never exceed the speed of light.

This is a consequence of the equation e=mc^2 because c^2 is the speed of light (c) squared (^2). Since the speed of light in vacuum is 186,282 miles per second that number squared is huge! To accelerate *anything* with mass to within a sizable portion of c would take infinite energy. Since infinite energy isn't to be had in a finite universe nothing with mass can accelerate beyond the speed of light.

Which takes us to the recent experiment and what it might mean. So, IF it turns out that these neutrinos were accelerated beyond the speed of light then that means that Einstein's special theory of relativity will have to be revised. That said, it's simply too early to tell. Measuring the speed of neutrinos is actually a statistical matter so they look at the number of detections within a certain period of time after the accelerator fires. It may be a measurement error. If so then these experimentalists do botch things sometimes. If, on the other hand, these results are confirmed then the principal researchers are all going to Stockholm to pick up a Nobel.

To answer your two specific questions:

The answer to whether or not the neutrinos can keep up their motion indefinitely, the answer would be yes for a given value of indefinite. Until it interacts with another particle a neutrino at any velocity will continue at that velocity.

As far as the speed of a neutrino under natural conditions they have been detected within the margin of error of the speed of light (so within .999999 percent of c) from sources like a supernova.

Cheers
Aj

In the aftermath of the 2009 Australian bush fires, rare bird and plant species have returned.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nt-growth.html

I know what neutrinos are but thanks for the input and taking time to respond. I found the answers on some of the links and websites many of you pvt messaged me with. Thank you!

http://news.yahoo.com/odyssey-marine...145559446.html

Sunken treasure

No offense was meant, Jagg. I responded to you but wanted to give others who might also be wondering much the same thing but didn't necessarily know what neutrinos are some bit of background so they would have some context about what all the hubbub was about. Again, I meant no insult.

Cheers
Aj

None taken friend!!!! I was not insulted in the least. I'm grateful you took the time to respond to my questions. Thank you again.

I think this fact will fit in here.. did you know that body odor is created when bacteria on your body eat sweat then release gas. My first post on this website and I choose farting bacteria, job well done! This is the only interesting thing I have ever heard on ESPN