Science

Family Claims Newly-Discovered Bones Point to Pre-Human Species

Some Paleontologists Believe Three Homo Species Lived 2 Million Years Ago

This undated handout photo provided by National Geographic and Nature shows Meave Leakey carefully excavates the new face KNM-ER 62000 near Koobi Fora, northern Kenya. A famous family of paleontologists says newly found fossils confirm their controversial theory that the human family tree may have sprouted some long-lost branches going back nearly 2 million years. Meave Leakey led a team of researchers in Kenya that claim what they dug up shows there once were two additional pre-human species besides the one that eventually led to modern humans. (Photo: AP/Fred Spoor)

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Our family tree may have sprouted some long-lost branches going back nearly 2 million years. A famous paleontology family has found fossils that they think confirm their theory that there are two additional pre-human species besides the one that eventually led to modern humans. Others say though the assumptions being made are a stretch.

A team led by Meave Leakey, daughter-in-law of famed scientist Louis Leakey, found facial bones from one creature and jawbones from two others in Kenya. That led the researchers to conclude that man’s early ancestor had plenty of human-like company from other species.

These wouldn’t be Homo erectus, believed to be our direct ancestor. They would be more like very distant cousins, who when you go back even longer in time, shared an ancient common ancestor, one scientist said.

But other experts in human evolution aren’t convinced by what they say is a leap to large conclusions based on limited evidence. It’s the continuation of a long-running squabble in anthropology about the earliest members of our own genus, or class, called Homo -an increasingly messy family history. And much of it stems from a controversial discovery that the Leakeys made 40 years ago.

In their new findings, the Leakey team says that none of their newest fossil discoveries match erectus, so they had to be from another flat-faced relatively large species with big teeth.

The new specimens have “a really distinct profile” and thus they are “something very different,” said Meave Leakey, describing the study published online Wednesday in Nature.

Some Paleontologists Believe Three Homo Species Lived 2 Million Years Ago

This undated handout image provided by National Geographic and Nature shows a computer enhanced image of a lower jaw, shown as a photographic reconstruction, and the cranium, based on a computed tomography scan of of he KNM-ER 1470 cranium. (Photo: AP/Fred Spoor/National Geographic, Nature)

What these new bones did match was an old fossil that Meave and her husband Richard helped find in 1972 that was baffling. That skull, called 1470, just didn’t fit with Homo erectus, the Leakeys contended. They said it was too flat-faced with a non-jutting jaw. They initially said it was well more than 2.5 million years old in a dating mistake that was later used by creationists as evidence against evolution because it indicated how scientists can make dating mistakes. It turned out to be 2 million years old.

For the past 40 years, the scientific question has been whether 1470 was a freak mutation of erectus or something new. For many years, the Leakeys have maintained that the male skull known as 1470 showed that there were more than one species of ancient hominids, but other scientists said it wasn’t enough proof.

The Leakeys’ new discoveries are more evidence that this earlier “enigmatic face” was a separate species, said study co-author Fred Spoor of the Max Planck Institute in Germany. The new bones were found between 2007 and 2009 about six miles away from the old site near the fossil-rich Lake Turkana region, Leakey said.

So that would make two species – erectus and the one represented by 1470.

But it’s not that simple. The Leakey scientific team contends that other fossils of old hominids – not those cited in their new study – don’t seem to match either erectus or 1470. They argue that the other fossils seem to have smaller heads and not just because they are female. For that reason, the Leakeys believe there were three living Homo species between 1.8 million and 2 million years ago. They would be Homo erectus, the 1470 species, and a third branch.

“Anyway you cut it there are three species,” study co-author Susan Anton, an anthropologist at New York University. “One of them is named erectus and that ultimately in our opinion is going to lead to us.”

Both of the species that Meave Leakey said existed back then went extinct more than a million years ago in evolutionary dead-ends.

“Human evolution is clearly not the straight line that it once was,” Spoor said.

The three different species could have been living at the same time at the same place, but probably didn’t interact much, he said. Still, he said, East Africa nearly 2 million years ago “was quite a crowded place.”

And making matters somewhat more confusing, the Leakeys and Spoor refused to give names to the two non-erectus species or attach them to some of the other Homo species names that are in scientific literature but still disputed. That’s because of confusion about what species belongs where, Anton said.

Two likely possibilities are Homo rudolfensis -which is where 1470 and its kin seem to belong – and Homo habilis, where the other non-erectus belong, Anton said. The team said the new fossils mean scientists can reclassify those categorized as non-erectus species and confirm the earlier but disputed Leakey claim.

But Tim White, a prominent evolutionary biologist at the University of California Berkeley, just isn’t buying this new species idea, nor is Milford Wolpoff, a longtime professor of anthropology at the University of Michigan. They said the Leakeys are making too big a jump from too little evidence.

White said it’s similar to someone looking at the jaw of a female gymnast in the Olympics, the jaw of a male shot-putter, ignoring the faces in the crowd and deciding the shot-putter and gymnast have to be a different species.

Eric Delson, a paleoanthropology professor at Lehman College in New York, said he buys the Leakeys’ study, but added: “There‘s no question that it’s not definite.” He said it won’t convince doubters until fossils of both sexes of both non- erectus species are found.

“It’s a messy time period,” Delson said.

Comments (49)

  • kikos
    Posted on August 10, 2012 at 11:18am

    All…Please check out creation.com for an outstanding collection of articles and papers by Creationist scientists…most of whom are PhD’s in their fields…supporting the evidence for Creation and debunking the myths of Darwinian evolution. For those who are interested in understanding both sides of an argument, check out ‘creation topics Q & A‘ under the ’topics’ tab at the top of the page. You will see that the anti-creationist arguments given here (and everywhere else) are straw-men arguments that don‘t even reflect what creationists believe or don’t believe at all. You will see why anti-creationists have to resort to ridicule to advance their ‘theory’, because the evolutionists are in fact the ones pushing bad science. You will see that Christians are not only NOT ‘anti-science’, but modern science in fact only exists because of Christianity. You will also find several articles discussing the Leaky family and their research.
    I push this website only because they have over 20 years worth of scientific and theological articles covering almost any subject you can think of relating to theories of origins. You can email them with any question you might have whether you are a skeptic or a believer and they will answer you. A fantastic resource for any Christian who wants to learn how to defend the faith.

    Report Post »  
    • fgbouman
      Posted on August 12, 2012 at 9:45pm

      When you mix theology with science what you get is neither science nor reality.

      Report Post »  
  • flipper1073
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:53pm

    I Will Post on this Story One More Time.
    No one will proably read it but what the heck.

    I truely don’t understand What it is that Threatens People
    Because I Don’t Believe in Unproven Theories.
    You Want me to Believe in Evolution Point to me the Evidence.
    If your an Atheist FINE Believe; Don‘t Believe I don’t CARE.

    You Blindly Believe in an Unproven Theory.
    Just because lots of people say something is True
    Doesn’t Necessarily make it So.
    But You Ridicule Christians for Believing in a GOD they
    Can’t Prove Exists.
    I will never Believe in Evolution simply because it Doesn’t
    Make sense.
    Atheists will never believe in GOD for much the same Reason.
    I Will continue this Debate every time the Blaze has one of
    these Evolution Stories.

    Report Post » flipper1073  
    • beerios
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 8:36am

      I could be totally off base here, but I don’t think that Creation and evolution must be mutually exclusive. I sort of consider myself a reluctant agnostic. I can‘t prove there isn’t a Creator, yet I’m not sure I can totally get behind the notion that only one particular God is “the way”–and that those following a different path under a different God are doomed for eternity.

      Having said that, there is no doubt that evolution happens in all species. For example, the island in Indonesia where the “hobbit people” have been found also hosted other species that seemed to have undergone drastic changes to fit that environment. Elephants that made the trek by water to the island evolved into a smaller animal due to the resources (or lack thereof) that were available on the island. Apparantly, so did the people that would end up making that one particular island their home.

      Is it too much of a stretch to believe that we, as humans, really are of intelligent design? And thus, by that definition of intelligence, would have to materially grow, or evolve in such a way as to take advantage of the surroundings we find ourselves in?

      Just my two cents…..I must say that I always find these types of discussions fascinating.

      Report Post » beerios  
    • kikos
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 10:49am

      Flipper, check out creation.com for a wealth of information from PhD scientists for a ton of evidence based support for the fact of Biblical creation.
      Beerios: What you describe as ‘evolution’ among species is better described as adaptation. Many evolutionists of course believe that adaptation leads to evolution of new taxa but this is completely unproven, and in fact genetically impossible. The examples you give only show the great diversity that is largely preexisting within the genetic makeup of the organism. This is what we should expect to see from an intelligent creator who knew that His creatures would have to adapt to a widely changing environment. What we DO NOT EVER see is one shred of evidence that adaptations, or genetic mutation can lead to the spontaneous construction of new structures or systems. All we ever see are variations of extant taxa which have remained unchanged throughout life’s history.
      Creation and evolution are mutually exclusive BY DEFINITION. Despite common teaching to the contrary, the theory of evolution was NOT postulated because of some overwhelming evidence. The theory was created by people (many others besides Darwin, and in fact thousands of years before Darwin) who desperately wanted to wrest the sciences from the grips of Christianity. Evolution was created as the means by which to explain the existence of life without God. Even Dawkins recognizes that so-called theistic evolutionists are deluded. For once I have to agr

      Report Post »  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 11:14am

      @BEERIOS
      Excellent Points for “Micro Evolution” Species Evolve
      to fit their environment.
      The One that Fails is “Macro Evolution” One species
      Becomeing a New an Different Species.
      I call it the “Man Bear Pig” Thing to Quote Al Gore.
      on a lighter note
      Duckbilledplatypus was either GOD’s idea of a Joke.
      or Evolution gone Terriblely Wrong

      Report Post » flipper1073  
  • flipacoin
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:20pm

    Here is an interesting observation. Out of 300 individuals of the A. Afarensis of the Lucy fame, not one has been found with feet. The models of these with flesh shown in magazines and museums are shown with 100% human feet with the look of human thought on their furry faces. Their feet have all toes pointing forward including the big toe. On apes and chimps the big toe is splayed out to the side for grasping branches and it’s no good for the human gait we know that takes all toes pointing forward. Therefore the mock ups of Lucy and her kind are pure imagination to say it nicely but really is deceptive to say it factually. The dozens of **** Erectus that came later in the theoried order of decendents toward man has how many feet found? Again…None. Pretty odd isn’t it? What does this mean? These paleotologist have been throwing away the foot bones with the splayed out to the side big toes because they are too monkeyish all these years. It’s a manipulation of the public. One toe bone has finally slipped through in 2011 in which was next to the little toe position, well away from the all important big toe area. They say that it showed an arch tendency that suppose to prove something. Yea. Extinct monkeys is all you have. They were filmed power sawing a Lucy plaster hip to make it ‘more human’ one time. These guys are like Barnum Circus Carnival barkers selling us their snake oil. They don’t deserve the time of day from us. Tell them to get their suckers somewhere else.

    Report Post »  
    • Cesium
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:24pm

      sorry I don’t buy that scientists like paleontologists aim to deceive…

      Report Post »  
    • TeslanEdison
      Posted on August 10, 2012 at 3:54am

      Sigh, it’s their only way to ensure grant renewal for their franchise in Paleontology, monkey man science is a pure and utter lie….. If I were a billionaire funding research I’d be paying for some digs in India, China, and South America, it would be interesting to know for fact the highest level of technology man has achieved,
      and to be factually certain that now is really the most advanced vs 10,000 years ago or something of that nature.

      Report Post »  
  • hi
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 7:23pm

    “White said it’s similar to someone looking at the jaw of a female gymnast in the Olympics, the jaw of a male shot-putter, ignoring the faces in the crowd and deciding the shot-putter and gymnast have to be a different species.”

    That sums it up.

    Report Post » hi  
  • jimandcharo
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 6:28pm

    These guys can make a mountain out of a tooth….

    Report Post »  
    • mtman2
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:35pm

      They’ve been doing it for years-like global warming today. Predetermined outcome, to get more + bigger “grants” to “prove” the narrative. Life is just an accident, right; so is it Immaculate generation or spontaneous Conception?-[play on words, if -U- get it]

      Report Post »  
  • JACKTHETOAD
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:42pm

    I didn’t know they made nazi pith helmets. Piltdown Man anyone?

    Report Post » JACKTHETOAD  
  • FaithfulFriend
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 4:50pm

    This stuff always turns out to be hogwash. Beyond that, if humans, monkeys or animals in general have been around on this planet for 2 million plus years then where are all the bones? Seems to me that with that time-frame practically every time someone digs a hole in the ground they’d be digging up bones, but digging up bones rarely happens and it doesn’t happen because these million year figures are also hogwash. You can talk about all the supposed science you want to… where are the bones?

    Report Post » FaithfulFriend  
    • Cesium
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:26pm

      For fossils to form and bones not to degrade over that long a time is a tiny probability… who are you to demand something from that which you do not understand?

      Report Post »  
    • mtman2
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:53pm

      Carbon dating can only be somewhat accurate back to about 5,000 yrs. Does anyone actually believe the DNA code invented itself??? Actually think about it! The foundational laws of science{1st+2nd Laws of Thermodynamics w/rules of entropy}, deny any such imaginary occurrence. SOOO!? Take a Lego set or small jigsaw puzzle; shake it up in a container + dump it on a table. What”s the the probability either will fall out correctly or forming anything relevant/ EVER??? An amoeba, fungus, or blade of grass is so astronomically complex as to be astoundingly beyond comprehension! “..,for I am fearfully and wonderfully made”PSALM139:14; “He hangs the earth on nothing.” JOB 26:7B”, “…He who sits above the circle of the earth,” ISAIAH 41:22 , “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly see, being understood by the things that are made, …Professing to be wise, they became fools…and served the creature rather than the Creator…ROMANS 1:20-5,26-32

      Report Post »  
  • ThroughTheLies80
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 3:29pm

    God did make Adam from dust! Isn’t it odd that the dust of the Earth is made of elements that were created by stars, which is where all the elements come from. This would mean that we are essentially made of “Dust”. It sure is odd that the Bible would get that correct if it was just a book of fables!
    Now you can argue that either a random mixture of elements and lightning bolts spontaneously combusted into life or that there is in fact a “Creator” but that doesn’t change the fact that we are made of “Dust”! There are many examples like this in the Bible which further my believe that there is a creator.

    Report Post »  
  • OniKaze
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:32pm

    I don’t know, I am no expert.. But I have seen monkey skulls in the past, and that look A LOT like a monkey skull….

    Could be wrong (maybe I am) but I am just saying…..

    Report Post » OniKaze  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 4:23pm

      If they are a precursor, shouldn’t there be lots and lots of them? Imagine in a few thousand years when they find the skull of a downs syndrome person and claim it is a early evolutionary stage of man….Fact is, they don’t know squat.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
  • pap pap
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:34am

    The Leaky‘s should compare these bones to Nancy Pelosi’s bones and Harry Reid’s bones because they are certainly not one of us.

    Report Post »  
  • starman70
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:10am

    It looks loke a Chimpanzee skull to me. These “Scientists” will go to any length to try to prove evolution. Why this “Disvovery” may even get this group funding for a few more years. That way, they can camp out and dig further all at some university’s expense.

    Strangely, there have never been found ANY true transitional fossils which can be truly tracked from apes to man. All these people have ever found is skeletal apes or apelike creatures. In fact, there has never been found any fossilized proof that links any current species which “Evolved” from an entirely different species. Even staunch atheists and evolutionists are baffeled at the lack of transitional species.

    Just like “Global Warming” theorists, evolutionists have to keep the fantasy alive in order to get funding for their projects. Unfortunately, it is we the common everyday workers and citizens, who in the long run get the bill for their “Research”. Between government funding and corporate donations, we still pay.

    Report Post »  
  • tothepoint
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:29am

    Sad to say but, with the “Global Warming Hoax” aka “Climate Change Hoax” and other scientific hoaxes, real science, including paleontologists, and others have been tarnished.
    Real scientists have a rough road now that scientist activists have harmed their respective fields.
    From now on, most Americans will have to read what “scientists” write, do the research for themselves, and wait for the truth to come out (whatever that is.)
    Theories of anything are just that – Theories. They are interesting but are only theories.

    Report Post »  
    • Cesium
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:30pm

      another “fundie” who doesn’t know the definition of theory. Do you discount germ theory and heliocentric theory too?

      Report Post »  
  • flipper1073
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:07am

    Evolution is a Theory, Man Made Global Warming,is a Theory,
    I have My own Theory Coastal Waters Cause Brain Damage
    an Liberal Thought Processes or the Lack of CommonSense.
    Just look where almost all the Liberal Endoctrination Centers
    (Ivy League Universities an other Brainwashing Facilities)
    Seem to be Located Near Large Bodies of Water.
    So Large Bodies of Water Cause the Mental Disease of Liberalism.
    That’s My Theory Prove Me Wrong !

    Report Post » flipper1073  
    • Roberto G. Vasquez
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:04am

      FLIPPER1073

      I suspect your Dead Brain Liberal & The Sea Theory is far more scientific than the tired old monkey-business spouted by discredited palentologist whackos!

      Report Post »  
    • DOriginalIntent
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:27pm

      65% of humanity live within 100 miles of a coastline, I think that may affect the locations of 65% of human built structures.
      but I’ll let you do the math

      Report Post » DOriginalIntent  
    • kevinj319
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 3:07pm

      Yes, evolution is a theory, just as is Atomic Theory, conservation of matter and Energy, Photon Theory, relativity, electromagnetism, and gravity. And on, and on.

      Generally speaking theories attempt to explain why. Theories are based on the best information available and often change as new information is garnered, and if evidence disproves them, they are not accepted theories any longer. “Laws” describe what is happening, with no why. For example, Newton’s laws could tell you the velocity that a falling object but not why it falls. Laws can be disproved as well, but it doesn’t happen often, when it does it’s a big deal.

      So, the point is, this is not the same as the layman’s definition of “theory” which appears to be “$hit I dun thunk up.”

      So, if you have some actual evidence countering the hypotheses of evolution, please publish it and you can be famous. Hint: that it contains the word “theory” is not evidence.

      Report Post »  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 4:15pm

      @ Kevin
      I Fully understand the difference between a law an a Theory.
      Newton’s Law is Proven. Darwin’s Theory is NOT. Micro Evolution Happens.
      Smaller Dogs, Taller Humans Happens on a daily Basis.
      Macro Evolution (one Species Becoming a Totally Different Species)
      Man Bear Pig Thing is a Total Hypothesis not one shred of Evidence
      That it has Ever Happened.
      Just Because Someone Says the Discussion is Over Doesn’t Make it SO.
      You Believe Whatever in the Hell you Want !
      I Will Continue to Question even Science.
      Because I Guarantee You Don’t Know All the Answers.
      an Neither do I. But You Accept the Answers that Someone Gives You.
      I DON’T . We can have an Intellegent Discussion here but Please Don’t
      Insult My Intellegence .Thank You

      Report Post » flipper1073  
    • Cesium
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:34pm

      @flipper “I have my own theory” You don’t! you have a hypothesis! and a baseless one at that! Most right wing christian’s have no freaking clue as to the difference between “hypothesis” and “theory.” Theory is a model based on a collection of facts. I don’t understand why uneducated people think they know the definition of “theory” and then use that definition as ammunition against science… It’s just embarrassing.

      Report Post »  
    • Cesium
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:37pm

      @flipper.. You FULLY don’t understand that the distinction between “micro and macro” evolution is creationist BS!!

      Report Post »  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:58pm

      What is it with Liberals
      an Redefining WORDS
      First Marriage Now
      Theory.
      I Couldn’t care less how You Define Theory
      It Means An UNPROVEN FACT, AN IDEA , A HYPOTHESIS
      WITH A UNKNOWN CONCLUSION .

      Report Post » flipper1073  
  • aggiebrewer
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:38am

    They just keep looking for that missing link.
    The THEORY of evolution remains a THEORY.

    It take more faith to believe in Darwin than CHRIST.

    Report Post »  
  • flipper1073
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:37am

    That what I want to be a Descendent of
    “A Freak Mutation of **** Erectus”

    Thanks but I’ll GO with a Child of GOD.

    Report Post » flipper1073  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:10am

      Come on Blaze **** Erectus is a scientific term
      not Gay Bashing

      Report Post » flipper1073  
    • commonsensefreethinker1
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:39am

      @FLIPPER
      Evolution is a commonsense theory, why did we have to evolve from monkeys apes etc. maybe we didn’t , but we have evolved and will continue to evolve to our surroundings just like every other living thing on this earth. I think it is so hilarious that creationists deny all evolutional theories and actually believe adam came from dust and lived for 930 years and eve from the mans rib. All you have to do is read genesis and you will either accept it (in ignorance) or deny it and live your life with out the bull**** and fear of a non existing man made god.

      Report Post » commonsensefreethinker1  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 3:24pm

      @ORIGINAL INTENT
      So 65 % of the population lives within 100 miles of Coastal Waters.
      20 % of the Population consider themselves Liberal.
      So it still does not explain the High Concentration of
      Brain Damaged Liberals near Large Bodies of Water.
      An Conservatives in Flyover Country an Higher Elevations
      (With the possible exception of Denver an I believe many of them
      are Brain damaged Sea level Transplants)
      Get out of the Lowlands an Save Your Brain Cells.
      If not for Yourselves Then for Your Children.

      Report Post » flipper1073  
  • vaman
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:36am

    How is this possible? The world is only 5000 years old. Right? When people and dinosaurs roamed earth together, just like the Flintstones.

    Report Post »  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:26am

      Christian‘s don’t believe in the Flintstones Theory.
      Just not That We Evolved from Monkey’s
      I Know of no Christian’s who Deny the exsistence
      of Dinosaurs.
      Although there are a few who believe the Earth is only
      6,000 years old.Most Don’t

      Report Post » flipper1073  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:40am

      (existence) sorry 1 to many s’s

      Report Post » flipper1073  
    • ebaybus
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 10:05am

      @flipper1073: Of course you didn’t evolve from a monkey, you can from a rib. I think the rib and dirt story is a little more ridiculous.

      Report Post » ebaybus  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 11:30am

      @ EBAY
      You may be Suprised to know.
      I don’t Believe in the Dirt an Rib Story Either.
      or that Noah lived within walking distance of all
      the animals on Earth.
      or many other Biblical Stories.
      I question everything including Darwin an Al Gore.
      We Don’t know all the Answers
      We Don’t even know all the Questions.

      Report Post » flipper1073  
  • forthepeople
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:33am

    It‘s Bush’s fault !

    Report Post » forthepeople  
    • commonsensefreethinker1
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:16pm

      @FLIPPER you said,
      (You may be Suprised to know.
      I don’t Believe in the Dirt an Rib Story Either.)

      Ok, so you believe in god and jesus but pick out the parts of the bible that you want to accept. Wow ! that’s how I became an athiest. Without the god and jesus part of course, So you can really still sit in church listening to a bunch of B.S. without hearing the sounds of nails being dragged down a chalkboard . That‘s like saying you are going to vote for obama but you don’t believe most of what he says. Not that I am comparing him to god but you know what I mean I’m sure.

      Report Post » commonsensefreethinker1  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on August 9, 2012 at 5:06pm

      @FREETHINKER
      I Can an Do Believe in Jesus Christ As My Savior.
      Does Not mean I Have to Believe in All the Tales of the
      Old Testament. My Bishop an Home Teachers Know
      where I am an where I stand.
      As to the Obama Thing ,I’m a TEA Party,Sarah Palin Supporter,
      Who is Voting for Mitt Romney only because the Other option
      is Obama a Marxist/Communist.
      I hate Moderates but I hate Communists MORE.

      Report Post » flipper1073  
  • only easy day was yesterday
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:28am

    “The three different species could have been living at the same time at the same place, but probably didn’t interact much, he said”

    I believe the early ancestor were racist.These bones are probably from our alien creators.
    Really I believe evolution is a joke, pushed on the population, so man can sin without someone to answer to.

    Report Post »  
  • huey6367
    Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:18am

    They are related to the Obamas.

    Report Post »  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love