! Darwin Worshippers Dork it Again: Latest 'Oldest Skull' from a Chimp

[Pithy]

"I don't see how you can tell what it is. But it is not
human," said Wolpoff, a University of Michigan anthropologist.

The critics took special note of scars on the bones in the
back of the skull left by the attachment of neck muscles. To
some, those might indicate that it was a biped, or upright
walker--a critical defining feature of the human family. But
Wolpoff and others disagree.

"In looking at the scars, they told us quite clearly that this
animal did not habitually walk erect. It did not have human
posture, therefore it is not human," Wolpoff said.
---------------------

'Oldest' Skull Causing Headaches

(AP) An ancient skull whose recent discovery was thought to
have pushed back the dawn of man was not from a human ancestor
after all, but from a gorilla or another ape species, some
anthropologists say.

The rebuttal, published in Thursday's issue of the journal
nature, is the latest round in a scientific feud over the
origins of humankind in Africa.

The so-called Toumai skull, whose discovery was announced in
July, was unearthed last year in the African desert nation of
Chad. Some described it as the most startling fossil find in
decades. The remarkably intact specimen has a thick brow and
flat face, and is believed to be between 6 million and 7
million years old.

The research team that found it, led by French paleontologist
Michel Brunet, said it was a skull of the earliest known
hominid, or pre-human ancestor. Until then, hominids were not
known to have lived so deeply into central Africa.

But in a strongly worded article in Nature, anthropologists
including Brigette Senut, Milford H. Wolpoff and Martin
Pickford said the skull is not on the human branch of the
evolutionary tree at all. They said the specimen may be that
of an early female gorilla or a chimpanzee, or a species that
has since become extinct.

For the complete article, go to: http://www.cbsnews.com/stori-
es/2002/10/09/tech/main525004.shtml
____________________________________________________

Another losing argument from the "bucket o' slime" crowd.

[Dubyad40]

What the hell is this supposed to prove, other than your
ignorance. Whenever a discovery upsets accepted theory, it
causes healthy and often fierce debate in the scientific
community. That crucible of debate is central to the
progress of scientific knowledge. Religious dogma, OTOH, is
intolerant to questioning and therefore remains a crutch for
the weak mind.

Don't spend too much of your time loitering here, otherwise
you might miss something important on TBN or the 700 club.
Pat, Jerry, and Paul depend on folks like you.

Dubya_D-40

"pithy" <pithy@'94_ElectionRepeat.com> wrote in message
news:705p9.342$x5.59397@news1.epix.net...
> "I don't see how you can tell what it is. But it is not
> human," said Wolpoff, a University of Michigan
> anthropologist.
>
> The critics took special note of scars on the bones in the
> back of the skull left by the attachment of neck muscles. To
> some, those might indicate that it was a biped, or upright
> walker--a critical defining feature of the human family. But
> Wolpoff and others disagree.
>
> "In looking at the scars, they told us quite clearly that
> this animal did not habitually walk erect. It did not have
> human posture, therefore it is not human," Wolpoff said.
> ---------------------
>
> 'Oldest' Skull Causing Headaches
>
> (AP) An ancient skull whose recent discovery was thought to
> have pushed back the dawn of man was not from a human
> ancestor after all, but from a gorilla or another ape
> species, some anthropologists say.
>
> The rebuttal, published in Thursday's issue of the journal
> nature, is the latest round in a scientific feud over the
> origins of humankind in Africa.
>
> The so-called Toumai skull, whose discovery was announced in
> July, was unearthed last year in the African desert nation
> of Chad. Some described it as the most startling fossil find
> in decades. The remarkably intact specimen has a thick brow
> and flat face, and is believed to be between 6 million and 7
> million years old.
>
> The research team that found it, led by French
> paleontologist Michel Brunet, said it was a skull of the
> earliest known hominid, or pre-human ancestor. Until then,
> hominids were not known to have lived so deeply into
> central Africa.
>
> But in a strongly worded article in Nature, anthropologists
> including Brigette Senut, Milford H. Wolpoff and Martin
> Pickford said the skull is not on the human branch of the
> evolutionary tree at all. They said the specimen may be that
> of an early female gorilla or a chimpanzee, or a species
> that has since become extinct.
>
> For the complete article, go to: http://www.cbsnews.com/sto-
> ries/2002/10/09/tech/main525004.shtml
> ____________________________________________________
>
> Another losing argument from the "bucket o' slime" crowd.

[Biopolis F]

"pithy" <pithy@'94_ElectionRepeat.com> wrote in message
news:705p9.342$x5.59397@news1.epix.net...
> "I don't see how you can tell what it is. But it is not
> human," said Wolpoff, a University of Michigan
> anthropologist.
>
> The critics took special note of scars on the bones in the
> back of the skull left by the attachment of neck muscles. To
> some, those might indicate that it was a biped, or upright
> walker--a critical defining feature of the human family. But
> Wolpoff and others disagree.
>
> "In looking at the scars, they told us quite clearly that
> this animal did not habitually walk erect. It did not have
> human posture, therefore it is not human," Wolpoff said.
> ---------------------
>
> 'Oldest' Skull Causing Headaches
>
> (AP) An ancient skull whose recent discovery was thought to
> have pushed back the dawn of man was not from a human
> ancestor after all, but from a gorilla or another ape
> species, some anthropologists say.
>
> The rebuttal, published in Thursday's issue of the journal
> nature, is the latest round in a scientific feud over the
> origins of humankind in Africa.
>
> The so-called Toumai skull, whose discovery was announced in
> July, was unearthed last year in the African desert nation
> of Chad. Some described it as the most startling fossil find
> in decades. The remarkably intact specimen has a thick brow
> and flat face, and is believed to be between 6 million and 7
> million years old.
>
> The research team that found it, led by French
> paleontologist Michel Brunet, said it was a skull of the
> earliest known hominid, or pre-human ancestor. Until then,
> hominids were not known to have lived so deeply into
> central Africa.
>
> But in a strongly worded article in Nature, anthropologists
> including Brigette Senut, Milford H. Wolpoff and Martin
> Pickford said the skull is not on the human branch of the
> evolutionary tree at all. They said the specimen may be that
> of an early female gorilla or a chimpanzee, or a species
> that has since become extinct.

So, this thick-browed flat-faced female ape-like creature must
surely be Eve???

BF - http://www.biopolis.org

> For the complete article, go to: http://www.cbsnews.com/sto-
> ries/2002/10/09/tech/main525004.shtml
> ____________________________________________________
>
> Another losing argument from the "bucket o' slime" crowd.

[Chas. 'Mar]

pithy wrote:
>
> "I don't see how you can tell what it is. But it is not
> human," said Wolpoff, a University of Michigan
> anthropologist.
>
> The critics took special note of scars on the bones in the
> back of the skull left by the attachment of neck muscles. To
> some, those might indicate that it was a biped, or upright
> walker--a critical defining feature of the human family. But
> Wolpoff and others disagree.
>
> "In looking at the scars, they told us quite clearly that
> this animal did not habitually walk erect. It did not have
> human posture, therefore it is not human," Wolpoff said.
> ---------------------
>
> 'Oldest' Skull Causing Headaches
>
> (AP) An ancient skull whose recent discovery was thought to
> have pushed back the dawn of man was not from a human
> ancestor after all, but from a gorilla or another ape
> species, some anthropologists say.
>
> The rebuttal, published in Thursday's issue of the journal
> nature, is the latest round in a scientific feud over the
> origins of humankind in Africa.
>
> The so-called Toumai skull, whose discovery was announced in
> July, was unearthed last year in the African desert nation
> of Chad. Some described it as the most startling fossil find
> in decades. The remarkably intact specimen has a thick brow
> and flat face, and is believed to be between 6 million and 7
> million years old.
>
> The research team that found it, led by French
> paleontologist Michel Brunet, said it was a skull of the
> earliest known hominid, or pre-human ancestor. Until then,
> hominids were not known to have lived so deeply into
> central Africa.
>
> But in a strongly worded article in Nature, anthropologists
> including Brigette Senut, Milford H. Wolpoff and Martin
> Pickford said the skull is not on the human branch of the
> evolutionary tree at all. They said the specimen may be that
> of an early female gorilla or a chimpanzee, or a species
> that has since become extinct.
>
> For the complete article, go to: http://www.cbsnews.com/sto-
> ries/2002/10/09/tech/main525004.shtml
> ____________________________________________________
>
> Another losing argument from the "bucket o' slime" crowd.

heh - I knew you were deluded, but this exceeds my
expectations. Evolution is a fact, that's all there is to
it.

If you want to argue it, I'm sure I can have you on the
ropes in short order. But you won't, creationists never do
for very long.

[Tarver Eng]

"Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:3DA5E4BA.37A776F7@uiuc.edu...
> pithy wrote:
> >
> > "I don't see how you can tell what it is. But it is not
> > human," said Wolpoff, a University of Michigan
> > anthropologist.
> >
> > The critics took special note of scars on the bones in the
> > back of the skull left by the attachment of neck muscles.
> > To some, those might indicate that it was a biped, or
> > upright walker--a critical defining feature of the human
> > family. But Wolpoff and others disagree.
> >
> > "In looking at the scars, they told us quite clearly that
> > this animal did not habitually walk erect. It did not have
> > human posture, therefore it is not human," Wolpoff said.
> > ---------------------
> >
> > 'Oldest' Skull Causing Headaches
> >
> > (AP) An ancient skull whose recent discovery was thought
> > to have pushed back the dawn of man was not from a human
> > ancestor after all, but from a gorilla or another ape
> > species, some anthropologists say.
> >
> > The rebuttal, published in Thursday's issue of the journal
> > nature, is the latest round in a scientific feud over the
> > origins of humankind in Africa.
> >
> > The so-called Toumai skull, whose discovery was announced
> > in July, was unearthed last year in the African desert
> > nation of Chad. Some described it as the most startling
> > fossil find in decades. The remarkably intact specimen has
> > a thick brow and flat face, and is believed to be between
> > 6 million and 7 million years old.
> >
> > The research team that found it, led by French
> > paleontologist Michel Brunet, said it was a skull of the
> > earliest known hominid, or pre-human ancestor. Until then,
> > hominids were not known to have lived so deeply into
> > central Africa.
> >
> > But in a strongly worded article in Nature,
> > anthropologists including Brigette Senut, Milford H.
> > Wolpoff and Martin Pickford said the skull is not on the
> > human branch of the evolutionary tree at all. They said
> > the specimen may be that of an early female gorilla or a
> > chimpanzee, or a species that has since become extinct.
> >
> > For the complete article, go to: http://www.cbsnews.com/s-
> > tories/2002/10/09/tech/main525004.shtml
> > ____________________________________________________
> >
> > Another losing argument from the "bucket o' slime" crowd.
>
> heh - I knew you were deluded, but this exceeds my
> expectations. Evolution is a fact, that's all there is
> to it.

Such fine evangelizing, but Science says speciazation through
Evolution is only a notional hypothesis; as specization
through evolution fails to meet the requirements of the
scientific method.

Chas' statement is as scietific as claiming, "Jesus is Lord".

> If you want to argue it, I'm sure I can have you on the
> ropes in short order. But you won't, creationists never do
> for very long.

OK Mark bee, tell us how horses prove specization through
evolution.

Bwahahahahaha

John
--
Davis is toast.

[morphis]

In article <3da5e73d@news.sierratel.com>, "Tarver Engineering"
<jtarver@sti.net> writes:
>
>"Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>news:3DA5E4BA.37A776F7@uiuc.edu...
>> pithy wrote:
[]

>> > Another losing argument from the "bucket o' slime" crowd.
>>
>> heh - I knew you were deluded, but this exceeds my
>> expectations. Evolution is a fact, that's all there is
>> to it.
>
>Such fine evangelizing, but Science says speciazation through
>Evolution is only a notional hypothesis; as specization
>through evolution fails to meet the requirements of the
>scientific method.

I seriously doubt you have more than a vague understanding of
the scientific method.

Hypotheses are made and the evidence compared, which is
exactly what occurs with respect to evolution, as noted in
the article.

>Chas' statement is as scietific as claiming, "Jesus is Lord".

Depends on how you define evolution. The FACT is that over
time some species disappeared and others appeared. The
evidence is very strong that those that appeared were
derivative of earlier species (which may or may not have
disappeared).

[rosell]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:46:46 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
<jtarver@sti.net> wrote like a right wing scumbag:

>> > "I don't see how you can tell what it is. But it is not
>> > human," said Wolpoff, a University of Michigan
>> > anthropologist.

Is this the one educated at Bob Jones University?

====================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:Dana+author:Raffanie-
llo&hl=en&safe=off&start=300&sa=N

[Tarver Eng]

<morphis@niuhep.physics.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:ao4q07$e82$5@husk.cso.niu.edu...
> In article <3da5e73d@news.sierratel.com>, "Tarver
> Engineering"
<jtarver@sti.net> writes:
> >
> >"Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> >news:3DA5E4BA.37A776F7@uiuc.edu...
> >> pithy wrote:
> []
>
> >> > Another losing argument from the "bucket o' slime"
> >> > crowd.
> >>
> >> heh - I knew you were deluded, but this exceeds my
> >> expectations. Evolution is a fact, that's all there is
> >> to it.
> >
> >Such fine evangelizing, but Science says speciazation
> >through Evolution
is
> >only a notional hypothesis; as specization through
> >evolution fails to
meet
> >the requirements of the scientific method.
>
> I seriously doubt you have more than a vague understanding
> of the scientific method.

You would be mistaken; I hold a masters degree in electrical
engineering and I am a PE.

> Hypotheses are made and the evidence compared, which is
> exactly what occurs with respect to evolution, as noted in
> the article.

There is no observable and repeatable experiment
demonstrating specization through evolution and therefore
such is only a notional hypothesis; on the same scientific
footing as Creation.

> >Chas' statement is as scietific as claiming, "Jesus
> >is Lord".
>
> Depends on how you define evolution. The FACT is that over
> time some species disappeared and others appeared. The
> evidence is very strong that those that appeared were
> derivative of earlier species (which may or may not have
> disappeared).

From geological evidence, if specization through evolution
occurs at all, it does so in a single generation and would
therefore be an event completely out of accordance with the
actual theory of evolution, as stated by Darwin. With the loss
of Neanderthal, as a human ancestor, the evolution as a means
to specization "scientists" have become increasingly
desperate. This is the third fraud from the "natural sciences"
since DNA (quanta) proved the specization through evolution
"scientists" lost another link in their chain of life to man.
The entire Church of neo-Darwinism is looking like Scopes.

John

[Dubyad40]

Man began as an amoeba, and has steadily declined since. I
offer Tarver as my first example.

Dubya_D-40

<rosell@kickbeck.com> wrote in message
news:3da610dc.81723234@news.enetis.net...
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:46:46 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> <jtarver@sti.net> wrote like a right wing scumbag:
>
> >> > "I don't see how you can tell what it is. But it is not
> >> > human," said Wolpoff, a University of Michigan
> >> > anthropologist.
>
> Is this the one educated at Bob Jones University?
>
> ====================================================
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:Dana+author:Raffanie-
llo&hl=en&safe= off&start=300&sa=N

[David Lent]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

<snip>

> There is no observable and repeatable experiment
> demonstrating specization through evolution and therefore
> such is only a notional hypothesis; on the same scientific
> footing as Creation.

The old theory that all theories are equal. If that were true
the Darwinian evolution, Neo-Darwinian evolution,
Lachmarcianism, the Blue Turtle theory of evolution,
Creationism and Intelligent Design would all be equally valid
theories of evolution. By the way, I pulled the Blue Turtle
theory out of my hind end, but all theories are recognized
theories of evolution. And by your logic, they are all
equally valid.

David

--
qyragm10@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz

[Tarver Eng]

"David Lentz" <Rot13@signfile.net> wrote in message
news:3DA612B4.525E1973@signfile.net...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > There is no observable and repeatable experiment
> > demonstrating
specization
> > through evolution and therefore such is only a notional
> > hypothesis; on
the
> > same scientific footing as Creation.
>
>
> The old theory that all theories are equal.

There is a leap of faith required to get from Darwin's
evolution to the neo-Darwinist Church's specization through
Evolution.

> If that were true the Darwinian evolution, Neo-Darwinian
> evolution, Lachmarcianism, the Blue Turtle theory of
> evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design would all be
> equally valid theories of evolution.

Neither neo-Darwinist evolution, nor Creation, can meet the
scientific method and that means they can not be Theories.

> By the way, I pulled the Blue Turtle theory out of my hind
> end, but all theories are recognized theories of evolution.
> And by your logic, they are all equally valid.

Nope, but if you were to learn to read, you might get closer
next time Dave.

John

[rosell]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:10:37 -0400, "DubyaD40"
<gsmathe@yahoo.com> wrote

>Man began as an amoeba, and has steadily declined since. I
>offer Tarver as my first example.

I hear that.
====================================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:Dana+author:Raffanie-
llo&hl=en&safe=off&start=300&sa=N

[Tarver Eng]

<rosell@kickbeck.com> wrote in message
news:3da64494.94965383@news.enetis.net...
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:10:37 -0400, "DubyaD40"
> <gsmathe@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >Man began as an amoeba, and has steadily declined since. I
> >offer Tarver
as
> >my first example.
>
> I hear that.

I can see how Rosell might have monkey ancestors.

John

[Chas. 'Mar]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> <rosell@kickbeck.com> wrote in message
> news:3da64494.94965383@news.enetis.net...
> > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:10:37 -0400, "DubyaD40"
> > <gsmathe@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > >Man began as an amoeba, and has steadily declined since.
> > >I offer Tarver
> as
> > >my first example.
> >
> > I hear that.
>
> I can see how Rosell might have monkey ancestors.
>
> John

Heh - I've been watching this whole thread and so far
you've not only got nothing - you've shown you don't have
the science background to understand the proof. Horses,
indeed. Come over to talk.origins and try horses.

But it doesn't matter - gene sequencing has proven
that evolution happens, beyond doubt. As soon as
creation "science" is forced to come forward ten years
instead of hiding its kids at home for a decade, all
this will be over.

[Tarver Eng]

"Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:3DA7222F.1AB402DE@uiuc.edu...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > <rosell@kickbeck.com> wrote in message
> > news:3da64494.94965383@news.enetis.net...
> > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:10:37 -0400, "DubyaD40"
> > > <gsmathe@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > >Man began as an amoeba, and has steadily declined
> > > >since. I offer
Tarver
> > as
> > > >my first example.
> > >
> > > I hear that.
> >
> > I can see how Rosell might have monkey ancestors.
> >
> > John
>
> Heh - I've been watching this whole thread and so far
> you've not only got nothing - you've shown you don't have
> the science background to understand the proof. Horses,
> indeed. Come over to talk.origins and try horses.

I have been to talk.origins and have made the point that
their is no natural selection in horses. They were
humiliatingly defeated.

> But it doesn't matter - gene sequencing has proven that
> evolution happens, beyond doubt.

Gene sequencing does no such thing.

DNA testin has already removed another of the neo-Darwinist's
chain of life to man links. Now there is not only the "missing
link", but no more Neanderthal.

> As soon as creation "science" is forced to come forward ten
> years instead of hiding its kids at home for a decade, all
> this will be over.

What "force" do you intend?

Quanta does a fine job of explaining Creation.

Sepcization through evolution requires a tremendous leap of
faith and is already discredited by the geological record. If
specization by evolution occurs at all, it occurs in a single
generation; compltely at odds with evolutionary theory.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Dubyad40]

"Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:3DA7222F.1AB402DE@uiuc.edu...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > <rosell@kickbeck.com> wrote in message
> > news:3da64494.94965383@news.enetis.net...
> > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:10:37 -0400, "DubyaD40"
> > > <gsmathe@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > >Man began as an amoeba, and has steadily declined
> > > >since. I offer
Tarver
> > as
> > > >my first example.
> > >
> > > I hear that.
> >
> > I can see how Rosell might have monkey ancestors.
> >
> > John
>
> Heh - I've been watching this whole thread and so far
> you've not only got nothing - you've shown you don't have
> the science background to understand the proof. Horses,
> indeed. Come over to talk.origins and try horses.
>
Thanks for reminding me of that newsgroup. I haven't visited
in awhile. Evolution really not my forte, but when someone
right wing nut case(aha, John Tarver) in a political newsgroup
starts making an ass of themselves on the subject, I can't
resist a few jabs. Damn, his science profs at The Bob Jones
University School of Engineering must be proud of John.

Bet he doesn't show up on alt.origins unless it's as a
sockpuppet.

Dubya_D-40 America's Misleader.
> But it doesn't matter - gene sequencing has proven that
> evolution happens, beyond doubt. As soon as creation
> "science" is forced to come forward ten years instead of
> hiding its kids at home for a decade, all this will be
> over.

[Chas. 'Mar]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:3DA7222F.1AB402DE@uiuc.edu...
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >
> > > <rosell@kickbeck.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3da64494.94965383@news.enetis.net...
> > > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:10:37 -0400, "DubyaD40"
> > > > <gsmathe@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > >Man began as an amoeba, and has steadily declined
> > > > >since. I offer
> Tarver
> > > as
> > > > >my first example.
> > > >
> > > > I hear that.
> > >
> > > I can see how Rosell might have monkey ancestors.
> > >
> > > John
> >
> > Heh - I've been watching this whole thread and so far
> > you've not only got nothing - you've shown you don't
> > have the science background to understand the proof.
> > Horses, indeed. Come over to talk.origins and try
> > horses.
>
> I have been to talk.origins and have made the point that
> their is no natural selection in horses. They were
> humiliatingly defeated.

Advanced
Groups
Search
Preferences
Groups Help

Your search - tarver horse group:talk.origins - did not match
any documents.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly. Try
different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try
fewer keywords.

Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with
your search.

I was able to find approximately 26.020 other posts by
"tarver", but nothing on this. At any rate, how do you
figure there is no natural selection in horses?

>
> > But it doesn't matter - gene sequencing has proven that
> > evolution happens, beyond doubt.
>
> Gene sequencing does no such thing.
>
> DNA testin has already removed another of the
> neo-Darwinist's chain of life to man links. Now there is not
> only the "missing link", but no more Neanderthal.

Then why are your genes 51% worm? 95% chimp? One of the
tenets of science is the theory must fit the facts - but
when the theory is adjusted so it fits the new facts,
creationists always seem to cry foul.

Actually IIRC there were neanderthals - we killed them off
in a
stunning show of natural selection. They were on a
different branch.

>
> > As soon as creation "science" is forced to come forward
> > ten years instead of hiding its kids at home for a
> > decade, all this will be over.
>
> What "force" do you intend?

'The truth will out' - Shakespeare, _Macbeth_ (I think)
>
> Quanta does a fine job of explaining Creation.

How so? This makes no sense to me - assuming that by the
plural term "Quanta" you mean quantum theory or some
aspect thereof.
>
> Sepcization through evolution requires a tremendous leap
> of faith and is already discredited by the geological
> record. If specization by evolution occurs at all, it
> occurs in a single generation; compltely at odds with
> evolutionary theory.

This turns out not to be the case. But do you have any
cites for me, from an unbiased source?
>
> John P. Tarver, MS/PE

Charles M. Bee, scientific illustrator, School of Molecular
and Cellular Biology, U of I - not yet degreed