juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,446
- 803
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Well you can't really say we have no way of proving they were bipedal by looking at their bones - then argue we can tell they weren't bipedal by looking at their bones ...
We have thousands of human skeletons and a complete human genome to study from, and it is quite easy to point out which traits are "human" or human-like. And compared to other types of fossils (such as dinosaurs) human transitional fossils are actually very rare.
------------------------
This topic never really got off the ground, I might ask to close it soon. Perhaps I was expecting too much from Creationists. So far all I've gathered is:
- We can't tell anything about a creature by looking at it's bones ... but we can tell it was nothing more than an ape (thus proving even Creationists can understand anatomy when it suits them).
- An ape-man would look something like and ape and something like a man ... but all these ape-man fossils don't prove they actually existed. Why? Ape-men didn't exist, therefore any fossils which look like ape-men can't be right.
- We have no clue what human traits are ... which presumably is why whenever they are confronted with a transitional fossil all they can see are the 'ape features'.
OK, let me tell you what a human is. What I will give is not a basic definition, but it is what such a definition should look like. The criterion is not on the morphology, but is on the function. A morphological character is NOT a functional character.
A human should be able to raise and use fire.
We can find a ape-human fossil (bipedal transitional, cranial capacity transitional etc.), but we do not know if it was a human. No matter what kind of transitional we can find, I will ask: could that creature raise and use fire? If yes, then it is a human. If not, then it is not.
Upvote
0