Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Why don't you find a profile image that is closer to that of the Orang you've been using. Even with without a more accurate comparison, anyone can see that he lacks the canines that even this female has (which would be more pronounced on a male), the saggital crest and the very pronounced brow ridges. His are there, but not nearly as pronounced on our fellow extant apes.
The point I made is that some non human primates today have skulls, particularly skull caps and rhe top of the skull that is more like a human that a chimp.
Therefore many fragments used as evidence for transition could simply be apes that were not chimps
But lets leave aside for the moment that the skull characteristics. Why do you continually avoid addressing his body and how undeniably it belongs to someone in genus Homo?
Sneak Peek at the Hall of Human Origins Exhibit | Photo Gallery | Smithsonian.com
The reason I do not care about the morphology apart from the skull is because neither of us know what the first ape looked like.
Your scientists have already attested that knucklewalking arose independently. Neither of us know for sure what the morphology of the first ape was like. Evos suggest that it all goes back to a squirrell like creature. These do not have long arms comparatively. Meaning at some point in time, according to evolutionists, creatures did not have long arms. Perhaps it was an in kind adaptation.
The biggest reason I do not use the rest of thebody is because theorising and comaparisons agains something that one has no clue about leads to trouble. This is displayed in by the plethora of human ancestrors that have been cast aside, not leastof which was the initial thought that mankind evolved from chimpanzee like creatures.
So basically the most apparent discontinuity between man and beast, is not if it is bipedal, as chimps can be bipedal now, it is not in the arm or leg proportions because adaptations change these, as does diet.
The afarensis skull is completely ape like. Lluc is a 12myo ape that also had reduced facial features. In the days when man and ape lived side by side before the fall, they may well have looked different than todays varieties, but never were given human intelligence and reasoning ability.
The most reliable method, given I do not know what the first ape looked like and neither do evolutionists, is to use the skull and its connections to intelligence and reasoning ability because that is what being in the image of God is all about and what makes us a different creation to beast.
There are few non human primate ancestors. Very few. Why do you think that is? Is there a plausible explanation for this and for why so many so called humam relos are found but few for all the non human primates about today.
The erectus skull is nothing like a human skull at all. It does not appear transistional, it is not in the human range, it does appear to be some sort of ape.
The better point to demonstrate is that evolutionists have very few direct human ancestors now, possibly including erectus, that have been classed as cousins. Why? Because they do not clad with mankind. So scientists have provided the refute re their connection to makind themselves.
All that is left is erectus, and he is now also being challenged. So even if erectus is human, still you have no firm connection of erectus to any other ape ancestor. So creationists of both views still can say the evidence for ancestry to apes is seriously lacking.
Upvote
0