What proof would you need? (2)

[Wiccan_Child]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "What proof would you need?"

 

[CabVet]

Try this:

Total evidence supporting Human-Chimp relationship

 

[Astridhere]

There has not been, nor will there be any challenge, to my cited research. It is recent. It is published. Lucy, is not in the human line. She has chimpanzee features and is more likely to be a chimp ancestor than a human one. This illustrates how evolutionary researchers simply have no credibility. They are desperate for fame and grants, not the truth.

The orang is another creature I love to talk about. It shares more morphology with a human than a chimp and many researchers suggest this should take precedence over DNA comparisons. They have even come up with explanations/stories to explain this.

There are at least 28 such well-corroborated features compared with perhaps as few as one unique feature shared between humans and chimpanzees. It is widely believed that these physical features are misleading, but an alternative possibility is that orangutans have undergone more genetic change than humans and African apes have since their divergence from the common ancestor. If this had happened, then the apparent genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees would not necessarily be due to a close evolutionary relationship.[13][14] This hypothesis has been proposed as an explanation as to why early hominids, such as the australopiths, not only look more like orangutans than either African ape, but also share characters unique to orangutans and their close fossil relatives, such as a thickened posteror palate and anterior zygomatic roots.[15]

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further to that this page speaks to the changes to Hominidae as more fossil evidence messed up the initial definition. Again so much for evolutionists taxonomy as proof of anything. These researchers have made apes out of men only because they ignore the differences mentioned in my last post and many more.

Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins - Grehan - 2009 - Journal of Biogeography - Wiley Online Library

And this published research from 2009 above speaks to Orangs forming a clad with mankind to the exclusion of chimps and gorillas...so much again for your taxonomy.....

The exact criteria for membership in the Homininae under the chimpanzee theory of human origins are not clear, but the subfamily generally includes those species that share more than 97% of their DNA with the modern human genome, and exhibit a capacity for language or for simple cultures beyond the family or band.

So here above we have a fantastic flavour of the month scenario of taxonomic inclusion based on DNA, because the morpholical ones simply do not work for you guys anymore with all the morphological and genetic homoplasy, convergent evolution and the rest of the terms evos use to address contradictions and falsifications.

As we all know the 98% chimp/human similarity is only so because these biased researchers choose what to count or ignore in comparing DNA.

Global analysis of alternative splicing differences between humans and chimpanzees

The published article above speaks to 6%-8% diffferent in MTDNA alone. This does not include the Y chromosome difference of at least 30% and 54% in some studies, the 10% difference in size and surface structure. This 6-8% does not include the many other differences in the genome some of which I spoke to in my last post. So now mankind and chimps are out of the 97% similarity definition of Homininae.

So do evolutionists then take chimps out of Hominidae? No. What do they toddle off and do...tweak their definitions to maintain an ape in with mankind, only count what they want, use another definition or ignore the differences. This is just one example of the biased nonsense evos taxonomic system is. Any species classification is not any sort of evidence in itself...as Phred would like to think.


So where to from here. Nowhere for evolutionists and their researchers. They have no idea what they are talking about, they have attributed humanity to just about every ape they find and that is why you have no ancestry for chimps or gorillas. They have no idea what a human trait is given that bipeds have been around for 8my at least and likely more with the ornag ancestors, Ardi had short arms unlike a chimp, reduced facial features have been around for 12my in Lluc, a reduced pelvis mean nothing, and Ardi was an upright biped and likely a gorilla ancestor.

Lucy and all her humanity is a delusion as is the humanity you attribute to Erectus, ergaster and the whackey pelvis of Turkana Boy due for reconstruction to fit the Gona erectus female waddler.

What proof would I need to convert? Something that actually looks like evidence for evolution would be a good start. So far I have not seen any either in relation to fossils or genomic comparisons.

Evolutionists will not let real science and observation stand in the way of a good story and that is why I will never convert
__________________________________________________________

Cabvet. the above is an articulated response from post 976..pretty pictures that you are unable to speak to mean nothing more than "you are right because someone said so"

F in your pretty chart is Homininae..now speak to it.....and why mankind is placed there with gorillas and chimps.

 

[CabVet]

There has not been, nor will there be any challenge, to my cited research. It is recent. It is published.

Stop with the lies, too much for one day. Here is a study from 2010.

 

[Keachian]

There has not been, nor will there be any challenge, to my cited research. It is recent. It is published. Lucy, is not in the human line. She has chimpanzee features and is more likely to be a chimp ancestor than a human one. This illustrates how evolutionary researchers simply have no credibility. They are desperate for fame and grants, not the truth.

conjecture

The orang is another creature I love to talk about. It shares more morphology with a human than a chimp and many researchers suggest this should take precedence over DNA comparisons. They have even come up with explanations/stories to explain this.

You keep using that word morphology, I do not think it means what you think it means. I agree that if orangutans are closer to humans than chimps that we should be grouped with them, but I don't think you want that either.

There are at least 28 such well-corroborated features compared with perhaps as few as one unique feature shared between humans and chimpanzees. It is widely believed that these physical features are misleading, but an alternative possibility is that orangutans have undergone more genetic change than humans and African apes have since their divergence from the common ancestor. If this had happened, then the apparent genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees would not necessarily be due to a close evolutionary relationship.[13][14] This hypothesis has been proposed as an explanation as to why early hominids, such as the australopiths, not only look more like orangutans than either African ape, but also share characters unique to orangutans and their close fossil relatives, such as a thickened posteror palate and anterior zygomatic roots.[15]

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further to that this page speaks to the changes to Hominidae as more fossil evidence messed up the initial definition. Again so much for evolutionists taxonomy as proof of anything. These researchers have made apes out of men only because they ignore the differences mentioned in my last post and many more.

So because the theory of evolution changed as more evidence became available it's false, congratulations on misunderstanding the entirety of science.

Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins - Grehan - 2009 - Journal of Biogeography - Wiley Online Library

And this published research from 2009 above speaks to Orangs forming a clad with mankind to the exclusion of chimps and gorillas...so much again for your taxonomy.....

You would most likely still be making this argument if we clad orangs with humans.

The exact criteria for membership in the Homininae under the chimpanzee theory of human origins are not clear, but the subfamily generally includes those species that share more than 97% of their DNA with the modern human genome, and exhibit a capacity for language or for simple cultures beyond the family or band.

So here above we have a fantastic flavour of the month scenario of taxonomic inclusion based on DNA, because the morpholical ones simply do not work for you guys anymore with all the morphological and genetic homoplasy, convergent evolution and the rest of the terms evos use to address contradictions and falsifications.

As we all know the 98% chimp/human similarity is only so because these biased researchers choose what to count or ignore in comparing DNA.

Global analysis of alternative splicing differences between humans and chimpanzees

The published article above speaks to 6%-8% diffferent in MTDNA alone. This does not include the Y chromosome difference of at least 30% and 54% in some studies, the 10% difference in size and surface structure. This 6-8% does not include the many other differences in the genome some of which I spoke to in my last post. So now mankind and chimps are out of the 97% similarity definition of Homininae.

That article that you use, when it says orthologous exons it is talking about the parts of the genomes that are are different, thereby saying that even the different genes have similarities.

So do evolutionists then take chimps out of Hominidae? No. What do they toddle off and do...tweak their definitions to maintain an ape in with mankind, only count what they want, use another definition or ignore the differences. This is just one example of the biased nonsense evos taxonomic system is. Any species classification is not any sort of evidence in itself...as Phred would like to think.

if classification is not evidence for evolution then why are you against other great apes being in Homininae with us?

So where to from here. Nowhere for evolutionists and their researchers. They have no idea what they are talking about, they have attributed humanity to just about every ape they find and that is why you have no ancestry for chimps or gorillas. They have no idea what a human trait is given that bipeds have been around for 8my at least and likely more with the ornag ancestors, Ardi had short arms unlike a chimp, reduced facial features have been around for 12my in Lluc, a reduced pelvis mean nothing, and Ardi was an upright biped and likely a gorilla ancestor.

Considering the amount of time biologists have spent studying biology I think it is you that doesn't understand what they're talking about. Heck I don't even understand what they're talking about half the time.

Lucy and all her humanity is a delusion as is the humanity you attribute to Erectus, ergaster and the whackey pelvis of Turkana Boy due for reconstruction to fit the Gona erectus female waddler.

Yes, neither Lucy nor erectus was human, they are in homininae though

What proof would I need to convert? Something that actually looks like evidence for evolution would be a good start. So far I have not seen any either in relation to fossils or genomic comparisons.

Are you acually looking, I was like you once, headstrong and unequivocally decided that evolution didn't happen, then I stopped listening to creationists and found out from evolutionists why they believed what they believed.

Evolutionists will not let real science and observation stand in the way of a good story and that is why I will never convert

I do love me a good yarn, though it doesn't stand in the way of seeing creation as a beautiful and majestic story unfolding as God directs it.

Yes I butted in again but you decided to talk here rather than respond to me.

 

[CabVet]

Here is another study, published in 2011, comparing the whole genomes of humans, chimps and orangutangs, and showing that human and chimps are the closest relatives.

Oh and I know this is hard for you, but try to understand something, none of these studies (except of course the ones from creationist sites) are questioning if humans evolved, what you are seeing (and some of what you are citing) is a debate about how humans evolved.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

(I asked this question up in Origins Theology a little while ago.)

Astridhere: For the moment, let's ignore all the studies and all the fossils. I would like to hear your personal opinion. Let's say - just for the sake of argument - that humans evolved from apes. What you would expect this human-ape creature to look like?

Again, this isn't about fossils or DNA or semantics. I'd like your personal opinion.


Don't mind me arriving late for the party.

 

[Astridhere]

Stop with the lies, too much for one day. Here is a study from 2010.

So now tell me why humans are in the homoninae group.

I already know your researchers come up with this rubbish. Do you understand why?

Do you know why I can produce research that clads humans with orangutans? It is because your algorithms are biased.

You keep going on and on about creationist research. This is not from a creationist site.

Results  Our analyses support the following hypotheses: (1) the living large-bodied hominoids represent a monophyletic group comprising two sister clades: humans + orangutans, and chimpanzees (including bonobos) + gorillas (collectively, the African apes); and (2) the human–orangutan clade (dental hominoids) includes fossil hominids (Homo, australopiths, Orrorin) and the Miocene-age apes Hispanopithecus, Ouranopithecus, Ankarapithecus, Sivapithecus, Lufengpithecus, Khoratpithecus and Gigantopithecus (also Plio-Pleistocene of eastern Asia). (TOC).
Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins - Grehan - 2009 - Journal of Biogeography - Wiley Online Library

The one above is based on morphology. Orangutans share more morpholgy with humans then chimps. It is only DNA that brings mankind closer to a chimp but really the differences are huge.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

The Y chromosome alone is at least 30% different.

Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.
​

So much for 98 percent. Let me just repeat part of that: humans and chimpanzees, "comparable to the difference ... in chicken and human".
This is from a new paper that's just shown up in the Nature advance publication zone.

Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees | john hawks weblog

John Hawks by the way is an evolutionist. You lie about this and obviously have no idea what a creatonist site is. You think everything uncomforatable is from a creationists site. Too bad all this research I provide is fro your very own evolutionary researchers.

So please tell me what is the criteria for homininae and why is mankind in that group?

Have you even bothered to try and find the homoninae criteria or is it that there isn't one? Mankind is placed arbitrarily in this grouping because it suits evolutionists.

Evolutionary taxonomy is biased rubbish. Evolutionists change definitions to suit flavour of the month. This is why I am pursuing this line of debate. It is to demonstrate that your taxonomic system is not evidence of anything. It is a classification system you lot make up based on the assumption of common descent.

Now again I ask you why mankind is placed in homominae with chimps and gorillas? What is the criteria for placing mankind there?

If the criteria is 97% similarity that cannot be correct becasue I have produced research that states there is now an 8-10% difference in Mtdna.

That research is from evolutionists also.

You see you lot go on about your great taxonomic systen when really it is just something evolutionists make up as they go along like any good story teller.

Seriously you continue to beat around the bush and NOT explain what mankind is doing in the homininae clade.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

On the one hand, this is my second thread that's been split. Yay for me.
On the other, it's primarily Astridhere positing asinine nonsense with the speed of a relativistic machine gun. Boo for us.

Anyone who's not Astridhere fancy answering the question?

 

[CabVet]

Now again I ask you why mankind is placed in homominae with chimps and gorillas? What is the criteria for placing mankind there?

If the criteria is 97% similarity that cannot be correct becasue I have produced research that states there is now an 8-10% difference in Mtdna.

The criteria are cladistic criteria, they have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with how much % DNA divergence there is between species. A CLADE (in this case family) is defined by shared derived characters, not by how much % DNA divergence there is between species. There are FAMILIES of insects containing THOUSANDS of species, separated by up to 30% divergence in DNA, if they share synapomorphies they are put together in a monophyletic clade. Where did you get the idea that something has to be 97% similar to be on the same FAMILY?

 

[Astridhere]

(I asked this question up in Origins Theology a little while ago.)

Astridhere: For the moment, let's ignore all the studies and all the fossils. I would like to hear your personal opinion. Let's say - just for the sake of argument - that humans evolved from apes. What you would expect this human-ape creature to look like?

Again, this isn't about fossils or DNA or semantics. I'd like your personal opinion.


Don't mind me arriving late for the party.

Darls this is not knew. Loudmouth chased around with this also. This is about evolutionists trying to get creationists to provide a definition of an intermediate when evolutionists themselves have no idea. That is why Lucy and Ardi have been dethroned out of the human line. That is also why evos have a revolving door of human ancestors that rarely stay for very long. Loudmouths definition was easly pulled apart.

Apes were short armed, bipedal, non knucklewalkers as Ardi is the oldest and most complete fossil you have illustrates, according to evos.

By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say.

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

Mankind shares more morphology with an orangutan.,and bipedalism is not a human trait anymore, and neither is a reduced pelvis because Lucy had a reduced pelvis and now is just an ape, and likely a chimp ancestor.

If a fossil has chimp traits could it be a chimp ancestor? Of course not. It must be human.

If a fossil has gorilla traits could it be a gorilla ancestor? Of course not. It must be human.

Indeed you have no fossil evidence to demonstrate chimps or gorillas meaning that one half of this bush of yours is missing.

Seeing as we must rely on morphology instead of DNA when classifying fossils I will base my definition on a morphological intermediate....

So an intermediate human/chimp should have 14 unique orangutan features out of 28.

Evolutionists also have to explain how so many ornagutan characteristics turned up in mankind when we are supposed to be more closely related to a chimp. Good luck with that one!

“Researchers have to stop publishing papers that say, essentially, ‘This fossil is an early hominid, so suck it up and accept it,’” Wood says. “Nature and Science could change this practice overnight if they wanted to.”

Scientists currently have no good way, either with bones or genes, to test the hypothesis that proposed early hominids are ancestors as advertised, remarks anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis - Science News

This above is also NOT from a creationist site. John Hawks is a very well credentialed proffessor and lecturer on evolution.

So I guess that this is a 'suck it up' moment because these evolutionary researchers agree with me, and I can find plenty more. Yes they still support evolution, unlike me. However they also suggest how difficult it is for evolutionists to define who is who in the zoo. That is of course because because you evos try to humanize any ape you find so there are no gorilla or chimp ancestors to back up their descent.

Ape to ape is fine. Lucy adapting into a chimp is no problem. However you have NO intermediate chimp/human ancestors.

Evolutionists use covering terms like morphological and genetic homoplasy, convergent evolution, parallel evolution to address annomolies and contradictions.

Now that you lot know the common ancestor was not chimp like,
why don't you give me a definition of what ahuman chimp intermediate should look like, seeing you are the evolutionist that is meant to support this fossil evidence?

 

[Astridhere]

conjecture

Actually I support all my assertions with evolutionary twoddle
You keep using that word morphology, I do not think it means what you think it means. I agree that if orangutans are closer to humans than chimps that we should be grouped with them, but I don't think you want that either.
The point being of course that evolutionists have no idea. It is all based on the assumption of common descent

So because the theory of evolution changed as more evidence became available it's false, congratulations on misunderstanding the entirety of science.
This is the best line you evos put up to butt cover. Indeed new information is meant to support the status quo, not change it, sometimes dramatically. All you lot have is a theory in evolution itself with no predictive capability.

You would most likely still be making this argument if we clad orangs with humans.
And that still shows evo researchers have no idea what they are talking about.

That article that you use, when it says orthologous exons it is talking about the parts of the genomes that are are different, thereby saying that even the different genes have similarities.
We have similarities to a banana so that means absolutely nothing

if classification is not evidence for evolution then why are you against other great apes being in Homininae with us?
Because I get sick of simplistic replies like " I can prove evolution because man is classed as an ape so they are an ape". We are an ape only because evos put us there on the assumption of common ancestry.

Considering the amount of time biologists have spent studying biology I think it is you that doesn't understand what they're talking about. Heck I don't even understand what they're talking about half the time.
That is OK because they also do not know what they are talking about regardless of their education. Proof..150 years of sprooking we evolved from a knucklewalking chimp like ancestor with the irrefuteable evidence to support it that only an idiot would not accept and understand....now down the shute and in the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past. Does this old war cry sound familiar?????

Yes, neither Lucy nor erectus was human, they are in homininae though
And neither were they on the way to becoming human. Lucy is supposedly a hominid which was the great lynchpin of humanity...until you found apes were bipeds before mankind.

Are you acually looking, I was like you once, headstrong and unequivocally decided that evolution didn't happen, then I stopped listening to creationists and found out from evolutionists why they believed what they believed.
I am not head strong at all. You are headstrong for putting faith in researchers that call you an ape without paying any attention to observation. The hallmark of humanity is higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated language. Apes do not display these traits. Neither do humans display a fur coat. The differences would be obvious if researchers were not so desperate to turn man into an ape.

I do love me a good yarn, though it doesn't stand in the way of seeing creation as a beautiful and majestic story unfolding as God directs it.
Too bad we are made from dust and not the bone of an ape.
Yes I butted in again but you decided to talk here rather than respond to me.
I did repond to you and then thread was closed

Why don't you take a crack at a definition of a human/chimp intermediate?

 

[CabVet]

Why don't you take a crack at a definition of a human/chimp intermediate?

Because you are the one that is questioning it, so no amount of information we post here will satisfy you.

 

[CabVet]

So an intermediate human/chimp should have 14 unique orangutan features out of 28.

No, an intermediate fossil does not necessarily have to have half the number of characters between species. Intermediate fossils have to belong to the same clade as their descendents, and that is determined by shared derived characters, not by the number of "intermediate characters".

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Anyone who's not Astridhere fancy answering the question?

What would make me a creationist? I asked that question up in Origins Theology too.

Personally - aliens. Or to be more exact, if we were to discover aliens my stance of evolution would depend on how much they resemble life on Earth, particularly humans. If they greatly resembled us, I would start considereding Intelligent Design, particularly since it wouldn't completely disprove evolution.

The guys up in Origins Theology said human-like aliens could be explained by convergent evolution, but that would be too much of a stretch for me.

BTW in your original OP you wrote that "an ordinary species of mouse whose cells have something wholly unrelated to DNA" could disprove evolution. I don't think it would.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

This is about evolutionists trying to get creationists to provide a definition of an intermediate when evolutionists themselves have no idea.

Another creationist gave me a similar answer: he said that simply having an idea about what a human-ape ancestor could look like doesn't prove that they existed. I thought that was a strange answer - after all, if we don't have an idea about what something could look like, how will we find it?

Your studies about orangutans is known as the Red Ape Theory, but I don't see how it disproves evolution. If humans were more closely related to orangs than chimps, would that prove humans didn't evolve?

Seeing as we must rely on morphology instead of DNA when classifying fossils I will base my definition on a morphological intermediate....

So an intermediate human/chimp should have 14 unique orangutan features out of 28.

Evolutionists also have to explain how so many ornagutan characteristics turned up in mankind when we are supposed to be more closely related to a chimp. Good luck with that one!

I don't know if this has been answered already, but I think it's a fairly good question. Obvious a human-ape ancestor would have a combination of human-like and ape-like traits. The real question is: which traits are these?

For example: chimps walk on their knuckles, orangutans don't. DNA studies show humans are more closely related to chimps than orangutans. Therefore, human ancestors probably walked on their knuckles. Seems logical, right? But recent studies show that human ancestors didn't walk on their knuckles. Does that mean they were closely related to orangs rather than chimps? Doesn't that contradict the DNA studies?

Maybe not. Knuckle-walking is a trait found in modern chimps and gorillas, which ancient great apes didn't seem to have. It doesn't mean that humans are closely related to orangs.

 

[Astridhere]

Notedstrangeperson..my quote function does not always work so this is a dummy post to load your post

 

[CabVet]

Anyone who's not Astridhere fancy answering the question?

I think I've answered this before, but personally, to refute evolution as it stands today, you would need to show me something like a cat giving birth to a banana, or like the creationists love describing, a chimp transforming into a human in one generation. Funny how their twisted view of evolution would actually disprove it.

To accept theistic evolution, I would probably need to see someone creating new species from thin air through prayer, or something like the rapture to happen.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

To accept theistic evolution, I would probably need to see someone creating new species from thin air through prayer, or something like the rapture to happen.

That wouldn't be theistic evolution. A fully-formed species appearing out of thin air would be Creationism.

 

[Astridhere]

Another creationist gave me a similar answer: he said that simply having an idea about what a human-ape ancestor could look like doesn't prove that they existed. I thought that was a strange answer - after all, if we don't have an idea about what something could look like, how will we find it?

Your studies about orangutans is known as the Red Ape Theory, but I don't see how it disproves evolution. If humans were more closely related to orangs than chimps, would that prove humans didn't evolve?


I don't know if this has been answered already, but I think it's a fairly good question. Obvious a human-ape ancestor would have a combination of human-like and ape-like traits. The real question is: which traits are these?

For example: chimps walk on their knuckles, orangutans don't. DNA studies show humans are more closely related to chimps than orangutans. Therefore, human ancestors probably walked on their knuckles. Seems logical, right? But recent studies show that human ancestors didn't walk on their knuckles. Does that mean they were closely related to orangs rather than chimps? Doesn't that contradict the DNA studies?

Maybe not. Knuckle-walking is a trait found in modern chimps and gorillas, which ancient great apes didn't seem to have. It doesn't mean that humans are closely related to orangs.

Indeed there are many perhapses and maybe's. However to say that your evidence for evolution is irrefuteable is simply wrong.

I as a creationist, can put up interpretations to the evidence just like an evo can.

Researchers have found a human metararsel that predates Lucy. Lucy is not human and just an ape. If this is true data as purported by evolutionists, my interpretation is that this is evidence that mankind was around before and around afarensis. Hence mankind appears in the fossil record suddenly as a creationist expect to find. Mankind was not numerous so it will be difficult to find more evidence and I am glad this metatarsel was found. A human fossil that predates our supposed ancestors can be interpreted to falsify the evolutionary status quo as well as support creation.

The alternative explanation is that apes had fully human feet before they diverged into chimps and gorillas. This is non plausible, so I support my own interpretation as a more plausible explanation of the data. If human feet were present on chimp ancestors then even this trait is not a human trait.

The body is homoplasic and God used the same best design many times. The hallmark of mankind resides in higher reasoning ability and sophisticated language and abstract thought. These are not homoplasic.

Erectus also does not display these traits. I suggest these were either dead end apes or still adapting into some ape that is around today. I feel I can also support this assertion. Erectus and Turkana Boy have shrunk, The Gona female pelvis demonstrates that erectus was still a waddler. A waddler cannot leave fully human footprints with a human gait. The whacky pelvis of Turkana Boy is now headed for reconstruction.

Creationists cannot trust the reconstructions evos put together. They are biased in favour of flavour of the month. Rudolfensis is another example of the Leakeys misrepresenting a fossil to look more human than it is, untill it was reconctrcted to look more ape like.

Did Lucy walk more human like than a waddling erectus?

I feel evos should not ridicule creationists because we can interpret the data to suit the various creationist camps just as well as evolutionists, and are perfectly entitled to claim they also have science and observation on their side.