What proof would you need? (2)

[Keachian]

Astridhere, I've had enough of resplicing your replies so I'm not gonna go to that trouble, you raise a few interesting and misguided points.

1. Turk with his jaw squared out looks more like an oranguatan
2. Cranial capacity quibbles
3. They are all a bunch of apes
4. proconsul has short arms, intoning that you can't go short, long, short

I've identified the above as the main points you are trying to make I'll address these as numbered.
1) one of the other things you need to realise is that when "squared off" the jaw of humans protrudes further than that of the other apes thereby classing it in with erectus again rather than proconsul or orangs

2) I suppose this chart is "algorithmical magic"

3) Yep, everyone's an ape, including you
4) While I don't know that much of what the current family tree looks like, couldn't it be that both the split from the orangs and the split from the gorillas caused them to gain length? Chimps have a far closer leg-arm length ratio to us than either of the other two great apes.

 

[Psudopod]

[quote = Psudopod]
[/list]Notedstrangeperson has explained one of the two things you have highlighted was a typo. Nakalipithecus, you have highlighted with a mocking thumbs up because there were two ancestors listed. What's wrong with this? One will be historical to the other. Just as my grandmother and my great grandmother are both my ancestors; the existance of one does not refute the existance of the other.

[quote = Astridhere]Oh stop clowning around. You lot simply have stuff all fossils for your chimp and gorilla ancestry. You can carry on with whatever nonsense you wish. The sad fact for you is that your lack of ancestors for both gorillas and more importantly chimpanzee is acknowledged by your own researchers.

There is no debate here. This is a fact. [/quote] [/quote]

I'm not clowning around, I'm addressing your point, perhaps you could try it? Your point was that there were two ancestors listed for the same decendent species, and you thought that was clearly wrong, hence your mocking thumbs up smiley. It's not clowning around to address the fact that if you understand biology let alone evolution, multiple ancestors not only makes sense, it's necessary! Don't like being made to look stupid, don't make mock what you do not understand.

To address your new point raised here, yes, there are less ancestors in the chimp / gorrila lines that we have discovered so far. You're right, Us crazy evolutionists with our honesty about what we have found. You're right, there is no debate. That's why no one is debating you on it! There are some, so your comment about stuff all is false, there was a list mentioning several in my last post copied from another poster who showed them to you a few posts earlier. But fossilisation is a rare process and in some environments happens barely at all. That's the way it is, physical processes do not bow to our wims.

[quote = Pusdopod]Had a quick read up on proconsul and nothing suggests it's discredited. There appear to be four discovered species, and it has old-world monkey and ape traits, placing it somewhere between the split between old-world monkeys and apes, making it a distant human ancestor.

[quote =astridhere]Then you did not look hard enough.
Proconsulidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [/quote] [/quote]

That's the very aritcle I read first. Nothing in there says it is decredited, and the article describes it as having traits from old world monkeys and apes, so is likely to come just before the split of the two groups.


[quote =Psudopod]And Ida wasn't discredited, just likely to be a side branch, rather than a direct human ancestor.

[quote =astridhere]Spooking a fossil is in the human line then not is a descreditiation to the initial theoryy and all the woffle behind it. It is that simple. [/quote][/quote]

No, the only thing that is discredited is that Ida is a direct human ancestor. The way you talk it's like Ida's gone the way of Piltdown man, and that's pretty dishonest of you. Ida is a great uncle, not a granfather species, but the fossil itself is not discredited.

[quote =astridhere]Bipedalism is an ape trait because apes were bipedal first, like Lucy the ape and Ardi the ape. Even your researchers agree bipeda have been around for about 20my way before mankind and any chimp/human split. [/quote]

And like Astridhere the ape and Psudopod the ape. Yes it's a trait in apes, yes it appeared much earlier than first expected, yes its still a human trait. No one's arguing with the facts, just your bizzare assertions.

Apes of all kinds do not have totally dependent offspring. An ape baby clings to its' mother from birth. A human baby does not. It is an obvious difference that separates mankind from ape based on the one non homoplasic trait around, superior intelligence and higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and the sophisticated language that goes with it.

Again, you are wrong. It is not what separates us from apes, it is what separates us form other apes. The same way spots separate dalmations from other dogs. Or are you going to claim dalmations are not dogs, as your logic suggests.

What you need is a hairy ape, still with clinging neonates, with a large brain capacity comparable to modern humans that is intelligent enough to deminish the independence of a neonate 1.5mya. A neonate is not going to survive unless its mother is sufficiently intelligent to meet all it's needs, which requires abstract thought and reasoning ability not demonstrated in the small neural canal of erectus/ergaster. Were erectus also having babies yearly like mankind with no birth control, as opposed to every 4/5 years as in apes? Were these half wits carrying a bunch of kids around the savanah or forest with them? Were they smart enough to mash up the leaves and nuts and friut to wean a child with a human digestive system onto solids?

You claim Erectus is a hairy ape with clinging neonates and an intelligence just below that of modern humans, and then ask how it is going to care for a depentent infant when it's utterly stupid? You are contradicting yourself utterly. Not to mention that you don't seem to understand that all mammals go through weaning, no matter what the intelligence of parent or offspring.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Hon, quibbling about what your researchers classify anything is not the point. Proconsul is currenty classified as Hominoidea. It has short arms and I can make up a story just like your evo researchers can eg knucklewalking ancestry you lot went on about for over 150 years gone to the rubbish bin of evo delusions.

'Hominoidae' is a superfamily which consists of humans, great apes, lesser apes and all of their extinct relatives a.k.a. 'True apes'. Proconsul is the earliest known ape, so it only juust fits into this category. Besides, knucklewalking is a modern trait only found in modern gorillas and chimpanzees.

H. Erectus had a much, much bigger brain than either Procunsul or an orangutan.

Only according to you algorithmis magic Indeed the skulls presented do not demostrate this. Turk has more of a receeding forhead than a modern female ornag.

Now that's just silly. Anyone can tell you Homo Erectus had a much larger brain than Proconsul:

From left to right:
Adapis (extinct lemur); Proconsul; Australopithecus; Homo Habilis; Homo Erectus; Modern human from Israel; Modern human from France.

You don't need algorithms to see which skull had the larger braincase.

Indeed I can suggest anything I want. I can also interpret the fossil evidence any way I want.

...
Indeed I can suggest what ever I like, and have done so. You lot cannot agree on anything and continually discredit each other theories.

Well, not really. I could hardly interpret a Homo Erectus skull as some kind of eagle. As for discrediting, I think there are even a few Creationists who would disagre with you.

 

[Astridhere]

Astridhere, I've had enough of resplicing your replies so I'm not gonna go to that trouble, you raise a few interesting and misguided points.

1. Turk with his jaw squared out looks more like an oranguatan
2. Cranial capacity quibbles
3. They are all a bunch of apes
4. proconsul has short arms, intoning that you can't go short, long, short

I've identified the above as the main points you are trying to make I'll address these as numbered.
1) one of the other things you need to realise is that when "squared off" the jaw of humans protrudes further than that of the other apes thereby classing it in with erectus again rather than proconsul or orangs

Turk has no chin and needs to be presented like the other apes

2) I suppose this chart is "algorithmical magic"

3) Yep, everyone's an ape, including you
4) While I don't know that much of what the current family tree looks like, couldn't it be that both the split from the orangs and the split from the gorillas caused them to gain length? Chimps have a far closer leg-arm length ratio to us than either of the other two great apes.

Yes this is your algorithmic magic that can poof a Turk skull that is akin to a Rulolfensis skull of 526cc into a larger brain.

Without algorithmic magic Turk is just another knuckle headed ape.

As I put up previously the skull of Rudolfensis is no more different to Turkana Boys that what would be seen in any species variation.

I am not saying they are the same species. However I am saying that Turks cranial vault contains the same amount of brains as Rudolfensis, likely around 526cc. Turks forehead is even more receded than Rudolfs. regardless of presentation. It takes algorithmic magic to override what can be observed. Hence my signature.

Turkana Boy has a whackey pelvis where the two halves are not identical. I wonder if they will fix this when it is reconstructed to suit flavour of the month. I doubt Turk is even constructed from the bones of the same individual.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Yes this is your algorithmic magic that can poof a Turk skull that is akin to a Rulolfensis skull of 526cc into a larger brain.

Without algorithmic magic Turk is just another knuckle headed ape.


As I put up previously the skull of Rudolfensis is no more different to Turkana Boys that what would be seen in any species variation.


I am not saying they are the same species. However I am saying that Turks cranial vault contains the same amount of brains as Rudolfensis, likely around 526cc. Turks forehead is even more receded than Rudolfs. regardless of presentation. It takes algorithmic magic to override what can be observed.

This is the same mistake you made with anatomical evidence. First you say that algorithms are 'magic' (i.e. useless) - then you use algorithms to 'prove' that Turkana Boy was just an ape.

This is cherry-picking. If you thinks such measurements are useles why do you keep using them?

 

[Astridhere]

'Hominoidae' is a superfamily which consists of humans, great apes, lesser apes and all of their extinct relatives a.k.a. 'True apes'. Proconsul is the earliest known ape, so it only juust fits into this category. Besides, knucklewalking is a modern trait only found in modern gorillas and chimpanzees.


Now that's just silly. Anyone can tell you Homo Erectus had a much larger brain than Proconsul: Is that so? Are you alleging that a pygmy is not human.......Anyway, I did not compare erectus and proconsul brains. I observed that the crainial vault of proconsul was similary shaped to an orang and erectus except erectus has even a more receding forehead than either. Misrepresenting me does not get you lot out of the mire.

From left to right:
Adapis (extinct lemur); Proconsul; Australopithecus; Homo Habilis; Homo Erectus; Modern human from Israel; Modern human from France.

Proconsul has been found very varied and up to 50kg. Stick that specimen in your stupid misrepresentative line up.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/apes/proconsul/proconsul_overview.html



You don't need algorithms to see which skull had the larger braincase.

Yes you do. Talk about cherry picking. Why don't this lot place the 50kg proconsul in the line up? The truth would destroy the myth. Evos like nothing better than cherry picked comparisons. This line up is nothing more than a demonstration of various sized apes conveniently placed in an order to misrepresent brain increase.


Well, not really. I could hardly interpret a Homo Erectus skull as some kind of eagle. As for discrediting, I think there are even a few Creationists who would disagre with you. That is because they have been sucked in by all the twoddle and misrepresentation re Turk and I am hoping that soon they will see Turk is an ape and likely a fraud.


I have seen this misrepresentation of skull comparisons before, of course.

Does a pygmy have the same size brain as a 7 foot basketballer. No. All these comparisons are woffle as far as I am concerned?

Your researchers pay no mind to variations within species and come up with 'averages' that really mean nothing. A pygmy has a human brain. It is comparatively smaller in relation to body size than a 6 or 7 foot human.

Proconsul is known to be as large as 50kg. Will these jerks put that specimen in the line up? No. I wonder why.

A gorilla can have a brain capacity of up to 650cc. Yes apes are smart. However they are a long shot from the higher reasoning ability, abstract thought capability and sophisticated languahe of mankind.

Theory Of Evolution Essay



Turk has been reduced to 5'4" and is a robust wadder, not an athlete at all. The shape of the Rudolfensis skull is akin to Turkana Boys, meaning Turk has a brain capacity of around 525cc or so. To negate the algorithic magic one can observe there is no increase in cranial vault and no increase in brain size. In fact Turk looks more stupid that rudolf as Turk has a more receding forehead than rudolf. Those are the observed facts lovey and that outweighs algorithmical magic. Researchers have to invent magic to turn observed evidence into a myth

It takes algorithmic magic to poof a dumb ape into intelligence that is 'nearly human'.

This Turkana Boy could not light and control fires any better than a gorilla can. Nor could erectus care for a fully dependent neonate with weak neck muscles and immature immune system and body temperature regulation that comes with large brained human babies.

The continual falsifications within evolutionary science eg knucklewalking ancestry that was around for at least 150 years, the athletic Turkana Boy running around the place, Bipedalism being solely a human trait, reduced pelvis being solely a human trait are just a few recent examples that demonstrate in actual fact researchers have no idea what they are talking about. They are blind scientists gropping in the dark trying to prove something that did not happen..human descent from an ape.

Just one find can change currently accepted thinkging and turn it up side down. To me this strongly suggests the assumption, common descent, your theory is based on is erraneous.

My theory and assumptions are as unfalsifiable as yours.

Modern apes adapted from a shorter armed ape and your gorilla and chimp ancestors are glaring at you from within the human line...after being placed there in desperation of finding intermediate humans and for fame and glory, by your reserchers.

 

[Astridhere]

This is the same mistake you made with anatomical evidence. First you say that algorithms are 'magic' (i.e. useless) - then you use algorithms to 'prove' that Turkana Boy was just an ape.
Oh stop quacking. I use observation, a skill your reserchers clearly have no idea about and have lost in place of algorithmic magic.
This is cherry-picking. If you thinks such measurements are useles why do you keep using them?
What is clearly observed is Rudolfensis cranial vault is no smaller that Turks. That is observation and something evolutionists know nothing about.

I use observation, a skill your researchers have no need for. They have magic wands called algorithms that could prove the Telllitubbies were human intermediates if they added the right insertion values.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Is that so? Are you alleging that a pygmy is not human.......Anyway, I did not compare erectus and proconsul brains. I observed that the crainial vault of proconsul was similary shaped to an orang and erectus except erectus has even a more rededing forhead than either. Misrepresenting me does not get you lot out of the mire.

From page 14:

H. Erectus had a much, much bigger brain than either Procunsul or an orangutan.

Only according to you algorithmis magic Indeed the skulls presented do not demostrate this.

Unless you're saying Proconsul was some kind of miniature H. Erectus, brain size matters. Similarly, orangutans have a cranial capacity of 275-500cc (depending on gender). H. erectus had a cranical capacity of roughly 850-1,100cc. That's more than double.

Turk has been reduced to 5'4" and is a robust wadder, not an athlete at all. The shape of the Rudolfensis skull is akin to Turkana Boys, meaning Turk has a brain capacity of around 525cc or so.

Turkana Boy, as the name suggests, was still a juvenile. To use your own example - suggesting he was a type of orangutan because of his small brain is about a logical as saying pygmies are too small to be human.
---------------------------

I've written it already but I'll write it again: I know of at least two other equally adamant creationists who would say that Homo Erectus was fully human. What would you tell them? Have they been deceived by scientists too?

 

[Astridhere]

Notedstrangeperson says

Unless you're saying Proconsul was some kind of miniature H. Erectus, brain size matters. Similarly, orangutans have a cranial capacity of 275-500cc (depending on gender). H. erectus had a cranical capacity of roughly 850-1,100cc. That's more than double.


Again I'll repeat, observation is evidence. Algorithmic magic is not.

You have a 50kg proconsul. Are you suggesting that a 50kg proconsul has the same 'cc as a 15kg one?

Without having to address any more of your post one can see that your comparisons are rubbish and line ups are biased in favour of leaving out anything that may rock the boat.


"Turkana Boy, as the name suggests, was still a juvenile. To use your own example - suggesting he was a type of orangutan because of his small brain is about a logical as saying pygmies are too small to be human."


No actually I have put up an adult rudolfensis, which demonstrate Turks juvenille cranial vault is no larger compared to body size.

The ornags were to demonstrate that their skulls are more 'human like' than turks ape head or at least Turks skull is no more human than some other modern apes. All your comparisons are truly misrepresentative rubbish.

Are you going to continue to ignore the Rudolfensis skull, comparison to Turkana Boys I presented? Or are you going to go around in circles all day? There is NO increase in cranial volume. There is no increase in brain size regardless of what cc you give either.......It is that simple.


Of course observation does not work for evo scientists because observation may actually represent the truth. Hence algorithmic magic is evoked and relied on to turn truth into myth.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Again I'll repeat, observation is evidence. Algorithmic magic is not.

So in other words you can fully examine fossils simply by looking at them, rather than using actual measurements?

No actually I have put up an adult rudolfensis, which demonstrate Turks juvenille cranial vault is no larger compared to body size.

The ornags were to demonstrate that their skulls are more 'human like' than turks ape head or at least Turks skull is no more human than some other modern apes. All your comparisons are truly misrepresentative rubbish.

The cranical capacity of H. Rudolfensis (which some think was a variation of H. Erects) was approx. 775cc. Larger than even a male orangutan.

Are you going to continue to ignore the Rudolfensis skull, comparison to Turkana Boys I presented? Or are you going to go around in circles all day? There is NO increase in cranial volume. There is no increase in brain size regardless of what cc you give either.......It is that simple.

That simply isn't the case. H. Rudolfensis had a larger cranical capacity than that of a modern orangutan.

Furthermore, I hardly think you're in a position to talk about "misrepresenting" evidence and "ignoring anything which may rock the boat". Firstly, I and many other users have pointed out that your criticisms are incorrect and you've simply ignored them. Secondly, you've ignored the fact that other Creationists believe that Homo Erectus was fully human. Or do you avoid arguing with them simply because they don't believe in evolution?

Making untrue assertions and ignoring ones we don't agree with makes us look ignorant.

 

[Astridhere]

Fake post to load strange person

 

[Astridhere]

Fake post to load strange person

It won't load.

Again nothing you said in your last post is addressing the simplicity of my Rudlofensis and Turkana Boy comparison. You are evoking everything other than observation, a skill evolutionists have lost.

You can blab and quote your misfits and their biased algorithmic magic for months and it will not change the rubbish they are. Rudolf was not only reconstructed it was redated.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/First-Humans-Were-More-Ape-Like-than-Human-Like-50260.shtml

Nothing you produce is credible. It is biased nonsense.

Turk can be reconstructed to suit any paradigm. His skull, found in shattered fragments, could look like anything. His pelvis demonstrates he is a fraud, a mix of individuals or he had a major limp. The same goes for all fossils not found in tact.

I have provided an observed comparison of Turk and Rudolfs skulls. Rudolf being some big brain with a flat face in the hands of those fakers the Leakey's has been reduced. Rudolf now has a small brain. Algorithms have poofed a larger brain into the same cranial vault. Observation demonstrates Turk has the same sized vault and neither ape could light fires or care for fully dependent neonates.

More importantantly, neither skull looks anything like mankind and a child could pick it in 'pick the odd one out'.

That is my theory and you cannot falsify it.

Observation over rides algorithmic magic.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

It won't load.

Are you having trouble loading something?

You can blab and quote your misfits and their biased algorithmic magic for months and it will not change the rubbish they are. Rudolf was not only reconstructed it was redated.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/First...ke-50260.shtml

Nothing you produce is credible. It is biased nonsense.

But if Rudolfensis was reconstructed and re-dated ...

I have provided an observed comparison of Turk and Rudolfs skulls. Rudolf being some big brain with a flat face in the hands of those fakers the Leakey's has been reduced. Rudolf now has a small brain. Algorithms have poofed a larger brain into the same cranial vault. Observation demonstrates Turk has the same sized vault and neither ape could light fires or care for fully dependent neonates.

... How can you claim that your obervations are correct? Presumably if the fact that Rudolfensis was reconstructed discredits my conclusions, that means it discredits your conclusions too.

 

[USincognito]

I could hardly interpret a Homo Erectus skull as some kind of eagle. As for discrediting, I think there are even a few Creationists who would disagre with you.

Answers in Genesis for example.
Homo erectus ''to'' Modern Man: Evolution or Human Variability? - Answers in Genesis
"Far from dismissing erectus forms as being only large extinct apes or frauds, the pendulum is now swinging to the view that most, if not all erectus specimens are indeed full members of the human race. With the discovery of the Turkana “Boy” WT 15000 in 1984 in Kenya, it is no longer possible to hold to the position that Homo erectus was only a large-brained pongid."

Of course Astrid knows better than Creationists... I mean, she looked a a picture of Turkana Boy on the Internet!!!

What a joke...

 

[Astridhere]

Are you having trouble loading something?


But if Rudolfensis was reconstructed and re-dated ...

... How can you claim that your obervations are correct? Presumably if the fact that Rudolfensis was reconstructed discredits my conclusions, that means it discredits your conclusions too.

That does nothing to discredit my conclusion my dear. Turk is simply a non human ape just like all the other bipedal non human apes.

Actually rudolfs reconstruction, along with Turks about to be pelvic reconstruction demostrates beyond doubt that evolutionary researchers can only produce flavour of the month...which has no credibility.

 

[Astridhere]

Answers in Genesis for example.
Homo erectus ''to'' Modern Man: Evolution or Human Variability? - Answers in Genesis
"Far from dismissing erectus forms as being only large extinct apes or frauds, the pendulum is now swinging to the view that most, if not all erectus specimens are indeed full members of the human race. With the discovery of the Turkana “Boy” WT 15000 in 1984 in Kenya, it is no longer possible to hold to the position that Homo erectus was only a large-brained pongid."

Of course Astrid knows better than Creationists... I mean, she looked a a picture of Turkana Boy on the Internet!!!

Oh how simplistic from someone that was likely shoving knucklewalking ancestry down creationists throats not that long ago only to be falsified..again with one new find.

What a wobbly peudo science you evos have!

What a joke...

Perhaps your memory is challenged.

I have stated many, many times that many creationists now accept erectus as human based on woffle and misrepresentation that evolutionists produce. I feel they should know better than to trust any flavour of the month you lot produce.

One example of reconstructions presented as irrefuteable evidence, is Turk and his whackey fraudulent pelvis being the amazing 6'1" athlete now morphed into a 5'4" waddler with a single find. This should be expected. Putting any faith in evo reconstruction was mainstream creationists error. I do not and have never understood why creationists would ever think Turks ape head was within human range. It most certainly is not. Even a biased reconstruction has not shown Turks skull to be within human range. Nor is the thickness of its legs nor the long femor head nor the extra verterbra nor the small neural canal.

What will now happen to the long femoral head being an adaptation for running like an athlete now that Turk is a short waddler incapable of runing anywhere? This is anther example of woffle and evo delusion.

Indeed Turks shattered fragments found over an area of 1250 cubic meters of dirt could have been reconstructed to look like whatever they want. There is no science behind reconstructions past flavour of the month. That is probably why it took 10 years to publish the paper on the find. They had to turn an ape into an intermediate.

If your crazy algorithms had suggested the chimp/human split was 2 million years ago Turk would have been reconstructed to look more like an ape like Lucy or Ardi.

Your mate Dawkins is one of the biggest and most arrogant fools.

Evolutionists do not have evidence for anything. They do have flavour of the month..which effectively means they have nothing.

 

[CabVet]

If your crazy algorithms had suggested the chimp/human split was 2 million years ago Turk would have been reconstructed to look more like an ape like Lucy or Ardi.

Alright, you keep insisting on "crazy algorithms", so let's talk about them now. What algorithms are those, specifically, and how are they flawed?

 

[USincognito]

Your mate Dawkins is one of the biggest and most arrogant fools.

Coming from you, that's hilarious. You must lack an inorny gene.

Do you have a real response to your fellow Creationists claims that Turkana Boy was a fully modern human or will you continue posting your factually incorrect, unreadable walls of text?

 

[Astridhere]

Are you having trouble loading something?


But if Rudolfensis was reconstructed and re-dated ...

... How can you claim that your obervations are correct? Presumably if the fact that Rudolfensis was reconstructed discredits my conclusions, that means it discredits your conclusions too.

Glad to see you have run out of intelligent comments.

What is demonstrated beyond doubt is that evolutionary researchers have no idea what they are talking about.

Any creationist scenario from any creationist camp cannot possibly be any worse than evolutionary theory. 150 years of instability and change, some of which have been dramatic falsifications of previous thinking, is no basis for sprooking.



New Hominid 12 Million Years Old Found In Spain, With 'Modern' Facial Features

This above is what Turkana Boy and erectus likely looked like. They were flat faced apes like Lluc, 12 million years old.

According to flavour of the month the female erectus had a wider and more capacious pelvic opening that a human female yet gave birth to fully dependent babies that were only 30-50% of adult brain size at birth and supposedly grew faster akin to a chimpanzee. It takes algorithmic magic to turn what is obvious nonsense into evolutionary thinking.

As I have stated previously half wits compared to cognitively disabled human females cannot look after a fully dependent child at birth that has a weak neck and an immature immune system as well as immature temperature regulation. The Gona Pelvis is the find of the decade that demonstrates beyond doubt to me that these researchers are clueless and senseless, including Dawkins.

Erectus was a flat faced ape that is likely on it's way to becoming a chimp, gorilla, bonobo or orangutan or simply an extinct species of non human ape. This would resolve the missing non human ape ancestors, and why some erectus have a sagital keel.

This is my theory and it is unfalsifiable just like any scenario evos produce.

You guys and gals are hilarious, seriously. Can't you lot come up with a scenario that makes some sense for a change?

 

[Astridhere]

Coming from you, that's hilarious. You must lack an inorny gene.

Do you have a real response to your fellow Creationists claims that Turkana Boy was a fully modern human or will you continue posting your factually incorrect, unreadable walls of text?

Yes for the hundreth time I say my fellow creationists have been bamboozled by the Turkana Boy reconstruction that was misrepresented to the public and is likely a fraud. He is not a strapping athlete. His long femoral head that you lot woffled on about being an adaptation for long distance running is crap. He is a short waddler, less able to leave fully human footprints that even Australopithicus.

The sader point is that not any one of your reconstructions are realistic. They are stabs in the dark based on falvour of the month that really no creationists should pay any mind to at all.