What proof would you need?

[Astridhere]

Seems preposterous. But tell me about it, and we'll see.



So any theory that's not perfect is completely wrong, um? That's demonstrably false. Want to see some examples?



Um,no. Here's why:
Science. 1988 May 6;240(4853):781-4.
Hand of Paranthropus robustus from Member 1, Swartkrans: fossil evidence for tool behavior.

Susman RL.
Source

Department of Anatomical Sciences, School of Medicine, State University of New York, Stony Brook 11794-8081.

Abstract

New hand fossils from Swartkrans (dated at about 1.8 million years ago) indicate that the hand of Paranthropus robustus was adapted for precision grasping. Functional morphology suggests that Paranthropus could have used tools, possibly for plant procurement and processing. The new fossils further suggest that absence of tool behavior was not responsible for the demise of the "robust" lineage. Conversely, these new fossils indicate that the acquisition of tool behavior does not account for the emergence and success of early Homo.







Nothing logical about that. A bipedal hominin with a hand capable of a precision grip would be rather unlikely to make a 180 degree turn and go back to the primitive ape condition. Sorry.

Other than a saggital crest, there isn't much gorillaish to work with.

I am not going to waste my time on research from 1988. The scene has changed many times since then........

You said "Seems preposterous. But tell me about it, and we'll see."

For starters you can explain to me and other creationists why so much humanity was attributed to Lucy when she is no more than a chimp ancestor demonstrating ape to ape variation. Lucy has a bipedal human gait according to all evo researchers, human like feet with small arches by many, a perfectly human foot by many as supported by a non colocated human metatarsel footbone dated to 3.6mya, a substantially reduced pelvis that appears almost human, yet she is a chimp with no humanity in her.

It appears to me that evolutionary researchers have no idea what they are talking about at all. Do please save the day and the basis for your theory.....Explain it all for us.

We'll do the Gona pelvis next and see what you have to say about the waddling Turkana Boy.

My assertions are based on evolutionary research that was actually from this decade and recent. What you have put up as support is very outdated and is no longer supported by current evolutionary thinking.

 

[Psudopod]

For starters you can explain to me and other creationists why so much humanity was attributed to Lucy when she is no more than a chimp ancestor demonstrating ape to ape variation. Lucy has a bipedal human gait according to all evo researchers, human like feet with small arches by many, a perfectly human foot by many as supported by a non colocated human metatarsel footbone dated to 3.6mya, a substantially reduced pelvis that appears almost human, yet she is a chimp with no humanity in her.

You wonder why humanity is attributed to Lucy, then go on to describe her human traits? What was your argument again?

 

[Astridhere]

You wonder why humanity is attributed to Lucy, then go on to describe her human traits? What was your argument again?

My dear you lot of evolutonists are the ones that attributed all this humanity to Lucy the chimp. You lot are the ones that stand embaraased by years of woffle about Lucy's humanity and how she was becoming human. Now many researchers, including the famous Dawkins, say she is a chimp/bonobo ancestor, meaning an ape to ape variation with no humanity within her.

Are you unable to read? Are you going to go around in circles with me because you cannot be bothered going back a page or two?

You have only to go back a page or so to find for your self that some of the traits you lot woffled on about was a reduced pelvis, and almost human from the waist down, including human feet.



This demonstrates that evolutionary researchers have no idea what they are talking about. It is that simple.

 

[cupid dave]

Cupid Dave....

I have put this research below up elsewhere for you. You ignore it. The credibility of evolutionary theory is the lynch pin holding this theistic evolutionist stance.

I do not ignore your complaints about the science at this present almost elementary State-of-the-Art in Paleontology.

Most scientists agree with you too, that the suppositions and hypothesies at present at rather tenuous and sketchy.

I merely contend that these scientists presently argue for about 22 species in our line of aacent, which is analogous to what we read in the genesis genealogy.

My complaint about you, and your elk, on the other hand, is that nothing in Genesis says that God did not dcreate man through a process of Evolution, and everything in Genesis implies that a whole Cosmic Evolution is what took place.

So my complaint is, basically, that you impede the salvation of educated science thinking men by insisting upon your own foolish and unrealistic interpretation of the Bible, in general.

In other words, if scientists might agree that 22 "begats" in genealogy equate to their own 22 skeletons they piece together as the creatures in the ascent of man, so be it for them, then.

 

[Astridhere]

Cupid Dave says

I do not ignore your complaints about the science at this present almost elementary State-of-the-Art in Paleontology.

Most scientists agree with you too, that the suppositions and hypothesies at present at rather tenuous and sketchy.

I merely contend that these scientists presently argue for about 22 species in our line of aacent, which is analogous to what we read in the genesis genealogy.

These scientists have no idea what they are talking about. In fact many researcher now agree many were the same species. Picking out 22 apes and making up a scenario is not science. Finding a human metatarsel that predates any of these 22 species is..and supports the assertion that mankind was here before any of these supposed ancestors. That is science and observation at work.


My complaint about you, and your elk, on the other hand, is that nothing in Genesis says that God did not dcreate man through a process of Evolution, and everything in Genesis implies that a whole Cosmic Evolution is what took place.

Well you have better go read the bible that states mankind was created from dust, the elements from the earth, not an ape. This scripture, thousand of years old, is verified through modern day science in that mankind is made from the elements of the earth. Eve was created from Adams bone, meaning the basic DNA structure that allows higher reasoning ability, sophisticated speech and abstract thought was replicated in Eve also so God could communicate with them.


That is what the bible says about mankind...Adam was created from dust....not an ape.

So my complaint is, basically, that you impede the salvation of educated science thinking men by insisting upon your own foolish and unrealistic interpretation of the Bible, in general.

In other words, if scientists might agree that 22 "begats" in genealogy equate to their own 22 skeletons they piece together as the creatures in the ascent of man, so be it for them, then.




Well I'll respond to your complaint Cupid Dave.

I think it is ridiculous lunacy and a total misrepresentation of the truth to suggest that God will judge any person based on whether they accept creation or evolution. This kind of thing reminds me of the nut case creationists that go around suggesting if you do not accept creation you are doomed. It is rubbish for starters either way.

You are not going to save the scientists Cupid Dave because salvation is connected to more important issues than ones belief in how God created. There is nothing in the bible that supports this view of yours. It is another example of exclusionary nonsense that many faiths go on with.

So I would strongly suggest that your complaint is based on nonsense.

 

[CabVet]

Well I'll respond to your complaint Cupid Dave.

I think it is ridiculous lunacy and a total misrepresentation of the truth to suggest that God will judge any person based on whether they accept creation or evolution. This kind of thing reminds me of the nut case creationists that go around suggesting if you do not accept creation you are doomed. It is rubbish for starters either way.

You are not going to save the scientists Cupid Dave because salvation is connected to more important issues than ones belief in how God created. There is nothing in the bible that supports this view of yours. It is another example of exclusionary nonsense that many faiths go on with.

So I would strongly suggest that your complaint is based on nonsense.

I hate to admit, but I completely agree with Astrid here (pun not intended ). You either accept the Bible as it is, or you don't. Bending it to fit your own views is nonsense. Just like bending science and saying that 22 species are whoever you say they are is equal nonsense.

 

[cupid dave]

Well you have better go read the bible that states mankind was created from dust, the elements from the earth, not an ape. This scripture, thousand of years old, is verified through modern day science in that mankind is made from the elements of the earth. Eve was created from Adams bone, meaning the basic DNA structure that allows higher reasoning ability, sophisticated speech and abstract thought was replicated in Eve also so God could communicate with them.


That is what the bible says about mankind...Adam was created from dust....not an ape.
.

The way I see it is that two Chromosomes mutated.

This was the creation of a man.


This was an Act of God.

"The exact divergent break between occurred in the womb,in that apes and hominids is the fusion of the second and 13th genome pair."

Thus, by sticking together, fusing, as if "from the dust of the earth," i.e., some unusual chemistry within the ovuum of the mother Ape carrying the soon-to-be-born baby which would be the first of a different species.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bottom line for EVERYTHING living on this planet is 'Adapt to conditions as they are or die', so far things have gone very well for us.
One day things might change so quickly (a meteor hitting the planet) there will not be enough time for us to adapt so humans will all die, then in another 50 millions years or so something completely different will evolve to dominate the planet, who knows it might even be monkeys with a brand new list of Gods..

What a beautiful outlook on life -- isn't nature wonderful?

 

[cupid dave]

What a beautiful outlook on life -- isn't nature wonderful?

That is the Reality we must face with the Truth and realize how important to our survival as a species depends upon our coopertion with one another... brotherhood.

Though this kind of blunt Truth is our personal salvation, the second death of Extinction means we will not be regenerated in the future.

Man must learn to love Reality and understand and abide in "his" ways, and love his fellow man whose separate and individual talents and knowledge is fundamental to the technological age that can prepare us for survival if we can become fit for it.

 

[USincognito]

My dear you lot of evolutonists are the ones that attributed all this humanity to Lucy the chimp. You lot are the ones that stand embaraased by years of woffle about Lucy's humanity and how she was becoming human. Now many researchers, including the famous Dawkins, say she is a chimp/bonobo ancestor, meaning an ape to ape variation with no humanity within her.

Are you unable to read?

And Astrid's wanton destruction of irony meters continues unabated.

I'm going to parse the Wiki entry for you. Please pay attention.

The article does not say Australopithecines are chimps or the ancestors of chimps. The article is saying that two strains of hominids - gracile and robust evolved into the various species we find today and in the fossil record. The existance of robust hominids has been known for 50+ years and the question has been - were the robust species a separate lineage or did they evolve independantly from gracile species. The entry writes - without citation I'll note - that:

...conclusions, suggesting Paranthropus as ancestors of gorilla, have been reached by at least two other biologists, independently

Paranthropus is an ancestor of modern gorillas. Of course there's no citation so this could be someone making stuff up. Now, if we look at the entry for Paranthropus itself, there is a citation for page 86 of The Ancestor's Tale.

""as usual their affinities, and the exact number of species, are hotly disputed. Names that have been attached to various of these creatures...are Australopithecus (or Paranthropus) robustus, Australopithecus (or Paranthropus or Zinjanthropus) boisei, and Australopithecus (or Paranthropus) aethiopicus."

And if you go to the text itself, you find exactly the same thing, just a listing of robust Australopithecines paired with the Paranthropus genus name. There's no indication that they evolved into gorillas. Even worse for the Wiki entry and your bogus claim, page 86 is in the Rendezvous 0 section of the book that exclusively covers hominina, which are non-Chimpanzee homininis. Chimpanzees are included in Rendezvous 1, gorillas in Rendezvous 2.

Anyone familiar with the book would realize that someone claiming Dawkins considers robust Australopithecines are the ancestors of gorillas or that gracile Australopithecines (guess what sport, Lucy is in the Rendezvous 0 section under the Ape Men chapter - Whoooops!) are the ancestors of chimpanzees not only is unfamiliar with him or the book, but doesn't know what the heck they're talking abuot.

---------------------------------------------

For anyone who cares and wonders why I generally ignore Astrid and respond to her only periodically the above response to about 20 minutes to put together for 1 single bogus, mistaken claim shes making and she makes a lot of them. Personally, it's too exhausting wading through the self-congratulatory walls of text and bizarre formatting to even read her posts, much less taking the time to show her why her bogus, mistaken claims are bogus and mistaken.

 

[Astridhere]

And Astrid's wanton destruction of irony meters continues unabated.

I'm going to parse the Wiki entry for you. Please pay attention.

The article does not say Australopithecines are chimps or the ancestors of chimps. The article is saying that two strains of hominids - gracile and robust evolved into the various species we find today and in the fossil record. The existance of robust hominids has been known for 50+ years and the question has been - were the robust species a separate lineage or did they evolve independantly from gracile species. The entry writes - without citation I'll note - that:

...conclusions, suggesting Paranthropus as ancestors of gorilla, have been reached by at least two other biologists, independently

It is unfortunate for you that the forum members can actually read

These apes may have once been bipedal, but then lost this ability when they were forced back into an arboreal habitat, presumably by those australopithecines who eventually became us. In short, the ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas are A. afarensis and Paranthropus, respectively.

Homininae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Respectively means in order in case you do not know..ie chimps aka A.afarensis, gorillas aka Paranthropus

There is no point replying to the rest of your post because you obviously have a challenge with comprehension and reading and wishing to deceive the forum.

.

So an entire post wasted because you are unable to read, hoping the forum are unable to read or are trying to deceive the forum.....

Wiki is not the creationists friend my dear. You are so desperate you have resorted to denial. Dawkins is one of your leading rearchers and says Lucy is a chimp ancestor..meaning ape to ape. Suck it up and deal with it. Evolutionists should be used to this sort of thing anyway....

There is much more around than this that discredits Lucy as a human ancestor.......SEE.....

The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

You lot need to deal with this. All that humanity down the shute and up a tree.

 

[Astridhere]

The way I see it is that two Chromosomes mutated.

This was the creation of a man.


This was an Act of God.

"The exact divergent break between occurred in the womb,in that apes and hominids is the fusion of the second and 13th genome pair."
I'd be very happy to read this research that you must have to make such a claim.

You are aware that in actual fact the fusion site is not the same as the fusion of the chimp genes

The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B. At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B prior to the fusion event. It remains to be determined if these inserted genes confer a selective advantage.
Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus, by sticking together, fusing, as if "from the dust of the earth," i.e., some unusual chemistry within the ovuum of the mother Ape carrying the soon-to-be-born baby which would be the first of a different species.

Chromosome 2 has been implicated in intelligence. If I were of your faith I would play that card because I have not seen any research that implies CH2 is related to the womb. As I said, if you have research to back this up that I am unaware of, I would be happy to see it.

Cupid Dave, you are entitled to believe what you want. People can believe in gobblins. The point being can you support your stance. Evolutionists now say Afarensis is a chimp. This is one of your 22. You would now need to mount an argument at least that supports Dawkins, a leading researcher, is wrong.

You could run with my evidence that suggests evo researchers have no idea but that is kinda weird if you are backing evolution in general but want to put your own slant on it.

You do not have to worry about the scientists or people that believe in evolution or creation because fortunately God knows what he is doing and He won't doom anyone just because of this debate.

You see evos do not care. They are used to these falsifications of previously irrefuteable evidence. It does not matter so long as someone comes up with some story to save the day and has nothing to do with creation.

I on the other hand have demostrated in Lucy and all her humanity being a chimp, that your researchers have no idea what they are talking about most of the time when discussing these fossils or dating.

I have spoken to the human metatarsel attributed to Lucy as evidence that mankind was here before their supposed ancestors. That is called support for ones view.

Check out the dating....

In 1996, scientists dated Homo erectus fossils found at these sites to about 35,000 - 50,000 years ago, based on the dating of associated animal fossil teeth.

The first two, U-series and ESR (Electron Spin Resonance), applied to fossil teeth as in the earlier 1996 tests, yielded dates approaching 143,000 years. The third methodology, argon-argon, was applied to pumice material, a light, porous volcanic rock found within the sediments. The results of this application yielded relatively precise dates around 550,000 years. Project scientists posit different plausible theories or possibilities that might account for the enormous gap between the dates obtained from the first two techniques and that of the argon-argon,...

Human Ancestor in Indonesia Died Out Earlier Than Once Thought | Popular Archaeology - exploring the past

See...

Anyway....

Really what you need to do is put some research or fossil evidence behind your claims....Which apes became Seth in the fossil record etc. What research supports ch2 and wombs etc....


You can't just say that CH2 did this or that to the womb because that actually sounds worse than what evolutionists generally present.... At least evos come up with some non plausible scenario to back up their claim. Eg human feet on Lucy....totally non plausible but ..hey.. at least they put up something that carried the story for a few years...

 

[USincognito]

Until you can learn to use the quote function properly, you have not room calling anyone names or insulting them.

So an entire post wasted because you are unable to read, hoping the forum are unable to read or are trying to deceive the forum.....

Listen, I've told you about your self-congratulatory stick before. It's old, it makes you look even more ignorant (in light of the many mistakes you are constantly making) and it creates these walls of text where you could just address the data and not toot your own horn or flame those who disagree with you.

Got it?

Now, as far as you making the same !$&%!! mistake you made the first time your reading comprehension failed you. And I'm going to put this in big bold font THERE IS NOT ONE CITATION FOR THAT SECTION OF THE ARTICLE. There is nothing. It's clearly some vandals opinion that hasn't been eliminated yet. And I just showed you very comprehensively how the section is LYING ABOUT WHAT DAWKINS CLAIMS IN THE ANCESTOR'S TALE.

Don't believe me? Do a Google search for "Dawkins+Paranthropus". Take the Google books result. Then do a search through the text to see if he makes the claim that section of the article is lying about and you are repeating. Go ahead. Find where Dawkins makes the claim you have asserted 4 times now he makes in The Ancestor's Tale.

If it's true you can ACTUALLY CITE THE BOOK AND NOT AN UNSOURCED SECTION OF A WIKIPEDIA ENTRY.

Care to put up or shut up hon?

 

[USincognito]

Don't believe me? Do a Google search for "Dawkins+Paranthropus". Take the Google books result. Then do a search through the text to see if he makes the claim that section of the article is lying about and you are repeating. Go ahead. Find where Dawkins makes the claim you have asserted 4 times now he makes in The Ancestor's Tale.

If it's true you can ACTUALLY CITE THE BOOK AND NOT AN UNSOURCED SECTION OF A WIKIPEDIA ENTRY.

Care to put up or shut up hon?

I'll even do the work for you so it's that much easier for you to enjoy your crow. Here's two screen caps of the only pages where Paranthropus is mentioned in The Ancestor's Tale. Show me where, it says anything about Paranthropus being a gorilla ancestor - as per the Wiki article section you posted.

And if you want to try and avoid that topic by talking about Lucy/A. afarensis, the third screen cap is Dawkins' opinion on that species. Note where he says "...she is often mentioned because her species, Australopithecus afarensis, is a hot contender for a human ancestor." No where in that entire page does he say anything about A. afarensis being a chimpanzee ancestor, and as I noted already:

Anyone familiar with the book would realize that someone claiming Dawkins considers robust Australopithecines are the ancestors of gorillas or that gracile Australopithecines (guess what sport, Lucy is in the Rendezvous 0 section under the Ape Men chapter - Whoooops!) are the ancestors of chimpanzees not only is unfamiliar with him or the book, but doesn't know what the heck they're talking about.

And just to put a cherry on the fact that I know what I'm talking about, here's me - with Dawkins - holding my copy of The Ancestor's Tale.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Astrid, it seems like source criticism is not your strong point. Argument by Wikipedia is generally not a good idea, especially since the content can change from day to day. As you may notice, the neutrality of the Homininae page is currently under dispute, as shown by the POV template at the top of the page. In such cases, the talk page usually contains relevant information, as it does in this case.

 

[Astridhere]

Until you can learn to use the quote function properly, you have not room calling anyone names or insulting them.



Listen, I've told you about your self-congratulatory stick before. It's old, it makes you look even more ignorant (in light of the many mistakes you are constantly making) and it creates these walls of text where you could just address the data and not toot your own horn or flame those who disagree with you.

Got it?
Dear the work is quoted..."The Ancestor's Tale"

Now, as far as you making the same !$&%!! mistake you made the first time your reading comprehension failed you. And I'm going to put this in big bold font THERE IS NOT ONE CITATION FOR THAT SECTION OF THE ARTICLE. There is nothing. It's clearly some vandals opinion that hasn't been eliminated yet. And I just showed you very comprehensively how the section is LYING ABOUT WHAT DAWKINS CLAIMS IN THE ANCESTOR'S TALE.

That is because the book is quoted. I am not the idiot here...."The Ancestor's Tale" tells it all.

Don't believe me? Do a Google search for "Dawkins+Paranthropus". Take the Google books result. Then do a search through the text to see if he makes the claim that section of the article is lying about and you are repeating. Go ahead. Find where Dawkins makes the claim you have asserted 4 times now he makes in The Ancestor's Tale.

If it's true you can ACTUALLY CITE THE BOOK AND NOT AN UNSOURCED SECTION OF A WIKIPEDIA ENTRY.

Care to put up or shut up hon?

GO BUY THE BOOK


The mainstream view among paleontologists can be found in this page and in the main "human evolution" page, but similar conclusions were reached by at least two other biologists, independently: the author of the “Paranthropus aethiopicus” page of the Online Biology Dictionary and Richard Dawkins in his book The Ancestor's Tale "According to this theory, chimps and bonobos are descended from Australopithecus Gracile type species while gorillas are descended from Australopithecus Robustus (Parnthropus) type species. These apes were once bipedal but then lost this ability when they were forced back into the semi-forest, presumably by those Australopithecines who eventually became us"; In short, ancestors of chimpanzees are Australopithecus afarensis and ancestors of gorillas are Paranthropus (see tree on Homininae).
Australopithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranthropus aethiopicus – A small-brained mystery

 

[Astridhere]

Astrid, it seems like source criticism is not your strong point. Argument by Wikipedia is generally not a good idea, especially since the content can change from day to day. As you may notice, the neutrality of the Homininae page is currently under dispute, as shown by the POV template at the top of the page. In such cases, the talk page usually contains relevant information, as it does in this case.

I am glead you are the one that gave me this edge...Congratulations....

The content changing day to day is a reflection of your science changing day to day. If it did not change day to day tgen it would not be a good reflection of your sciences.

Wiki is not a creationist site. It is a good site to find a bunch of research to do with the topic. Afarensis is seen as a chimp ancestor and this is outlined in the book quoted......An Ancestors Tale. No Wiki do not give free copies of the book. You will have to buy one for yourself. An abstract does not deal with the entire book. You have to buy it. Even I know that.

Here is a published paper on Afarenssis not being a human ancestor to back up Dawkins one of your leadling researchers.

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

1. Edited by David Pilbeam, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved February 26, 2007 (received for review July 28, 2006)

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths


This one is a little old.....
Hominoid fossils from Hadar, in Ethiopia and Laetoli, in Tanzania, and dated from the late Pliocene, were described as a new species of hominid, “Australopithecus afarensis,”Johanson, White andCoppens, 1978. A comparative morphological analysis of the lectotype and several paralectotypes reveal that that two taxa were synthesized and that “Australopithecus afarensis” represents a hominid and a pongid. The hominid is relatively unspecialized, and the pongid is remarkably similar toDryopithecus (Sivapithecus) sivalensis (Lydekker), 1879. The pongid is the first anthropoid ape recorded from the late Pliocene in Africa.
Primates, Volume 24, Number 3 - SpringerLink


Lucy is too 'derived' to be a human ancestor lovey...and that is assuming she is even a fossil of the same individual again found in pieces not co located.

Perhaps one of you lot would like to call these researchers and Pilbeam idiots or shall you just wallow in denial...

I hope creationists are paying attention to evolutionists inability to deal with the findings of their very own researchers. Such desperation......


The truth is you lot have no idea......

I love it......

 

[Herman Hedning]

I am glead you are the one that gave me this edge...Congratulations....

The content changing day to day is a reflection of your science changing day to day. If it did not change day to day tgen it would not be a good reflection of your sciences.

Wiki is not a creationist site. It is a good site to find a bunch of research to do with the topic.

Not it is not. It is a reflection that lots of different people are writing on Wikipedia, sometimes knowledgeable people, somtimes people with an agenda, and sometime peope who just want to mess around.

Generally I agree with you that Wikipedia is a good starting point for many topics, but one should never ever use it as a primary source. Always look at the references provided, and if there are few or none, that is a very good indication that the article may not be reliable. Right?

 

[OllieFranz]

GO BUY THE BOOK

Not only did he buy the book, he showed you a picture of himself holding the book and standing next to Dawkins, himself.

Plus, he posted the actual pages of the book that mentioned A. Aferensis to show that your claim about what Dawkins wrote is wrong.

 

[Astridhere]

OllieFranz why don't you and all also deny the other research I posted then

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.


I'll go get the book from a library and read it for myself. A snapshot of a page or so means nothing..........USingognito will then have to suck eggs. If he is being deceiptful now would be the time to admit to it.....



Regardless there is other evidence that Afarensis is not in the human line.

You lot can suck eggs on this one.......

Lucy is too 'derived'..meaning yet again you have human feet on a non human and a bunch of bipedal apes getting around 8mya meaning bipedalism is an ape trait..not a human one.....and neither is a reduced pelvis or human feet it appears.....