Lufengpithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sinanthropus: More on the Proximal Femur of Lufengpithecus.
These sites speak to more than just a few specimens including a femur. However I am happy for you to mention only a few skulls or bones as the basis for most evolutionary assertions and whole life stories often based on a single fossil or two. Indeed as far as humanity is concerned all you have is a partial Lucy 40% complete found over a huge area, Turkana Boy found over 1250 cubic meters of dirt, Salem that many have been found more or less in tact and Ardi's partial skeleton. That is it. ..so I am glad you mentioned it.
I bought up the ornag and Lufengipithecus as an example of the mess your taxonomy is currently in response to the continual statement of 'humans are apes'. These are supposed to have many human traits back 12mya. this is just one more example of the vagueness and uselessness of evos comparative analysis in relation to morphology.
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.