Science, Creation & EvolutionInformationYes, it is not respectful to Him, because it ascribes to Him human limitations. I am sure you didn't mean to do so. I had no intention to suggest you meant any disrespect at all. Evolutionary theory is quite consistent with that. We don't physically resemble God, any of us. We are in His image, as He says in Genesis, in our ability to be moral beings, who understand good and evil. "Although proof is not part of science, there is a great deal of evidence to show evolution is a fact." The idea that you can't actually learn the truth from evidence is completely alien to science. As a practical matter, science has done just that. We have learned much about the universe that way. Yes, however, neither of those could account for the differences. Heidelberg man was almost certainly a member of our own species, although a particularly early one, somewhat different than we are. I know of no genetic disorder that would have produced the features in that jaw. But I don't know that there might not have been one in our very early history as a species. What can you tell me about it? Not a swine, but a javelina. The write-up for this one was in a newspaper, which not only wrote a lurid story, but even created a picture of the supposed primate. It all came tumbling down when a palentologist who was familiar with mammals looked at it, and determined that it was the tooth of a javelina, worn down to look like that of a primate. We don't know who planted the hoax, but we do know it was evolutionists who debunked it. They had good reason to do so; the idea that a large brain came before a human-like jaw contradicted evolutionary theory. We have no reason to believe that it was anything other than Homo erectus, for which we have a good number of specimens. Right now, that's not the consensus among paleontologists, because some Neandertal DNA has been shown to be very different from that of humans today. That doesn't close out the subject entirely, but it does seem to show that they were different enough to be a different species. They are about half as different from us as we are from chimpanzees. On the other hand, there is one fossil, which may show human and neandertal traits. But they didn't seem to produce any art at all, were extremely conservative in their tools, and never produced any projectile weapons. You could be right, but the balance of evidence at the moment is on the other side. Cro-magnon man is a bit larger than modern men, but otherwise anatomically identical to modern humans. It would be very interesting to see what their DNA was like. It is just possible that they, too were genetically much different than we are, and in that case, they and Neandertals would be a species, and we would be a different one. Mostly because she was bipedal. The hip and femur, and the knee joint could only be from a bipedal primate. This is disappointing, because earlier Australopithecines had fingers and toes intermediate between other apes and humans. Humans have almost perfectly straight digits, while apes have rather curved ones, useful for handling branches in climbing. Early Australopithecines have slightly curved ones, suggesting that they still did a considerable amount of tree climbing, even though they were primarily bipedal. Somewhat, in the sense that they had digits still slightly curved as we see in apes. The Australopithecines, although bipedal, were also still adapted for climbing. Arboreality and bipedality in the Hadar hominids. Susman RL, Stern JT Jr, Jungers WL. Numerous studies of the locomotor skeleton of the Hadar hominids have revealed traits indicative of both arboreal climbing/suspension and terrestrial bipedalism. These earliest known hominids must have devoted part of their activities to feeding, sleeping and/or predator avoidance in trees, while also spending time on the ground where they moved bipedally. In this paper we offer new data on phalangeal length and curvature, morphology of the tarsus and metatarsophalangeal joints, and body proportions that further strengthen the argument for arboreality in the Hadar hominids. We also provide additional evidence on limb and pedal proportions and on the functional anatomy of the hip, knee and foot, indicating that the bipedality practiced at Hadar differed from that of modern humans. Consideration of the ecology at Hadar, in conjunction with modern primate models, supports the notion of arboredality in these earliest australopithecines. We speculate that selection for terrestrial bipedality may have intensified through the Plio-Pleistocene as forests and woodland patches shrunk and the need arose to move increasingly longer distances on the ground. Only with Homo erectus might body size, culture and other factors have combined to 'release' hominids from their dependence on trees. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract Here's a comparison of chimp, Australopithecus, and human features: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/pelvis.html They look intermediate to me, although the feet seem almost entirely human. They are anatomically, more like humans than like chimps. The most chimplike characteristics are in the skull. Here's a page to take a comparison of the different ones: http://www.scientific-art.com/GIF%20fil ... skulls.GIF Well, it's safe to say she wasn't a normal chimp. In fact, she wasn't a chimp at all. Notice the very large differences between Australopithecines and chimps. You are quite correct in saying that Lucy is not intermediate between chimps and humans. Chimps and humans have a much earlier common ancestor, and it was almost certainly less human-like than Lucy. I've been told that. But no one seems to be able to show me. Can you show me the numbers? Indeed. I remain skeptical, until I see the calculations, however. I appreciate your civility and the thought-provoking ideas you've brought up. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame