"If she were a biped, surely her upper and lower extremities would point toward an upright stance. After all, the bone that led to Johansonís discovery of Lucy was that of the arm. "
Arms tell you nothing about whether or not a primate is a bipedal walker. Sorry. Everyone knows that Lucy was still partially arboreal, it's part of the evidence of her being intermediate.
"A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of ìLucy,î the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzeeís, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles (Fox, 2000)."
Precisely. Her ancestors. Not her.
Adrienne Zihlman remarked: ìLucyís fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimpî
FOR SIZE ---- classic quotemine.
"All of these facts point toward the truth that Lucy was simply an ape- like creature." As are we.
What really amazes me is how these complex cells made both male and female versions of every species.
It has taken a million years to make a male...we really have no clue , just a example.
Then this complex cell finds another complex cell that has created a female....but wait, did these complex cells happen at the same time ?
One would certainly die before they could reproduce if ether had to wait a 100 yrs or more, and this has to happen for every species.
I mean what are the odds ?
In fact, we all have 10 times as many prokaryotic cells in our bodies as eukaryotic cells (and that's not counting the mitochondria!)
Tero wrote:Well, thank God it's a communist country. They have no problem getting rod of unneeded fetuses.
"shrimp (including a 3-ft. long predator),"
Anomalocaris wasn't a shrimp, you bl*ckhead
OK, everyone else check out AronRa on transitional fossils
Largo doesn't need to watch because he doesn't need evidence to arrive at a conclusion.
Edit. Would have been helpful to have included the link
A FALSIFIABLE, SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE CREATION THEORY (based on the
Genesis chapter 3 creation story; not chapter 1):
Basis in principle/rule: Most myths are based on some real-world
identifiable element/kernel of truth.
Creation Myth Basis: Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve- Perhaps it was
something more a environmentally controlled dome or an open corral.
Maybe Eve wasn't LUCY, but Adam WAS Tarzan.
Falsifiable hypothesis: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and maybe the
later Australopithecines were in a partially zoo-llke, or some other
semi-controlled environmental setting. Traits were selected for there
through intelligent intervention. This and not culture resulted in the
development of multiple subspecies and even species changes that
included readily identifiable domestication traits such as increases
in gracile features in morphology.
Predicted Evidence Pro.: H. s.n. -> H.s.s. subspecies changes are
domestication traits. They are the result of domestication. So might
also many A.r. -> A. a. changes be. Homo sapiens sapiens have numerous
traits in evidence that can best be attributed to the effects of
domestication. They resulted from artificial selection and not natural
Projected Evidence Con: Homo s. s. has no domestication traits, but
natural selection-only affected traits. Any morphological features
that look like ones they might be attributable to effects of
artificial selection can be better attributed to effects of culture
and the development of large groups instead. (Nonhominid primate
control group: baboons/rhesus monkeys).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest