Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution

its relevant by the topic initially posted, which "seemed" to point absolutely the timetables of dog or man evolution, which by the fox study show that the power of choice can either slow down or speed up evolutions of living things.it also explains my belief on the relevance of that choice as stated by those who believe in creation as opposed to "chance" existence.

Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1973 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981; Johanson and Taieb 1976). Estimated age is about 3.4 million years. This find consisted of portions of both legs, including a complete right knee joint which is almost a miniature of a human knee, but apparently belongs to an adult.

In short, there is a wide range of opinions about the nature of the footprints and whether A. afarensis could have made them. Most creationists usually cite only Tuttle, whose conclusions they find most convenient. The most honest conclusion, for now, is to admit that although no-one can be entirely sure what made the Laetoli footprints, it seems quite likely that they belonged to australopithecines.

Australopithecines stood about 1-1.5 m in height and had relatively small brains typically measuring between 370 and 515 cm3 (cc)--only slightly larger than the brain of a chimpanzee. The australopithecine mode of locomotion has been a point of controversy, usually centered around the shape of australopithecine pelvis and knee bones. Early studies believed the australopithecine pelvis was a clear-cut precursor to Homo with human-like bipedality, while later studies of australopithecine locomotion found it to be different from modern apes, but also very different from humans--a distinct mode of locomotion. The most common consensus is that forms of australopithecines were adapted for both tree-climbing and at least semi-upright, if not fully upright walking, having a mode of locomotion different from all extant primates, including humans and modern apes.

ok, here is what im saying:
if dogs are a lesser form of wolf by way of evolution,why isn't it possible then, for apes to be a devolution in the "man" family tree?

here is the argument: from studying even recent evolution of modern man, man has apparently been getting taller in its evolution, so the earlier man could quite logically be much smaller. or the traits between the male and female of the genus be more diverse. biblical account of woman coming from the rib of man suggests that woman would be much smaller , if you look at it scientifically , a statement from the bible of course.

Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1973 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981; Johanson and Taieb 1976). Estimated age is about 3.4 million years. This find consisted of portions of both legs, including a complete right knee joint which is almost a miniature of a human knee, but apparently belongs to an adult.and:
In short, there is a wide range of opinions about the nature of the footprints and whether A. afarensis could have made them. Most creationists usually cite only Tuttle, whose conclusions they find most convenient. The most honest conclusion, for now, is to admit that although no-one can be entirely sure what made the Laetoli footprints, it seems quite likely that they belonged to australopithecines.and:
Australopithecines stood about 1-1.5 m in height and had relatively small brains typically measuring between 370 and 515 cm3 (cc)--only slightly larger than the brain of a chimpanzee. The australopithecine mode of locomotion has been a point of controversy, usually centered around the shape of australopithecine pelvis and knee bones. Early studies believed the australopithecine pelvis was a clear-cut precursor to Homo with human-like bipedality, while later studies of australopithecine locomotion found it to be different from modern apes, but also very different from humans--a distinct mode of locomotion. The most common consensus is that forms of australopithecines were adapted for both tree-climbing and at least semi-upright, if not fully upright walking, having a mode of locomotion different from all extant primates, including humans and modern apes.there are tons of different ideas, and huge arguments from creationists and evolutionists, and disagreement within both parties within themselves since no conclusion is yet available.it would appear to me, that apes are more likely a devolution of man from this data.earlier skulls of earlier genus that were found are not complete enough for me to draw a conclusion, and i cant relate the fragments as a part of the "man" tree.

This is because any change in the genetics of a species is evolution, so the "devolution" you are talking about, since it is a change (from humans to apes), is just evolution, not "devolution".

Are you suggesting apes descended (devolved) from humans?If so, beginning when?

By 1.6 million years ago, an advance in stone tool technology is identified with H. ergaster. Known as the Achulean stone tool industry, it consisted of large cutting tools, primarily hand axes and cleavers. Originally thought to be responsible for the spread of early humans beyond Africa, it is now known that the migration out of Africa predates this tool industry.
At the top-left is the amazingly well preserved KNM ER 3733 cranium. Second from the top is the type specimen of the Homo ergaster species, the KNM ER 992 mandible. At the bottom is the famous Turkana Boy KNM WT 15000, a nearly complete skeleton dating back to 1.6 million years.

But there is no good evidence that the man-ape line converged anytime after the split was completed, probably some 5-6 million years ago.Each side went its own way, the apes remaining in the forests and the line leading to us heading for the forest edges and grasslands.I have seen no evidence that man devolved into apes. At least one creationist has posited that after the flood man split and early species of Homo resulted (evolution several hundred times faster than evolutionists posit, and in reverse) but the evidence suggests this is not the case.

Have you even heard of the hydro plate theory? It states that the water could have been stored underground at high pressure and temperature. It also says that the land of the earth was generally flat before the Flood.Then the water broke loose and the land started to move, there would have been a time while the earth was totally submerged (with the amout of water that's in the earth's oceans). Then, when land colided with opposing forces (the same force that got it started, because the earth is a sphere and the force went all the way around), it would have buckled, raising the land above the water, forming today's oceans.

Ichthus writes:Have you even heard of the hydro plate theory?