From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3!

Hi, Open MInd.

quote:

---

There is no way to prove evolution without a shadow of a doubt.

---

Sure. And there is no way to prove someone is guilty of a crime without a shadow of a doubt. Yet, we still convict people of crimes and send them to rehabilitation and/or punishment. Hell, in my country (the United States) we even execute people without proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.Why get hung up on "beyond a shadow of a doubt". I doubt that you wait until you're "beyond a shadow of a doubt" before you make most important decisions in your life.Edited by Chiroptera, : To change subtitle. (Just for you Asgara.)

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

Hi, modi, and welcome to our happy home. Oxnard and Zuckerman's conclusions are out of date and only represented a very small minority opinion.Your claim is a misrepresentation of Spoor's conclusions; Spoor did not conclude that australopithecines were not bidedal.As far as your last comment, it's interesting that apes can walk upright. It shows that it's not impossible for bipedalism to evolve. The question is whether a species is mostly bipedal or mostly non-bipedal. This is where the shape of the pelvis and the knees and the feet come into play. Modern apes might be capable of bipedal motion and may do it occasionally, but they are mostly not bipedal. Humans will occasional walk on hands and knees or hands and feet, but they are mostly bipedal.Now the shape of the feet, pelvis, and knees of the Australopithecines are closer to humans than to other apes. The shapes are ideal for bipedal motion, not for quadripedal motion.I have a question: what do creationists dislike bipedal apes so much? Why can't they accept that Lucy was a bipedal ape? Sure, Lucy and the other Austalopithecines are great examples of transitional fossils, but creationists could just scream, "these fossils don't prove anything!" like they do with all the other transitional fossils that we have.Added by edit:
By coincidence, there are some new theories being discussed about the possible origins of bipedal locomotion in humans. I provide a link to an article here.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Hello again, modi.Well, I read your post (using the "peek" function), but since the content is officially hidden I won't respond to it in depth. I'll wait until your suspension is over and you rewrite the post as per the moderator's suggestions.But I will say that of course Australopithecus shares features found in non-human apes. That is what makes them transitional species. They have some non-human ape features and also some human features. That is why Australopithecus has something to tell us about human evolution. If Australopithecus had no ape features at all, then it would just be a human fossil and no one would care about it. If it had no distinctly human features, then it would be just another ape, and it wouldn't be as exciting. It is precisely because Australopithecus has both non-human ape features and distinctly human features that makes this a very interesting taxon.You might want to think about that while you compose your reply.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine