|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3! | |||||||||||||||||||
pop  Inactive Member |
cos omak ya ibn el metnaka ya ibn el ars
well australopithecus are similar to apes in many things and I will post a letter including a very important subject and comparing between australopithecus and great apes
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
cos omak ya ibn el metnaka ya ibn el ars Not going to be tolerated here. You won't be posting any letters here for 48 hours while you read the forum guidelines and decide if you can abide by them. Particularly note:
quote: In three posts its a fairly dire record to have. Your next suspension will be for longer. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The australopithicus foot exactly fits the Laetoli footprints:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/laetoli.htm(Photo is copyrighted) The tracks involve two individuals that walked across fresh ash (which later solidified forming the fossils), and there are several steps by each individual and not a single knuckle print. They also date to the same age: 3.6 million years ago. Science deals with all the evidence not just the bits and pieces that fit a hypothesis.
6/A discovery by dr Robin crompton : that apes in our modern time can walk upright . he discovered a group of apes living in uganda walking on 2 legs. Do you mean this "Dr Compton"? It's the ONLY result for {"Dr. Robin Compton" upright walking apes}: Questia
quote: I can't be bothered sighing up for some source to check further without some kind of evidence that your Robin Compton is the same. Especially if "earlier than previously thought means humans walked upright prior to australopithicus .... I smell a quote mine here. Like most urban myths, creationist falsehoods also lack details of the actual finds and actual references to the actual papers where findings are published and peer reviewed. This total lack of references from your cut and paste list show the same disregard for reality.
5/A study was done in 2000 by BG Richmond and DS strait on lucys fore arms concluded that she walked like knuckel walkers. They also reference matierial that is years out of date rather than the most current researtch. You also posted this before "BOB,POP, gogo, modi, mohammed etc etc)" and refused to substantiate your claim then: {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal An honest poster would take up where they left off eh? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : last link, quote compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Refpunk Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
Lions and tigers are much closer in appearance and purpose than humans are to apes. So does that make a lion a tiger? Do evolutionists even think???
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Bouncing to another thread to avoid answering the questions you have been asked is dishonest and typical of disruptive troll behavior as opposed to honest debate.
Lions and tigers are much closer in appearance and purpose than humans are to apes. So does that make a lion a tiger? Do evolutionists even think??? No it makes them both members of the genus Panthera. Apparently evolutionists think a lot more than you do, for they do not rely on superficial resemblances to gauge the degree of relationship between species, but study the complete morphology and development, and they also actually look at the information available from easy to find sources before making wild assertions. Lion - Wikipedia
quote: Tiger - Wikipedia
quote: So we see tigers and lions in the same genus, but not the same species Human - Wikipedia
quote: Chimpanzee - Wikipedia
quote: Oh look, different genus for humans and chimps (although there is talk of moving chimps into the Homo genus). Thus we have lions and tigers related by a common ancestor (Panthera) that is relatively recent compared to the common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees (Hominidae). Guess that blows your silly assertion out of the water eh? Now how about going back to finish posting the substantiation for your positions on other threads? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Grashnak Junior Member (Idle past 5944 days) Posts: 5 From: Finland Joined: |
Sorry to bumb into this thread like this but I'm new to these forums and wanted to ask some questions about this matter.
I have always thought about our tale bone, where does that come from and for what it is? Would sound logical to have a tail bone if we are evolved from apes. Is human only race that has body parts wich doesent have any meaning?I haven't thought about it but I dont think animals have "extra" body parts without purpose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hi Grashnak, and welcome to EvC. I haven't been here long myself, hope you enjoy the debate as much as I have.
You asked for examples of body parts in the animal kingdom that have no purpose. My pleasure. There are many examples and they are known as vestigial features. Blue whales, being evolved from land-based, four-legged mammals, have remnants of hind legs, hidden inside their bodies. They serve no purpose to the whale, but are a good example of how evolution works. Here is an excerpt from the website of the University of Aberdeen's zoology museum; quote:Full link here - http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/treasures/bluewhale.php The page on vestigiality on Wikipedia has plenty more examples, including the wings of ostriches, the eyes of blind mole rats and the wings of certain flightless moths. Link here - Vestigiality - Wikipedia Hope this helps and Merry Christmas! Mutate and Survive
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024