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

for some information on the differences in hair seeSexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution
EvC Forum: Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolutionand in particular msg 41 on that thread
EvC Forum: Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human EvolutionIt is not much of a change really.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the fray nO_JeZeBeLTo add to what others have said: What you are admitting is that you are unable to understand the implications and falsehoods of creationists and that you are unable to understand the refutations of those creationist falsehoods.ie - when a creationist says the world is 6000 years old, you nod your head because this is what you want to hear, not because you can tell whether it is true or not.and when another person points out the evidence for an old earth exists and that the so-called evidence for a young earth is based on false science and how it is false, you reject it because it is NOT what you want to hear, not because you can tell whether it is true or not.Ultimately what you really have to battle is ignorance, denial and delusions that get in the way of understanding the real universe, its age, and how science operates. No, we are only as blind as we willfully put unquestioned trust in the foolish information we have been given, rather than look to see if it is really correct or not, whether it stands up to scrutiny, and whether it can explain any existence of contradictory evidence.Enjoy.

---

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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.

Welcome to the fray Open Mind.I noticed that you titled your reply "evidence of a young earth" but did not say anything about that or give any such evidence.Rather than drag this thread off-topic on this issue I suggest you reply to Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), by first answering the evidence that refutes a young earth (it is easy to have evidence for a young earth on an old earth, but much harder to refute the evidence for an OLD earth). Evolution can be observed happening every year with no other mechanism being involved. OF course this does not prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it does give a LOT of doubt to any other mechanism on can conceive. And this somehow makes the creationist concept valid? Of course I prefer the NORSE one if we have to choose ... it's so much more pithy.This is a logical fallacy, a version of the appeal to popularity, and it has nothing to do with validity and more to do with gullibility or ignorance eh? Given that Homo sapiens is 160,000 to 200,000 years old, the racial memory in the oral tradition would be some 40,000 to 50,000 times longer than your biblical one ... and we do have oral traditions of trolls and ogres and the like -- where do you think those might come from?Enjoy.

---

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

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. Do you mean this "Dr Compton"? It's the ONLY result for {"Dr. Robin Compton" upright walking apes}:Questia

quote:

---

Humans walked earlier than we thought.(News)
Liverpool Echo (Liverpool, England); Nov 20, 2001; 120 Words THE first humans learned to walk while still treedwelling apes ... why prehistoric apemen adapted to standing upright. But now the Liverpool research team suggests humans began walking upright ... years earlier than previously thought. Dr Robin Compton, of the department of primate morphology and evolution,...

---

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. 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 bipedalAn honest poster would take up where they left off eh?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : last link, quote

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

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. 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:

---

(sidebar)
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Panthera
Species: P. leo

---

Tiger - Wikipedia

quote:

---

(sidebar)
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Panthera
Species: P. tigris

---

So we see tigers and lions in the same genus, but not the same speciesHuman - Wikipedia

quote:

---

(sidebar)
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

---

Chimpanzee - Wikipedia

quote:

---

(sidebar)
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Panina
Genus: Pan

​

Species:
Pan troglodytes
Pan paniscus

---

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, : .

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.