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.
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.
5/A study was done in 2000 by BG Richmond and DS strait on lucys fore arms concluded that she walked like knuckel walkers.
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.
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?
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: The main propulsive force in whales comes, not from the hind limbs, from the spinal musculature and the tail fluke. The hind limbs, although still present, have become much reduced in size, are fully enclosed within the skin and are invisible from the outside. In 1881 [Sir John] Struthers published, "On the Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of The Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale (Balaena mysticetus). J. Anat. and Physiol. XV: 141-321." In the paper he wrote: Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments [in the Right Whale] really are femur and tibia.