Science Disproves Evolution

Yes science does disprove evolution.It was scientific observation that proved the piltdown man a hoax.It is also scientific observation that has finaly proved the australopithicienes have an opposable toe for climbing trees.Not hardly the foot that fits into the laetoli foot tracks that evolutionist swore upon their holy origin of species bible that they did.So you see science is confirming what creationist have been claiming all along.

Actualy you will find evolutionist who still claim they made the laetoli foot tracks.And im at least one of the creationist who thought it was absurd to think lucy was a bipedal human ancestor way back when they first announced her discovery.I knew all i had to do is wait until more fossil material was found and get unbiased scientist to give their assessment of them.

Hi jar,How are you doing?You realy dont need me provide a source that shows apes have opposable do you?But since you ask (which is good science by the way) here is an evolutionist source that has a kind of comical twist (Little Foot stumbles into the crossfire). The kind of comical part is the evolutionist desperation to preserve his religion by claiming it must be bipedal from a square bone in its heel.Im sure creationist wont soon stop laughing over that.And yes im sure evolutionist will have no problem inventing some hypothetical missing link that made the laetoli foot tracks.But the evidence is crystal clear for any scientist,australopithicus,homo habilis,and homo erectus all lived in the same regeion at the same time.Edited by Admin, : Fix link and add a space here and there.

Im sorry but i think you clearly see the cite is posted,one of many.Im also sorry about the opposable thumb thing too,but i think only evolutionist beleive that.You guys do think they make tools dont you?Anyway i wasnt aware of a rule6,Thank you for clarifying that and have a wonderful weekend.

I see your point.But surely you havent studied human evolution to a very extensive point.I cannot accept a transitional form between apes and humans when the british phd lord solly zuckerman,phd charles oxnard,and b.woods and m. collard,All of which are evolutionary paleoanthropoligist.And not to mention phd paleoanthropologist marvin l. lobenow who has over 30 years experience and author of the book (bones of contention).All conclude australopithicenes including aferensis,africanus,a. robustus,and homo habilis are all knuncle walking apes.Sorry there is too many experts that refute the claim they are human ancestors.And as you notice only one of those is a creationist.If you have read all of their papers and books you would find it hard to swallow as well.

Evolutioary theory would actualy predict an opposable toed transitional foot.You cant just make a huge jump from a chimps foot to a humans foot,It must be done through slow and gradual change.The problem is they put a human foot on lucy and backed it up by the laetoli foot prints which are found in the same geologic layer.The problem with that is,After more of the fossil material is found the finger and toe bones are curved even more than a modern ape(J. stern & R. sussman-American Journal Of Anthropology 1983 P.291&292).So if evolution is true it went in the opposite direction.And the only species known to all scientist to have a foot anatomically identical to modern humans and is known to have lived in the same geographical region,But at a later time,Is Homo-Erectus.So the evidence is very obvious that Australopithicus and Homo-Erectus must have co-existed since Homo-Erectus footprints are found in the same geologic layer as lucy.Which falsifies the theory of evolution,As does a lot of other evidence.I hope this answers your question about"Why does an opposable toe prove Australopithicus wasnt bipedal?"As you see it doesnt.The point is it proves the laetoli footprints were made by Erectus and not any species of Australopithicus.

Homo Habilis has been proven to not even belong in the family Homo.(see B. Wood & M. Collard, "The Human Genus",Science, vol.284:65-71,April 2,1999).Their research proves they are actualy in the family Australopithicus.And using a computer reconstruction as evidence is another deceptive tactic by evolutionist.A computer can only tell you what you program into it.That is not a seperate piece of evidence that happens to agree with evolution.The program was based on the assumption that evolution did occur to start with.Thank you for sharing all of your views and time.

Well that is very funny.Ive provided enough observable and unrefutable evidence to sink the titanic.Oxnard is an anatomist who specializes in primate anatomy.His publishing clearly states that the australopithicenes are more dissimalar from humans than modern apes are from humans.Another evidence that clearly agrees with them not being a bipedal hominid is found in(science news april,8 2000 p.225)that proves they have wrist capable of locking the hands in place during knuckle walking.And if that werent enough another nail was driven in the coffin by israeli researchers(Health & Sci-Tech April,16 2007:Israeli researchers:"Lucy"Is not direct ancestor of humans)They have found that the "ramus element" of the mandible connecting the lower jaw to the skull is like that of the robust forms,Therefore eliminating the possibility that lucy and her kind are mans direct ancestor.And all you have presented is rehtoric"No its not".Sorry but there is no such thing,and i refuse to debate the issue with anyone who cant produce any evidence except nonsence.

And yes im sorry about the mixup with the paper it didnt claim they are Knuckle walkers.It indicates Homo-Habilis should be Reassigned the name Australopithicus Habilis.Because its morphology is closer to them than to homo sapiens.Which in effect excludes them as well.I said knuckle walker because i couldnt hardly beleive anyone doesnt know lucy wasnt,and if she was and the morphology of homo habilis is similar in every way it means they cant be related either.

Even if the Helium Diffusion dating method,or some other method in the future,Proved the earth was less than 10,000 years old it would only prove Darwinian evolution was wrong and prove the theory of Punctuated Equillibrium was right.It would never occur to them that Evolution was wrong.

RAZD;Sorry for the misunderstanding that article is 12 years old.But it is the only one i know of that shows a partial reconstruction,although made from a Homo Erectus heel,and the rest of the foot is Australopithicine.Its toes clearly do not fit the laetoli foot prints.And there has never been an Australopithicine,that has been proven,that has any kind of a human foot.

Thank you RAZD.I appreciate your interest in discussion.The only hominid that is left open to debate (sort of) is A.Africanus.And i say that because T.C. Partridge gave a date using geomorphological dating of less than 870 k.y. and that was supported by a date of about 1 m.y.a. by thermoluminescence analysis of calcite and uranium-series dates of 942,000 y.a. and 764,000 y.a. on limestone.We certainly know that Homo Erectus was around well before that.The evolutionist in need of a human ancestor reject those dates and gave the taung child a date that fits in with evolution.I call that fraud myself,circular reasoning with a vengance may be a better term.KP 271 is allegedly A.Africanus but all the analysis show it to be anatomicaly indifferent from modern humans,Yet they claim it cant be because of its date of around 4.4 m.y.a..You likely know all of this already,just thought i would share just in case you dont.