Make Your Own Conclusion Based on the Evidence at Hand

Based on the evidence at hand make your own logical conclusion to what was/is happening here. No Thrinaxodon fossil dates older than the oldest Ericiolacerta fossil. No megazostrodon fossil dates older than the oldest Thrinaxodon fossil. No Crusafontia fossil dates older than the oldest megazostrodon fossil. No Plesiadapis fossil dates older than the oldest Crusafontia fossil. No aegyptopithecus fossil dates older than the oldest Plesiadapis fossil No pierolapithecus catalaunicus fossil dates older than the oldest aegyptopithecus fossil No sahelanthropus tchadensis fossil dates older than the oldest pierolapithecus catalaunicus fossil. No Australopithecus anamensis fossil dates older than the oldest pierolapithecus catalaunicus fossil. No australopithecus afarensis fossil dates older than the oldest Australopithecus anamensis fossil. No homo habilis fossil dates older than the oldest australopithecus afarensis fossil. No homo ergaster dates older than the oldest homo habilis fossil. No homo erectus fossil dates older than the oldest homo ergaster fossil. No homo sapiens idaltu fossil dates older than the oldest homo erectus fossil.No human bones ever found date older than the oldest homo sapiens idaltu fossil.Using the evidence at hand and some logic what would your conclusion be as to what was happening.Edited by AdminPD, : Body of PostEdited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Replaced images with thumbnail images (click on to get full size).

Thread copied here from the Make Your Own Conclusion Based on the Evidence at Hand thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Off the top of my head, there's a problem there between the one labeled Crusafontia and the one labeled Plesiadapis. The first is barely a lemur, while the other is already a monkey. Be prepared to explain this gap.

I have an idea of what you were trying to do here but at the minimum I think you blotched some of your wordings. In the above quoted you seem to be saying the oldest Thrinaxodon fossil is the same age as the oldest Ericiolacerta fossil. I don't think this is what you were trying to say. I'm guessing you intended: And etc.The rest of message 1 is just further examples of the same muddled thought process and/or blotched wordings. Seemingly, you think that the oldest examples of all the listed species are the same age.Please further expound on what you were trying to say in the above quoted and/or what the intended point was to be.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : I thought I had fixed that before submitting.

I may not be understanding your post or frako's (I may be a moron, but I tend to doubt it.) So far as I can tell, the top aminal is intended to be Eric and the second one is Thrina. None of the samples of Thrina we have are older than the earliest sample of the more primitive Eric. The third dude, who is even more lemurian and less ratty, is Megaz. No Megaz is older than the oldest Thrina. And so on down through monkeys and apes, to us. All the critters are nested chronologically, such that the rats appear to be growing hands, losing their tails, standing up, grabbing tools, building computers, and calling each other asshats, in that specific order.Edited by Iblis, : ouroboros

Due to his crappy presentation, I don't know which name goes with which picture.I do think you are in line with what Frako was TRYING to express.But we need to let Frako straighten out his mess before we proceed further.Ah, hell - I'm going to send this back to the PNT forum to let him fix things there.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change last sentence.

Thread copied here from the Make Your Own Conclusion Based on the Evidence at Hand thread in the Human Origins and Evolution forum.

Please see comments between message 1 and this message.1) Put a name on the individual photos.2) Rewrite whatever it was you were trying to say about the comparisons.3) And your point is...?AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: The above means "Edit your message 1". It could also use a better topic title, which is also done via editing message 1. Please post a reply message to this message after you make your changes. That way I'll know it's time to again look at message 1, so I can demand even more changes. By the way - Once we've completed the 150 message exchanges required to get message 1 in shape , message 1 can be separated out to become the new topic without all the extra 150 messages. Or something like that.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

will do that, some time today

I appreciate and agree with your efforts to improve the thread proposal. You can move it back to Proposed New Topics if you want, but do a "move" rather than a copy - there's already a copy in Proposed New Topics, so if you move it back there you should delete the original.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Apparently you are trying to construct some sort of human family tree.I think you should start with message 1 covering at most 3 species, and I suggest they be the 3 oldest. There can and probably will be plenty of discussion for that much topic. Later in the topic things can proceed on to the other younger species.I thought I better tell you this before you construct a long detailed message 1 only to have me tell you to trim it by 90%.I do think you have a potentially very good topic here. Such are the proposed topics that I tend to be extra finicky about promoting.Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add more, including 4th paragraph.

Thnx for the imput i will do it i just need some time i was hoping to do it today but now im to tired to look for pitcures. If i exceed the limit of 20 pitcures can i add them to a reply to the first. And then you move the reply up so it is under the firs so that it looks better.The first time i went back all the way to the eusthenopteron 385 MYA, but then the limit would not let me post, and something got screwed up that i could not edit and half of it got lost.So i should also put a few other species in between that are not our direct liniage the cousins that went a noter way?

Keep message 1 short and simple.3 pictures maximum. Stick to the "thumbnail format", as to which I edited the current version of message 1. Such can be viewed in the larger form by clicking on the thumbnail.Go back in time a far as you wish, but keep to within what you think is the "direct lineage". You probably want to keep the time jumps between species small but not too small (enough detail but not too much detail).I think you will have plenty of discussion when only covering a few species. If that discussion is exausted, then we can move on to a few more recent species.Covering the decent of man in one message - WAY WAY WAY too much. We need topic focus, not cover everything at the same time.AdminnemooseusPS to Admin - Can I make message 1 alone to be the start of the new topic, and have it in Frako's name? Seems like when I did such before, the new topic message 1 ended up being tagged with the Adminnemooseus name?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "thumbnail" comment.