Is Ape/Human Common Ancestory Enough?

:-pno kidding. i was referring to 'beyond the obvious'.

sure, i was unaware of this.

well i'm reading a book that i got the actual data from though i'm a bio minor so i am a nerd. all of that is paraphrased from the book though so i didn't screw anything up. jared diamond - the third chimpanzee. i can't find anything else right now. too tired. long story. it includes security alarms.

quote:

---

and this invalidates anything how exactly? they're debating where exactly the classify her, whether it's under apes or early humans. this does not indicate that such a progression never happened. and, like i said, if she was an ape, how come her hips, feet, and legs are similar to humans? and by "similar" i mean "close to" not "the same"

---

According to Richard Leakey who is one of the best known fossil anthropologist in the world, Lucys skull is so incomplete that most of it is 'imagination made of plaster of paris'. Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature 'in between' ape & man, Dr Charles Oxnard Professor of Anatomy & Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged)'The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been'.Oxnard's firm conclusion? 'The australopithecines are unique. Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of 'missing link' status.

quote:

---

in other words, chimpanzees are more human than neanderthals, according to genetics

---

You can say all you want but neanderthals are completely homosapien.

quote:

---

the inner ear does not show posture

---

Yes they definately do.

quote:

---

but it's an unimportant point. the name homo erectus literally means "stands like us"

​

but, let's compare skulls, just for fun: h. erectus on the left, h. sapiens on the right:

---

Homoerectus are homosapien!. Thats why the skulls are so alike. Not because they are some sort of 100,000 yr old missing link. Moreover there is no evidence of missing link/ape man living so long ago. And lastly you mention neanderthal. Neanderthals have been discarded as a missing link and put in the category of homosapien for yrs now. Neanderthal was evidence used at the scopes trial that isnt even believed in anymore. Except for ardent evolutionists and secular textbooks.

Here's two links to the work by Dr. Fred Spoor on the subject:ftp://pc74.anat.ucl.ac.uk/pub/fred/Nature94.pdf
ftp://pc74.anat.ucl.ac.uk/pub/fred/YB98-lab.pdfI suspect you'll find the first most useful. Among the more interesting findings is the suggestion that Homo Habilis is likely not a direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens.

almeyda http://www.cs.colorado.edu/...say/creation/quote_oxnard.html You should perhaps do a check up of the people whom you bring to defend your viewpoint before using their name.

---

What is the direction, up or down, of the acceleration of a freely bouncing ball at the bottommost point of its bounce, that is, at the instant its velocity changes from down to up?

i can't find that quote anywhere. so uhh, by your logic, it doesn't exist, nor can it. you have no idea what the word "taxonomy" means, do you? ok, let's start here, we'll identify major features. go back and look at the two skulls i posted. where is the neandethal's forehead? hmm? why is his upper jaw so far seperated from his cheekbone? why does he have a huge supraorbital ridge? why does it's face protrude more? it has markedly visible differences. but then again, you also assert this: the skulls are alike! HA! did you see the pictures i posted? h. erectus's face slopes forward, it has no forehead but smaller supraorbital ridges than the neanderthal. it's jaw is larger in proportion to its face, and its face to its braincase. ITS CHIN RECEDES. next to human skull, it looks more APE, although not as much as a. afarensis.also, no one declared it a missing link. h. erectus is an offshoot h. ergaster, and so is h. sapiens and h. neanderthalensis.and uhh, every evidence points to the date we've been given. which one of the dozen radiological techniques do you take issue with? no, they are regarded as a parallel species. no one ever said they were a missing link. no one is throwing random species at you and going "look this one is part ape part man it muct be it!" there is a tree of evolutionary pattern. neanderthals and cromagnons (h. sapiens) coexisted. there's even evidence that they interbred (and their offspring looked funny).and, like i said, if they're h. sapiens, why do they look so different? why the different proportions? heights? features? hmm? look at the pictures.and, uhh, the scopes trial still gets creationists laughed at, btw.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-07-2004 08:18 AM

interesting. i'll have a look later on.i'd be willing to h. habilis not being a direct ancestor. paleoanthropology is allowed to revise itself, but this minute fact does not mean we're throwing out evolution.

Really? Cool! Any chance of a reference/link?

i dunno, it'd take some searching. i saw the skeleton on television, probably a pbs or discovery channel show. i remember them noting that it had an odd combination of morphologies, and was buried with small artifacts. it was also only a child.

Where did you get this 3-4% for Neanderthals? Neanderthals are genetically much closer to modern humans than chimps are. No they're not.

I don't know what you're trying to say, but it certainly sounds wrong. About 1.5% of individual bases differ between humans and chimps; it's more like 5% if you include insertions and deletions. The great bulk of that is in nonfunctional DNA.

i was citing some creationist argument i heard somewhere. the point was the claims conflict, not that the data was accurate -- i seriously doubt it is.

AlmeydaCan we start with AUSTRALOPITHECUS?In your cut and paste, Again, this is an example of quote mining at its worst. Here someone (Dr Marvin Lubenow in this case but it could as easily be any of the other charlatans) makes statement where he claims to be quoting particular people. But from the cut and paste that you did, it is impossible to tell who said any of that or if those things were even said.That is not research, but rather bending and distorting information. In other words, lying.Australopithecines is actually a fairly large group. You can learn more about them HereBut the real question, the one that you have so far avoided, is "Do you agree that AUSTRALOPITHECUS, HOMOHABILIS, HOMO ERECTUS, and NEANDERTHAL lived?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i'm simply repeating data i read. maybe the source is wrong. i am doubtful on that though. i will look for more sources.