Lucy (Australopithecus)

From these few bones Can we really draw this conclusion??? Very speculative

quote:

---

Are you under the impression that Lucy is the onlyAustralopithecus afarensisfossil ever found?

---

NoAustralopithecus afarensis - The Australian Museum

quote:

---

Laetoli footprints
These fossil footprints were discovered in Tanzania,East Africa and date to 3.6 million years ago.Fossil bones from Australopithecus afarensishave been found nearby so it is presumed that they left the tracks.

---

Presumptuous indeed

Dude... Read Message 5 again. I directly answered your question with a no.

If you look at the link I posted on message 5 you will see that I'm well aware of all the fossils found on Australopithecus afarensis

quote:

---

Conclusion? It's a hypothetical reconstruction. For display in a museum, not for scientific study.
Is the skin color and the amount of hair, eyes, etc accurate? No, nor is it claimed to be.

---

Ok I guess thats what I was scratching my head over.I see these sculptures that are shown in museums. Drawings like this And I see a striking similarity with renaissance art the way its presented. But as you said it's a hypothetical reconstruction where the finer details like hair amount, etc are an artists impression.Correct me if I'm wrong here. As the population grew in Africa about 100,000ya groups migrated, evolving (on a small scale of physical features) into different races around the world. (Depending on your definition of race and how broadly you define them) Caucasians in Europe, the Indian sub continent, into east Asia where they crossed the Bering strait into the Americas. Two other races emerged from Asia. The Polynesians and Aboriginals.So if these races remained isolated from each other could they have eventually evolved into different species of human right?

LoL dude it's not my fault your blind but I'll help you out by repeating the answer to your question... NO

Firstly I did post a quote from that link.
Secondly I have received many bare links without fear or predjudice.
I actually encourage supporting references of any kind.And I don't understand what you mean by this

quote:

---

we have seen too many creationists link to a source that is either a creationist source (as you have already done)

---

If your saying I have used a religious based argument show me where...Otherwise it sounds as though you dismiss a source if written by a creationist regardless of weather the argument is secular. Thats not science, its just childish.
Another example of debating a persons view and not the subject.Apparently 15% of the leading ToE scientists are in fact creationists anyway. So according to your method we should dissmiss everything as another incorrect scientific theory then. Thats just silly.

quote:

---

Correct. Dismiss with prejudice. Creationist simply do not tell the truth, constantly misrepresent sources and take lines out of context.
No one should ever trust anything that comes from Creationist.

---

Seriously? Every single one of them?
I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say that 15% of top ToE scienctists in the highest academy or something are creos. (not sure how cos the adam and eve yarn goes up in flames). Even them?How about if a piece of data is found that may support one of their things. I dunno some dates might not match up or something? Are scientists also dissmissing without prejeduce?

quote:

---

I can't find any trace of this. But maybe some are. Based on my experience yes, even them.

---

On this clip go to 12:00. Neil says it there.
(If Im allowed to use references. Apparently Its illegal for me to)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN33tstYB50I guess what Im saying is that type of hate and stereotype is no good for science. Sure there will always be fanatics and their the people you guys are speaking of probs.
So I can't trust them because of their looking to oppose ToE.
So one might say ToE atheiest can't be trusted cos their only out to form a theory against creation.I watched this doco on Australopithecus. (Non-creo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR_9_5gxvxg
I notice this kind of urgency to present this so called "human missing link" which lead to hysteria, propaganda and painting a picture we are not 100% sure about. As admittedly we could do with more fossils which are obviously difficult to encounter.Yes its fair to say that humans most likley evolved from early primate species. Australopithecus may be directly related to us. But there is also a very good chance that particular species is not related directly related to humans as suggested in the doco.

quote:

---

Once again with the attacks on peoples' character. Why?

---

Mate. Who's character have I attacked? Where?
As I said on another thread if anyone feels I have personally attacked them please point it out and I will address it because that is definitely not my intention.

Ok so this term "creationist" is given to the more radical religious people that take the whole bible literally. Point taken.I don't think anyone who has very firm beliefs can be objective here, weather they're creationist or atheist. Ideally they should be agnostic with no disposition at all.
Sceptical questions should be welcomed from such a person without persecution.
Anyway I don't want to get into that war.Creationists claim all the fossils to be either man or another species of ape.
And by only observing the fossils one can interpret it any way they like realy.Personally I think the case for humans evolved from primates is a strong one. Details such as how, when, where, from what aren't as well understood and are speculated on. It seems this is the opinion of most level headed scientists anyway who are careful in conveying the fact that uncertainty still shadows much of it.The hardcore atheists (not you) claim everything is scientifically proven, that we know it all but there are variations in opinions between evolutionists as well.
For example this link is an article from the scientific journal, Nature.How China is rewriting the book on human origins | NatureTwo possible migration patterns are looked at. One is that humans fully evolved in Africa before migrating the other suggests evolution was occurring separately in Asia as many human related fossils are found there that date back millions of years.

quote:

---

And again you make reference to your leaning towards young-earth claims

---

Firstly cheers for defining the term "creationist" and for accepting me as agnostic.
Finally... LoL.In reference to your quote I was making a hypothetical scenario of introduced data which may conflict with ToE as ive heard that athiest scientists will try work a way around it to suit ToE which is just totally wrong if true.As to the age of the earth I don't think the bible gives that info so im not sure on the creationists motives against it.
But I noticed some arguments questioning its accuracy. U may of heard of them.One was of a lava flow that was 10 years old. The decay rate of 5 or 6 elements where measured. The results where in a range of 20,000ya to hundreds of millions of years ago. Something along those linesAnd others of living specimens that have dated back millions of years.
So I dunno.I does puzzle me how large populations of modern humans, with our brain capacity, migrated together. In communities 200,000ya but didn't show the classical signs of civilisation (language, maths, agriculture, architecture) which is essential in societies till about 6,000ya

I said personal attack.That is an attack on radical athiests as a whole who are sugar coating it just like the creationists. Surely u don't condone the frauds and hoaxes fabricated by these fanatics over the years. They put much doubt into the agnostic mind. You don't accept lies do you?It is in no way singling out anyone personally.
An example of a personal attack usually begins with "you" or "your" doesn't it

quote:

---

The finer the detail the more uncertainty there may be, but this does not disprove, or even ding, the overall patterns shown by the theory of evolution

---

Did I say disprove... NO... I said the theory of man evolving from apes is a strong one.But interestingly scientists are debating overal patterns as they say fossils are too rare to accurately fill in the gaps. And also uncertainty over migrations so its does put a big ding in anyone trying to force one line of ancestry over another.

quote:

---

Virtually no scientist will claim anything is "scientifically proven."

---

Well thats what Im saying. Im singling out the fanatic athiests from level headed thinkers. So unless u consider yourself to be a radical athiest (which by your comments you aren't) those comments don't apply to you.A sceptical question is hardly an attack. Am I ment to just have "faith"? cmon now...For what its worth, even though I intended no such offence to you and didn't personally attack you I still offer my apology. I don't want others to feel this type of persecution like I have had to endure.Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

quote:

---

They do not.
I am a 'hardcore atheist'. No atheist I have ever met would make such a ludicrous claim. Not least because it's easily proven to be wrong.

---

You guys think im making this up? Not something I want to pick on so much but if you guys insist. It didn't take me long to find some.These following quotes are from a top ToE scientist in his book
"The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (2009)"Page 8: " Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips... continue the list as long as desired."Page 164: " We don’t need fossils — the case for evolution is watertight without them; so it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as though they were evidence against evolution"Coming from mainstream science ok. Unscientific Atheist with these kind of false convictions are a dime a dozen.Add to this the deliberate evolutionary frauds that have been presented to the mainstream as fact. Pitdown man. Nebraska man. Java man. U guys heard of these ye? A willingness and drive to fabricate evidence. That's extreme.
But like I said it's the few that spoil it for all and create so much doubt. I did say you weren't one of them so relax.

quote:

---

You've been told this several times.
You need to learn to be careful with your statements and assertions.

---

Perhaps you need to take care with your personal attacks. One might take those accusations of yours the wrong way. Get all emotional and shit.

Do better at what? Nonsense? what are you on about.
My statement clearly says "or something' along those lines.
Someone else said they couldn't find any of this. U say it took 10 secs. Well done.The point I was making is 15% of them believe in a god ok.
Im not in with the whole definition of creationist because to an agnostic it's irrelevant.Wiki defines it as "a person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account."So u can either accept that my wiki definition of creationist wasn't your definition and that I was saying exactly what you said.
Or you can be a cop for the easy way out and call "nonsense"Why am I even talking about creation. Off topic... Oh yes.
Defense tendancies applied by the defensless and insecure.In case people missed it I think the case for humans evolved from primates is a strong one ok.
Oh yea big thanks to RAZD and JonF for being informative and open not only on this thread but previously.Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.