And you don't understand how evolution works.
So what do YOU think Australopithecus Afarensis is?
Learning Genesis
- Thread starter TubbyTubby
- Start date
- Status
And you don't understand how evolution works.
So what do YOU think Australopithecus Afarensis is?
Sounds very detailed, but at the end of the day nothing is really proved. There is nothing that absolutely proves or shows that these bifurcate creatures were related to man at all. That is just wishful thinking.
I believe it was you who stressed taking into account all God says on a matter (which I agree we should)....? The serpent, that ol'dragon the devil, tells us this was not a biological dragon (giant lizard) but Satan in some assumed form or even symbolic for a hypnogogic being that would allure someone...but then though I take the word for what it says I am not dogmatic regarding a wooden literalism...for example I believe God in His essence is spirit (non-corporeal) and does not have physical eyes, nostrils, a foot ON the earth, etc., or that Jesus has a handle and hinges (the door) or as Lamb walks on all fours and is covered by wool...
As I receive it through the Spirit I guess...but it is okay if you have received it differently (it is after all a non-essential)
In His love
brother Paul
What you are referring to is totally Ape...I was referring to Mitochondrial Eve and the ancient Sapien woman remains found in Ethiopia (two different discoveries)....dating is a whole different question...but according to the chronology you would be familiar witrh she is 120, 000 years old...
The ONLY piece of evidence that would even closely associate Lucy with Sapien is the knee joint which was found a whole year earlier (by Johnson I believe but I can dig if you insist on this foolishness) about 200 feet away in a different layer...now by consensus (because their theory cannot allow for human remains at or near the same time period as Autralopithicene) they conclude it is most likely (subjunctive) the same species...but only Darwinian rhetoricians and propagandists have inundated the Journals with the opinion it was actually her knee (it was not and no evidence can be shown to demonstrate it was) and as you so gratefully have admitted...all that is truly "Lucy" is APE alone...(by the way most modern studies agree she was most likely a he)
That "Afarensis is..."too derived to occupy a position as a common ancestor of both the Homo and robust australopith clades". IS entirely opinion and conjecture....an interpretation of data through the pre-supposed theory (just as Selem by the Leakys) and not theory shaped by the data (real science)...actual Lucy is ONLY Ape
A southern Ape....do not be influenced by the highly paid artistic fantasms produced to brainwash the public (one picture being worth 1,000 words...children are very impressionable...so many of the neo-Darwinian hoaxes are reinforced in this way through drill and repetition)....
Well... let's look at the evidence (or lack thereof)...
At this angle I can see it a collection of bones displayed as if it were human under the assumption that they are all from the same creature (only DNA would know) and from this display it could be anything. And the caption says it's a replica...
Here's a "cast of Lucy" from the caption:
Again if the bone fragments show the same DNA for all pieces there still isn't enough information to build a full model. It could be anything you want like this:
Wow! Almost looks real... real fiction.
So, if we disregard evolution entirely then..
..and we also say that the many dating techniques that put Lucy at 3.2 myo as disproved for one reason or another..
The 40% skeletal remains of Lucy (whether it be a him or a her) clearly represent something.
What, in your opinion, is this creature? Clearly it is not walking amongst us today and is not a fossil of an animal that we recognise.
Where did he/she come from and how old do YOU think it is?
Although several hundred fragments of hominid bone were found at the Lucy site, there was no duplication of bones. A single duplication of even the most modest of bone fragments would have disproved the single skeleton claim, but no such duplication is seen in Lucy. The bones all come from an individual of a single species, a single size, and a single developmental age.
That's because it is real.
She/he is clearly and plainly a variety of APE and nothing more...besides Abs proof of the extent they stoop to with false contrived visual representations (used to intentionally imprint inquiring minds) read this attentively....
The phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of Johanson's 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. He discovered "Lucy". Numerous evolutionists, however, strongly disagree. Lord Solly Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist, published his views on the australopithecines in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower. He studied these creatures for more than fifteen years, and came to the conclusion that "if man did, in fact, descend from an apelike ancestor, he did so without leaving a single visible trace in the fossil record" (1970, p. 64). Some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was started before Lucy was even discovered.” True, but that misses the point. Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils younger (i.e., closer to man) than Lucy!
First off, Johanson admitted that, immediately after seeing the single arm bone, “This time I knew at once I was looking at a hominid elbow. I had to convince Tom, whose first reaction was that it was a monkey’s” (Johanson, et al., 1994, p. 60, emp. added). However, as more and more researchers gained access to the fossils (or replicas thereof), Lucy’s “hominid” status began to be questioned—seriously questioned!
the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C.
“We saw something that talked about special knuckle walking adaptations in modern African apes,” Dr. Richmond said. “I could not remember ever seeing anything about wrists in fossil hominids...Across the hall was a cast of the famous fossil Lucy. We ran across and looked at it and bingo, it was clear as night and day” (see BBC News, 2000).
The March 29, 2000 San Diego Union Tribune reported:
A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of “Lucy,” the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee’s, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles (Fox, 2000).
Richmond and Strait discovered that knuckle-walking apes have a mechanism that locks the wrist into place in order to stabilize this joint. In their report, they noted: “Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER-20419) and A. afarensis (AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking”
And finally proof positive Johanson intended to interpret the data to FIT THE THEORY rather than letting the facts dictate the conclusions…He admits “ I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain.” (Johanson and Edey, 1981, pp. 257 - 258).
Go ahead now and re-read this admission… jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions (his preconceived assumption based conclusions)….that “the fossils themselves would not sustain.” The actual data (which science depends on) says NO! NOT a human ancestor!!!!
Can you see the non-objective, non-scientific approach later imposed into the thinking of millions via media popularization and neo-Darwinian Curriculum Developers?
Neo-Darwinians CANNOT be honest with the evidence or their theory utterly falls apart (again just like the Leakys Selem find)….
The phrase “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” can be found emblazoned on the cover of Johanson's 1981 book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. He discovered "Lucy". Numerous evolutionists, however, strongly disagree. Lord Solly Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist, published his views on the australopithecines in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower. He studied these creatures for more than fifteen years, and came to the conclusion that "if man did, in fact, descend from an apelike ancestor, he did so without leaving a single visible trace in the fossil record" (1970, p. 64). Some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was started before Lucy was even discovered.” True, but that misses the point. Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils younger (i.e., closer to man) than Lucy!
First off, Johanson admitted that, immediately after seeing the single arm bone, “This time I knew at once I was looking at a hominid elbow. I had to convince Tom, whose first reaction was that it was a monkey’s” (Johanson, et al., 1994, p. 60, emp. added). However, as more and more researchers gained access to the fossils (or replicas thereof), Lucy’s “hominid” status began to be questioned—seriously questioned!
the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C.
“We saw something that talked about special knuckle walking adaptations in modern African apes,” Dr. Richmond said. “I could not remember ever seeing anything about wrists in fossil hominids...Across the hall was a cast of the famous fossil Lucy. We ran across and looked at it and bingo, it was clear as night and day” (see BBC News, 2000).
The March 29, 2000 San Diego Union Tribune reported:
A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of “Lucy,” the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee’s, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles (Fox, 2000).
Richmond and Strait discovered that knuckle-walking apes have a mechanism that locks the wrist into place in order to stabilize this joint. In their report, they noted: “Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER-20419) and A. afarensis (AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking”
And finally proof positive Johanson intended to interpret the data to FIT THE THEORY rather than letting the facts dictate the conclusions…He admits “ I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain.” (Johanson and Edey, 1981, pp. 257 - 258).
Go ahead now and re-read this admission… jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions (his preconceived assumption based conclusions)….that “the fossils themselves would not sustain.” The actual data (which science depends on) says NO! NOT a human ancestor!!!!
Can you see the non-objective, non-scientific approach later imposed into the thinking of millions via media popularization and neo-Darwinian Curriculum Developers?
Neo-Darwinians CANNOT be honest with the evidence or their theory utterly falls apart (again just like the Leakys Selem find)….
That's because it is real.[/QUOTE]
Not even close Tubby....real science knows no way to extrapolate topical characteristics from such a sparse collection of fragments...the IMAGE was totally contrived to appear semi-human to convince (beguile) the gullible trusting masses
Not even close Tubby....real science knows no way to extrapolate topical characteristics from such a sparse collection of fragments...the IMAGE was totally contrived to appear semi-human to convince (beguile) the gullible trusting masses
So, in your opinion BP, when did this 'variety' of ape live amongst us? Where did it come from and why isn't it living with us now?
What species do these fossils represent to you?
"Piltdown Man Hoax Is Exposed," announced the New York Times on November 21, 1953. "Part of the skull of the Piltdown man, one of the most famous fossil skulls in the world, has been declared a hoax by authorities at the British Natural History Museum," the article said.
The Piltdown fossils, including a portion of the skull, a jawbone, and a few teeth, were found in 1911 and 1912. This "Piltdown Man" was believed by many to be "the earliest Englishman," and in fact, the missing link between apes and humans. But in 1953, the jawbone was found to be that of a modern ape -- orangutan, most likely -- that had been treated with chemicals to make it look as though it had been lying in the ground for hundreds of centuries. The cap of the skull was still thought to be a genuine fossil, but far more recent than originally believed.
This shows the extent that evolutionists will go to deceive people. I know this is not directly related to Lucy, but it does represent the mindset and agenda of evolutionists.
The Piltdown fossils, including a portion of the skull, a jawbone, and a few teeth, were found in 1911 and 1912. This "Piltdown Man" was believed by many to be "the earliest Englishman," and in fact, the missing link between apes and humans. But in 1953, the jawbone was found to be that of a modern ape -- orangutan, most likely -- that had been treated with chemicals to make it look as though it had been lying in the ground for hundreds of centuries. The cap of the skull was still thought to be a genuine fossil, but far more recent than originally believed.
This shows the extent that evolutionists will go to deceive people. I know this is not directly related to Lucy, but it does represent the mindset and agenda of evolutionists.
Piltdown man has no relevance to this particular point about Lucy as you say.
There is no agenda Gonefishing. If science finds evidence that discounts a previous theory it adjusts the theory to fit that evidence (continually assessed). There is no ultimate point that science looks to prove, only an honest assessment of evidence. I find it trivial that people would argue this.
Besides, I've heard you all tell me why the remains of Lucy are not what I say they are (a 3.2 myo ancestor towards our LCA with chimps). I want you to tell me what it actually is according to your research?
If evolution, carbon dating, argon dating, speed of light, age of the earth etc.. are all rubbish what exactly are those bones telling you?
Piltdown man has no relevance to this particular point about Lucy as you say.
Yeah, I said this in the post.
I know this is not directly related to Lucy, but it does represent the mindset and agenda of evolutionists.
If science finds evidence that discounts a previous theory it adjusts the theory to fit that evidence (continually assessed).
The skeletal remains were adjusted to fit the theory.
There is no ultimate point that science looks to prove, only an honest assessment of evidence. I find it trivial that people would argue this.
There is no ultimate point that science looks to prove, only an honest assessment of evidence.
There is no honesty assessment of evidence in this case.
That's the reason I mention this. To prove their point, they lied.
Yeah, I said this in the post.
I know this is not directly related to Lucy, but it does represent the mindset and agenda of evolutionists.
If science finds evidence that discounts a previous theory it adjusts the theory to fit that evidence (continually assessed).
The skeletal remains were adjusted to fit the theory.
There is no ultimate point that science looks to prove, only an honest assessment of evidence. I find it trivial that people would argue this.
There is no ultimate point that science looks to prove, only an honest assessment of evidence.
There is no honesty assessment of evidence in this case.
That's the reason I mention this. To prove their point, they lied.
You've proven nothing in reality have you.
I'll ask again - If evolution, carbon dating, argon dating, speed of light, age of the earth etc.. are all rubbish what exactly are those bones telling you?
If everything you've read about Lucy is complete and utter rubbish (as you are hinting at). What is that animal who's bones we call Lucy in your opinion?
This is proof that evolutionists will lie to prove themselves. This is obvious.
Looks like a chimpanzee to me.
And that is the sum total of your curiosity? You really don't care to think about it any further yet dismiss years of research with the stroke of a finger on a keyboard?
It is most definately not a chimpanzee.
Probably time to get this thread back onto Genesis.
- Status