Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Dimensio
Now,if you want to call humans 'hominids' that is fine, but they fall under a distinct class, which is not an animal. Are you suggesting that they fall in a different kingdom? I do not see that the classification of "animal" is incorrect. It appears that homonids are vertibrates, and vertibrates are a subset of animals.

Here we go with the playing of terms.

We are talking about a transition from ape to man (correct?) which means from animal to mankind.

So, the transitional species would be a kind of both, now wouldn't he/it?

So the evolutionists are looking for something that is neither completely animal or human.

80 posted on 03/24/2006 2:50:48 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (Gal. 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]


To: fortheDeclaration
Here we go with the playing of terms.

I am not attempting to play with terms. I am pointing out an apparent contradiction in your statement.

We are talking about a transition from ape to man (correct?) which means from animal to mankind.

Humans are animals. There is no transition from one to the other.

So, the transitional species would be a kind of both, now wouldn't he/it?

Yes, but there would be no point at which the species is not "animal". Humans are classified as part of the kingdom Animalia.

So the evolutionists are looking for something that is neither completely animal or human.

This is not accurate. The specimen would in fact be completely animal.
82 posted on 03/24/2006 2:56:20 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

To: fortheDeclaration

I take it, then, that you buy the WJB assertion that humans are not mammals?


88 posted on 03/24/2006 3:03:49 PM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

To: fortheDeclaration
We are talking about a transition from ape to man (correct?) which means from animal to mankind.

So, the transitional species would be a kind of both, now wouldn't he/it?

So the evolutionists are looking for something that is neither completely animal or human.


Take a look at the following.

First, the chart: note the position of Australopithecus africanus.

Then go to the bottom and meet Mrs. Ples.

So, you have what you were asking for. Neither ape nor human. Good enough?

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html



Fossil: Sts 5 Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

119 posted on 03/24/2006 4:19:30 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson