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

To: allmendream; wendy1946
No what she was saying for the descent to work at some point the descendant had to be bred from the ancestor and she was using Neanderthal man as an example (it did not happen) and that genetically he was closer than the chimp. I have no problem with the larger concept that man did not descend from Neanderthal or the chimp-like creature.

All that evolutionary biology needs is circular logic saying that it is true, everything else is interchangeable and easily replaced.

Now all the evolutionist hyperbole aside, the latest missing link is obviously another ape. It was 4’ tall, had long arms and hands and a very small brain.

For one thing, unlike human species but like other australopithecines, A. sediba had a very small brain. The fossil species also had long ape-like arms with primitive wrists that were well suited for climbing trees.

41 posted on 04/12/2010 9:38:04 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: valkyry1

Not at all what the poster said. Neanderthal IS closer in DNA to humans than to a chimp, that doesn’t tell you if it was in a direct line of descent that led to humans.

Creationist “science”; invent a ludicrous requirement, point out that reality doesn’t support the ludicrous requirement - conclude that the science is faulty because it doesn’t live up to your invented criteria.

All that evolutionary or ANY science needs is a model that explains the data. Common descent of species explains the data as to why humans and chimps are closer to each other than either is to a gorilla. It also explains why we and other apes form a pattern of similarity and divergence in our ERV sequences.

Creationism as a model doesn’t explain the data. Most creationists don’t know understand or even CARE to know the data.

The latest fossil find is obviously of a species of bipedal ape.

Humans are, zoologically, a bipedal ape; the only one extant upon the Earth today.

At differnt times and places apparently there were several different species of bipedal apes.

Once again evolutionary science has a model that explains every observation. Once again creationism has nothing, does nothing, explains nothing, and doesn’t lead anyone to any further knowledge.

Just the way creationists like it!

After all, the more someone learns the less likely they are to be a creationist!


42 posted on 04/12/2010 10:06:50 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | 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