To: Psalm 73
no hard evidence to support us comming from something else - (a jaw bone here, a femur there - and they deduce from that that hundreds of thousands of sub-humans roamed the earth?) And these are just a few of the more photogenic specimens. Enjoy.
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
39 posted on
11/09/2005 12:15:21 PM PST by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Coyoteman
"And these are just a few of the more photogenic specimens."
And they KNOW that we are directly descended from them because?
They are all positively linked in a chain because?
I think there are a LOT of assumptions going on here - and perhaps a little wishfull thinking.
41 posted on
11/10/2005 4:00:27 AM PST by
Psalm 73
("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson