No scientific theory can ever be proven, though scientific theories do have evidence supporting them.
Without googling, can you tell me which of these skulls are "humans" and which are "apes"?
Posted on 03/11/2009 11:40:00 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
No more love for Lucy?
Ryan Jaroncyk
For over the last 30 years, the supposedly 3 . 2 Ma old Australopithecus afarensis specimen known as ‘Lucy’ has been boldly proclaimed as the ancestor of all humanity in magazines, television shows, books, newspapers and museums. However, Tel Aviv University anthropologists have published a study casting serious doubt on Lucy’s role as mankind’s ape ancestor.1 Based on a comparative analysis of jaw bones in living and extinct primates, researchers concluded that Lucy and members of her kind should be ‘placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.’ In other words, Lucy should no longer be considered to be our direct ancestor. Lucy’s demise falsifies 33 years of evolutionary hyperbole and propaganda...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Proof = Piltdown man
The truth "is what it is." Many studies in all areas of science are based more on what gets the grants than what's true.
The old fossils and bones also serve as Rorschach tests. Dittos for studies of ancient cultures. The conclusions reached often say more about the person doing the studying than the subject. I guess it would be boring if all these studies said, "actually, we know damned little about these bones."
You're right. But it often seems that the genetics involved, aren't.
No scientific theory can ever be proven, though scientific theories do have evidence supporting them.
Without googling, can you tell me which of these skulls are "humans" and which are "apes"?
If you can’t back up what you profess are facts, then they are BS and worthless in a discussion.
Where are the apes’ ancestors?
I guess they’ll have to find their own, and set up their own grants for doing so.
Yes.
You didn’t find those in Jeff Dahmer’s back yard did you?
David Menton’s video on the Lucy story would do for starters.
The burden of proof is on you unless of course you happen to have a photograph of a missing link wandering about the Neaderthal in denim jeans and a campy blazer.
And Ocean’s 12 was more sophisticated than The Sting.
So what?
We came from fish not apes. I forgot.
The fact is most archeological finds are lucky to come up with 25% of a complete remains.
Yep, he is an idiot and you are a genius, and that will never change, so why do you keep asserting that?
Technically, that is correct. According to evolution theory, man is not “evolved from ape,” rather apes share a common ancestor with man.
“A” is Donald Duck. The rest of those skulls on top look incomplete. “C” might pass for Goofy.
Exhibit Number One of someone who has zero comprehension of evolutionary theory.
If horticulturalists breed orange flowers from red ones, why are there still red flowers?
“Finding an extinct species of chimp, monkey, gorilla or whatever doesn’t get grants. Finding a human link gets grants.” Richard Kimball
That is incorrect. We have MUCH more remains of likely human ancestors from the same period of 3-5 million years ago than fossil remains of chimps or gorillas. This is most likely due to fossils being preserved better where human ancestors lived, rather than in the jungle where chimps and gorillas ancestors likely lived.
A good knuckle walking ape fossil of a likely gorilla ancestor from 5 million years ago would be a SPECTACULAR find and get plenty of grants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.