"Peer Reviewed" Research

[Immortal4life]

So, something I keep hearing from people, is that they want to see articles cited in threads that are "Peer Reviewed". Some people will say "I only accept peer reviewed journals. I don't accept articles from popular media outlets or popular science magazines". Although I have no problem accepting such sources as legitimate most of the time, as they are legitimate and cite their sources, people certainly have the right to decide their own standards as far as what they will accept.

 

With that being said, the question becomes "What exactly is peer reviewed research, and what constitutes peer reviewed research?"

 

Here is an interesting Article from the Peer Reviewed Journal PNAS. It demonstrated how researchers in Israel have disproven the notion that Australopithicus, or "Lucy", is an ancestor to humans. For several decades in the later 1900s some scientists claimed that "Lucy" was the ancestor of humans. Even in the 2000s a few scientists held out and still believed that notion. However, today very, very few believe this to be true.

 

No Missing Link to link Humans to Apes exists! Australopithicus proven not to be an ancestor of humans

 

From the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, or PNAS-

link

 

Israeli researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c....icle%2FShowFull

Israeli researchers: ‘Lucy’ is not direct ancestor of humans

By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH

 

Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory that “Lucy” – the world-famous 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in Ethiopia 33 years ago – is the last ancestor common to humans and another branch of the great apes family known as the “Robust hominids.”

 

The specific structure found in Lucy also appears in a species called Australopithecus robustus. Prof. Yoel Rak and colleagues at the Sackler School of Medicine’s department of anatomy and anthropology wrote, “The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Australopithecus afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of [Lucy] as a common ancestor.”

 

The robust hominids were discovered in southern Africa 69 years ago and are believed to have lived between 2 million and 1.2 million years ago. Their jaws and jaw muscles were adapted to the dry environment in which they lived.

 

Rak and colleagues studied 146 mature primate bone specimens, including those from modern humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans and found that the “ramus element” of the mandible connecting the lower jaw to the skull is like that of the robust forms, therefore eliminating the possibility that Lucy and her kind are Man’s direct ancestors. They should therefore, the Israeli researchers said, “be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.”

 

Their research has just been published in the on-line edition of PNAS, the Proceedings of the [uS] National Academy of Sciences.

 

Lucy, which means “you are wonderful” in Amharic, was discovered (40 percent of its skeleton) by the International Afar Research Expedition in Ethiopia’s Awash Valley. Fitting the bones together, they said it was an upright walking hominid (Homo sapiens, which comprises modern Man and extinct manlike species). They later found its jaws and additional bones.

 

Further analysis led the Afar researchers to believe it was of a female, and the skeleton listed as AL 288-1 was nicknamed Lucy because the Beatles’ song “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds” was often played at the camp.

 

The specimen was only 1.1 meters tall, estimated to weigh 29 kilograms and look somewhat like a common chimpanzee. Although it had a small brain, the pelvis and leg bones were almost identical in function with those of modern humans, proving that these hominids had walked erect.

 

Although fossils closer to chimpanzees have been found since then, Lucy – which is housed in the national museum in Addis Ababa – is prized by anthropologists who study Man’s origin.

 

Rak and his colleagues also wrote that the structure of Lucy’s mandibular ramus closely matches that of gorillas, which was “unexpected” because chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans, and not gorillas.

 

No missing link, or so called "common ancestor", ever found.

 

Bonus material and further reading-

 

African skulls find throws story of human evolution into disarray

African skulls find throws story of human evolution into disarray - Scotsman.com News

 

So there is nothing to link homo erectus to humans. Humans didn't evolve from apes or animals of any kind. I mean look, they can't even name what Homo Erectus evolved out of itself let alone naming what it evolved into. That is putting the cart before the horse. Figure out how animals allegendly evolved before you make claims about humans. Humans did not come out of Homo Erectus.

 

More about why man made finds place humans here even before the apes, or at least co-existing side by side

(translated) Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth (1):Introduction | Pureinsight

 

Removing the Veil from Prehistoric Civilizations</i>, (Part 1) Preface—Ages You Never Knew

http://www.pureinsight.org/node/1324

 

Will the Real Human Ancestor Please Stand Up! Please stand up! Please stand up!-

http://www.theosophical.org.uk/31HidHist.htm

Will the Real Human Ancestor Please Stand Up!

 

By Ina Belderis

 

 

Most of us have seen the classic illustration of human origins: a pictorial sequence of apelike beings progressing from left to right, with each succeeding "apeman" showing more and more human traits, and finally ending up with an anatomically modern human being. This is the scientific picture of human evolution put forward for many decades. Does the image still stand? Paleoanthropological finds of the last 25 years seem to challenge it thoroughly, but its most serious challenge may very well come from anthropology's own historical records: when these are critically analyzed, they reveal a widespread evolutionary prejudice.

 

The most extensive analysis of this kind is The Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson (Govardhan Hill Publishing, Badger, CA, 1994.) This book is an abridged version of Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race ( Govardhan Hill Publishing, 1993). The authors pose two hypotheses based on the Vedic scriptures: the human race is much older than now generally accepted, and various humanlike and apelike beings coexisted for long periods in the past. They claim that anomalous finds that do not fit the accepted theory of human evolution have been reported for years, especially in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries. Yet these have been ignored and suppressed by scientists to such an extent that most are now virtually unknown. According to the authors, scientific preconceptions have caused such anomalous finds to be categorically rejected and severely criticized.

 

The book starts by explaining several key limitations of paleoanthropological research. First, discoveries are fairly rare and have often been made under questionable circumstances. As soon as something is found, dug up, and taken elsewhere, essential elements -- such as its exact position in the strata -- are destroyed, and afterwards one is dependent on the testimony of the discoverers. Many of their statements depend on various observations and conclusions about geological layers and disturbances within them. The testimony of one person may be different from that of another. Then there is the temptation to cheat, which can be systematic (as in the Piltdown case), or less premeditated (as in reports omitting research material which does not quite fit the desired conclusions). Also, modern chemical and radiometric dating is not without its limitations. Contamination may influence the result, or preliminary calculated dates are sometimes rejected or accepted on the basis of arguments that are not always clearly stated or published. Since paleoanthropological reports tend to provide incomplete information about "complex, unresolvable issues," the authors decided to compare the quality of different reports. The first part of the book discusses numerous reports of so-called anomalous finds of artifacts and human skeletal remains. The second part describes reports of finds that have been accepted by scientists to support the prevailing ideas on human evolution.

 

It should be noted that in Darwin's time there was no established theory of human descent -- no sequence of apelike beings and dates -- because there had been no discoveries of hominid fossil remains except for two Neanderthal skulls and some finds of modern morphology. It was not until the early 1890s when Eugene Dubois discovered "Java man" that a sequence with dates was theorized. These protohuman fossils later became known as Homo erectus, and since they were found in Middle Pleistocene deposits, they were said to be 800,000 years old. This discovery functioned as a benchmark, according to Cremo and Thompson: "Henceforth, scientists would not expect to find fossils or artifacts of anatomically modem humans in deposits of equal or greater age. If they did, they (or someone wiser) concluded that this was impossible and found some way to discredit the find as a mistake, an illusion, or a hoax" (p. 7).

 

Thus the anomaly was born -- as nothing was anomalous before the established theory came into being. A number of anomalies had been discovered in the 19th century by reputable scientists, who found skeletal remains of anatomically modern humans in fairly old geological layers (Pliocene and Miocene). In addition they found numerous stone tools and bones that showed signs of the activities of human beings. Since the human evolution theory took shape, these finds have been ignored and rejected. "Knowledge filtration" has prevented scientists from (re)examining these reports. Also scientists have more or less stopped looking for artifacts and remains in older layers that lie outside the possible scope of the theory. When anomalies turn up, they are judged by very strict standards, while finds that do fit the theory are judged by very lenient ones. Some of the stricter standards have been described by anthropologist James B. Griffin: a proper site must have a clearly identifiable geological context (no possibility of intrusion); it must be studied by several expert geologists (and there must be substantial agreement among them); there must be a range of tool forms, well preserved animal remains, pollen studies, macrobotanical materials, human skeletal remains, dating by radiocarbon and other methods. The authors of Hidden History point out that

 

By this standard, practically none of the locations where major paleo-anthropological discoveries have been made would qualify as genuine sites . . . most of the African discoveries of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus have occurred not in clearly identifiable geological contexts, but on the surface or in cave deposits, . . . Most of the Java Homo erectus finds also occurred on the surface, in poorly specified locations. -- p. 89

 

The book goes on to discuss six kinds of anomalous finds: broken and incised bones, eoliths (chipped flints), crude paleoliths, advanced paleoliths and neoliths, extreme anomalies, and human skeletal remains. After the discovery of Java man and Peking man, scientists believed that the transition to toolmaking humans had taken place in the Early to Middle Pleistocene, so they no longer searched for Pliocene or older tools, or even investigated alleged finds. Crerno and Thompson discuss over forty anomalous cases of incised bones, as well as different eoliths, paleoliths and neoliths from various parts of the world, and present the arguments of the so-called debunkers. The authors point out a pattern of standard approach toward controversial evidence. "One mentions an exceptional discovery, one states that it was disputed for some time, and then one cites an authority . . . who supposedly settled the matter, once and for all. But when one takes the time to dig up the report that . . . supposedly delivered the coup de grâce, it often fails to make a convincing case" (p. 81).

 

The last category of anomalous finds are human skeletal remains. These finds may vary from bone fragments to partial or entire skeletons. They have been found in several places in the Americas and in Europe. Among these are also extreme anomalies, for instance a skeleton found on a coal bed capped with two feet of slate rock, or skeletons found in various Oligocene, Eocene, or early Miocene layers. More frequent finds involve skeletons and fragments from late Miocene (10 to 5 million years old), Pliocene (5 to 2 million years old), and the Pleistocene era (from 10,000 to 2 million years old).

 

Those who challenge the finding of human remains in very old geological strata often claim that it involves a recent burial in old layers, especially if anatomically modern humans are found. For this to be the case, the layers above the remains would have to be disturbed, yet scientists have discovered many human remains in very old strata where the layers above the remains were undisturbed. Another argument used by opponents is that the remains ended up where they were found because of mudslides out of more recent layers. Mudslides, however, are also traceable in the geological stratigraphy, and they have proven not to be a factor in those cases. Moreover, skeletal remains often take on the color of the ground in which they were housed for long geological periods, which is another argument against intrusion from more recent, differently colored soil.

 

The second part of Hidden History focuses on those finds of human skeletal remains that have been accepted by science as contributing to the human evolution theory. The first major discovery was made in Java by Dubois, who found a molar and skull cap in 1891, and a fossilized human femur in 1892. He believed that these belonged together and were the remains of an extinct giant chimpanzee. Only after corresponding with Ernst Haeckel, who postulated the existence of a missing link (Pithecanthropus), did Dubois consider his find a specimen of this ape-man. After initial opposition, Pithecanthropus took firm root in the minds of scientists as an early ancestor of man. In the 1930s G. H. R. von Koenigswald traveled to Java to continue the search for Pithecanthropus, and hired scores of Javanese workers. Local villagers, promised money in exchange for discoveries, were paid by the piece, so that bone pieces were broken up to earn more money. With this approach the strict criterion of exact site description became impossible, yet Pithecanthropus is now known as Homo erectus and still considered an accepted link in our ancestral history.

 

As anthropologists found more hominid remains, they developed a procedure of morphological dating which Cremo and Thompson consider very questionable. For example, when two hominid specimens of different morphology are found in the same stratum and in the presence of similar fauna, they must both be placed within the same geological period. This period, however, may span many hundreds of thousands of years. In some cases, when different paleomagnetic, chemical, and radiometric methods give a wide spread of conflicting dates within this period,

 

scientists will decide, solely on the basis of their commitment to evolution, that the morphologically more apelike specimen should be moved to the early part of its possible date range, in order to remove it from the part of its possible date range that overlaps that of the morphologically more humanlike specimen. As part of the same procedure, the more humanlike specimen can be moved to the later, or more recent, part of its own possible date range. Thus the two specimens are temporally separated. . . . It would look bad to have two forms, one generally considered ancestral to the other, existing contemporaneously. . . . With this maneuver completed, the two fossil hominids, now set apart from each other temporally, are then cited in textbooks as evidence of an evolutionary progression. -- pp. 204-5

 

Currently Africa appears to be the arena where scientists have their arguments and disagreements on the theory of human evolution. The line of descent promoted till not long ago was roughly Ramapitbecus (fossil ape), Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and finally ending up with Homo sapiens. In this sequence Australopithecus and Homo habilis were given rather humanlike characteristics, such as an apelike head or face on a modern looking human body. Paleoanthropological discoveries of the last 25 years have done much to undermine this fairly simple picture. Besides these, various other kinds of research on fossil hominids have disturbed the picture even more.

 

Homo sapiens is believed to have first appeared about 100,000 years ago. Homo erectus supposedly goes back to about 1 million years, while Australopithecus is several million years old. Recent finds, however, date these hominids back beyond their allotted time periods and sometimes make them contemporaneous, which of course destroys the notion that they are each other's ancestors. The fossil remains of Homo habilis are so heterogeneous that some scientists wonder if perhaps some should really be ascribed to Australopithecus, and others to Homo erectus. Because of dimorphism (the male being about twice as big as the female) in some of these early species, it is also possible that remains were ascribed to different types, while in reality they represented different genders within one species.

 

Donald Johanson, discoverer of Lucy, an Australopithecus dated at 3.5 million years old, continues to "maintain that Homo came directly from Australopithecus afarensis" (p. 265). "Louis Leakey held that Australopithecus was an early and very apelike off-shoot from the mainline of human evolution. Later, his son Richard Leakey took much the same stance" (p. 257). Presently at least four different types of Australopithecus are known: A. afarensis, A. africanus, A. robustus, and A. boisei, of which the last two represent more robust types with bigger jaws. Scientists do not agree, however, about their lineage. Some think one descended from the other, while others believe that the more robust types were a sideline that specialized. Then the so-called Black Skull was found by Alan Walker at Lake Turkana in 1985. This skull had larger teeth, a bigger jaw, and a sagital crest, resembling A. boisei, but it turned out to be 2.5 million years old, older than the oldest robust Australopithecus. This made the theory of specialization in the robust types very doubtful.

 

Considering the results of their investigations on anomalous finds, accepted discoveries, and what has lately come to light in Africa, Cremo and Thompson draw the following conclusions.

 

(1) There is a significant amount of evidence from Africa suggesting that beings resembling anatomically modern humans were present in the Early Pleistocene and Pliocene. (2) The conventional image of Australopithecus as a very humanlike terrestrial biped appears to be false. (3) The status of Australopithecus and Homo erectus as human ancestors is questionable. (4) The status of Homo habilis as a distinct species is questionable. (5) Even confining ourselves to conventionally accepted evidence, the multiplicity of proposed evolutionary linkages among the hominids in Africa presents a very confusing picture. -- pp. 265-6

When they combine these observations with what they discovered by studying reports of anomalous finds, they conclude that the evidence as a whole (bones and stones) "is most consistent with the view that anatomically modern humans have coexisted with other primates for tens of millions of years" (p. 266).

 

This conclusion is in line with what H. P. Blavatsky maintained over a hundred years ago -- in theosophical writings which also referred to the Vedic scriptures. In the viewpoint of theosophy, human beings did not descend from ape ancestors: humanity forms the main stock from which all beings are derived. Monkeys came into being after unions between early mindless humans and primitive mammals tens of millions of years ago. At that time matter was more plastic than it is now, and the barriers between species were not as pronounced. Later this act was repeated by degenerate (but no longer mindless) beings of the human stock and the descendants of the earlier hybrids (monkeys). The result was a variety of semi-human beings with more or less apelike traits. The ancient scriptures describe these beings as "apes" who resembled humans much more than our present anthropoid apes do. They also tell us that humans eventually waged war on these semi-humans and exterminated most of them, letting only the most beastlike ones live. Our present anthropoid apes are allegedly the descendants of these beastlike hybrids.

 

An evolutionary descent of this nature would explain why the physical makeup of man is decidedly primitive, while those of the animals, including mammals and anthropoid apes, is increasingly specialized. G. de Purucker points out a few of these primitive traits in his Man in Evolution, (1977), mentioning the human skull, nasal bones, facial features, skeleton, muscles, tongue, vermiform appendix, great arteries, premaxilla, and foot, as examples of primitive mammalian simplicity in human beings. The ape's foot compared to the human foot is a clear instance of specialization in the ape -- it has developed into a hand. Scientific research concerning the dental development and the position of the larynx in humans and apes has brought to light a marked difference. This research has been applied to fossil hominids and is described by Richard Leakey in his 0rigins Reconsidered (1992). It turns out that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and early Homo erectus have traits that are more apelike, while the patterns in later Homo erectus, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are human.

 

If the hypotheses brought forward in The Hidden History of the Human Race are correct, that humans are far older than commonly believed, and that humanlike and apelike beings coexisted for long periods of time, then who were Homo Australopithecus, habilis, and Homo erectus? Some scientists have already acknowledged that we really do not know where Homo sapiens came from. Could all these early hominids be the mixed forms between humans and apelike beings as described in theosophical literature? Perhaps the search for the first apeman who stood up and behaved like a human is irrelevant. Could it be that man is his own ancestor?

Edited May 23, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Marblehead]

Hi Immortal,

 

You are simply grasping at straws here.

 

What does any of this prove?

 

What is your point?

 

Okay, so one side of an arguement has its peer review and the other side has its peer review and the discussion continues.

 

I think it can fairly be said that you are a creationist; I am not.

 

Taomeow believes in magic; I do not.

 

What does all this prove?

 

Granted you still don't like evolution.

 

At least you weren't Raptured yesterday.

 

Neanderthal evolved before modern humans did. How do you like that?

 

Neanderthal became extinct (or so it is believed) and modern humans remain. Do you like that?

 

Until there is proof absolute the disagreements will continue between science and religion. There will never be proof possitive acceptable for all parties. Therefore the disagreement will continue until humans no longer exist.

 

That's just the way life is.

[henro]

And why can't you keep all tis creationist stuff in one thread ?????

[Immortal4life]

I am not a creationist. I look at research from a spiritual perspective, not a creationist perspective.

 

This is peer reviewed research, showing that scientists who believed Lucy was an ancestor to humans, were incorrect.

[Aetherous]

I find this interesting.

 

Immortal4life, do you have an opinion on the true origin of human beings?

[Marblehead]

I am not a creationist. I look at research from a spiritual perspective, not a creationist perspective.

 

This is peer reviewed research, showing that scientists who believed Lucy was an ancestor to humans, were incorrect.

 

No, that research did not show that. It show that there is doubt. That is the word that was used: Doubt.

 

Lucy is Yo Mamma but I'm not gonna' talk about Yo Mamma!

 

Okay. I will try to refrain from calling you a Creationist.

 

Ah! From a spiritual perspective. Could we approach this discussion from a Native American Spirituality point of view? That is a really nice set of concepts.

[Immortal4life]

I find this interesting.

 

Immortal4life, do you have an opinion on the true origin of human beings?

 

 

Yes.

 

It can get detailed, but for simplicity sake I think that mind and matter are very closely related. In a sense, and to an extant, a being's level of consciousness and the formation of it's physical body are closely related.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

I am not a creationist. I look at research from a spiritual perspective, not a creationist perspective.

 

This is peer reviewed research, showing that scientists who believed Lucy was an ancestor to humans, were incorrect.

 

The only peer reviewed research you cited is from the Nation Academy of Sciences. All the rest are just published opinions in popular media. Here is the abstract from the journal that you are twisting for your own agenda. I put the part you are distorting in parentheses so you can read it correctly. Nowhere does it say they are incorrect! "Casts doubt" means just more questions. That is part of research and the scientific method.

 

Your incessant patronizing posts to intelligent readers here is boring! Also if you want to judge from a spiritual perspective, the use of scientific journals is inappropriate. Quoting a spiritual text is more in line with what you are attempting to do.

 

Abstract

 

 

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and (its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.) The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=rak&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

[ralis]

No, that research did not show that. It show that there is doubt. That is the word that was used: Doubt.

 

Lucy is Yo Mamma but I'm not gonna' talk about Yo Mamma!

 

Okay. I will try to refrain from calling you a Creationist.

 

Ah! From a spiritual perspective. Could we approach this discussion from a Native American Spirituality point of view? That is a really nice set of concepts.

 

My Mamma to? :lol:

[Immortal4life]

No, that research did not show that. It show that there is doubt. That is the word that was used: Doubt.

 

Yes, that was the exact word used in the article. Doubt.

 

They try not to make absolute statements I suppose, and that is fine.

 

But come on, Austalapithicus is indeed ruled out as an ancestor of humans, or a link between humans and apes.

 

Lucy is Yo Mamma but I'm not gonna' talk about Yo Mamma!

 

Okay. I will try to refrain from calling you a Creationist.

 

In fact Lucy is not any human's great, great, great, great x 10000000 Mamma

 

Ah! From a spiritual perspective. Could we approach this discussion from a Native American Spirituality point of view? That is a really nice set of concepts.

 

That is an excellent idea.

[ralis]

Yes, that was the exact word used in the article. Doubt.

 

They try not to make absolute statements I suppose, and that is fine.

 

But come on, Austalapithicus is indeed ruled out as an ancestor of humans, or a link between humans and apes.

 

 

 

In fact Lucy is not any human's great, great, great, great x 10000000 Mamma

 

 

 

That is an excellent idea.

 

 

Did you read and understand the whole text? It is not ruled out!

Edited May 22, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

Did you read and understand the whole text? It is not ruled out!

 

Of course it is ruled out. It's like this. Evolution theory says that Humans are more similar to Chimpanzees than they are to Gorillas. If Lucy has characterics that are similar to characteristics that are unique to Gorillas, not found in either Chimpanzees or Human Beings, it can not be an ancestor of humans since humans are thought to have branched off from the Apes long after Gorillas are thought to have branched off from other apes.

 

Evolution theory has invented a clear progression and timeline for when various species allegedly "split" from one another. The theory claims Humans are more closely shaped like Chimpanzees than like Gorillas. So the ancestor that both humans and chimps supposedly split from, can not have been older than the ancestor that they claim gorillas split from.

 

Evolutionists alleged lineage

 

So, the only way they can claim Lucy is an ancestor of humans, is if they re-work their alleged lineage chats

Edited May 22, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

Here is the abstract from the journal that you are twisting for your own agenda.

 

I am not twisting anything. I have not used any devious means to twist these poor scientists words. lol.

 

I cited the actual study, and I also provided several professional mainstream news articles, which do a good job of putting these findings in laymen's terms and explaining the important points to people.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Marblehead]

Yes.

 

It can get detailed, but for simplicity sake I think that mind and matter are very closely related. In a snese, and to an extant, a being's level of consciousness and the formation of it's physical body are closely related.

 

So what came first? The chicken or the egg - the body or the mind?

[Marblehead]

My Mamma to? :lol:

 

Hehehe.

 

No, I ain't gonna' talk 'bout Yo Mamma either.

[Marblehead]

In fact Lucy is not any human's great, great, great, great x 10000000 Mamma

 

Are you really, really sure that is a fact?

 

I'm not really , really sure of it.

[ralis]

Of course it is ruled out. It's like this. Evolution theory says that Humans are more similar to Chimpanzees than they are to Gorillas. If Lucy has characterics that are similar to characteristics that are unique to Gorillas, not found in either Chimpanzees or Human Beings, it can not be an ancestor of humans since humans are thought to have branched off from the Apes long after Gorillas are thought to have branched off from other apes.

 

Evolution theory has invented a clear progression and timeline for when various species allegedly "split" from one another. The theory claims Humans are more closely shaped like Chimpanzees than to Gorrillas. So the ancestor that both humans and chimps supposedly split from, can not have been older than the ancestor that they claim gorillas split from.

 

Evolutionists alleged lineage

 

So, the only way they can claim Lucy is an ancestor of humans, is if they re-work their alleged lineage chats

 

 

Doubt and ruling out are two different things. Obviously you are not a scientist and know nothing of the methodology. Furthermore, without knowing all the research and what continues, your comments are irrelevant. Produce all the research and we will talk about it. Also why not interview these researchers and ask them directly!

 

You remind me of the climate change deniers who cherry pick to prove their agenda.

 

The opening scene from '2001 A Space Odyssey'

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9E4f0AanBE

Edited May 22, 2011 by ralis

[Marblehead]

It's like this. Evolution theory says that Humans are more similar to Chimpanzees than they are to Gorillas. If Lucy has characterics that are similar to characteristics that are unique to Gorillas, not found in either Chimpanzees or Human Beings, it can not be an ancestor of humans since humans are thought to have branched off from the Apes long after Gorillas are thought to have branched off from other apes.

 

Okay. I'll give you one. That is a valid point.

 

But we are not talking about spirituality here, are we?

[ralis]

Okay. I'll give you one. That is a valid point.

 

But we are not talking about spirituality here, are we?

 

If the point is a valid one, then it still does not invalidate evolution as Immortal so desperately wants.

[Marblehead]

If the point is a valid one, then it still does not invalidate evolution as Immortal so desperately wants.

 

Nope. I didn't say any more than I said. In fact, his post above with the graph validates evolution.

[Immortal4life]

[ralis]

Because I don't need to interview these scientists? That is unecessary and getting a

little ridiculous.

 

The Jerusalem Post has already done this for us.

 

Quote- Israeli researchers: ‘Lucy’ is not direct ancestor of humans

By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH

 

Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory that “Lucy” – the world-famous 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in Ethiopia 33 years ago – is the last ancestor common to humans and another branch of the great apes family known as the “Robust hominids.”

 

I believe you are citing the wrong research. Gracile hominids are the key to human evolution. This is not a peer reviewed article and yet it provides some data to start from. In fact your graph points it out.

 

Again, what is your point?

 

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2001/nov/ancestor.htm

Edited May 22, 2011 by ralis

[Marblehead]

[Immortal4life]

Nope. I didn't say any more than I said. In fact, his post above with the graph validates evolution.

 

No it doesn't.

 

You can't use the evolutionist's conclusion as support for their conclusion. That's circular logic. The fact that they created a chart, doesn't make the chart necessarily true. The existence of the chart can't be used as evidence supporting the chart.

[Marblehead]

No it doesn't.

 

You can't use the evolutionist's conclusion as support for their conclusion. That's circular logic. The fact that they created a chart, doesn't make the chart necessarily true. The existence of the chart can't be used as evidence supporting the chart.

 

Hehehe.

 

I gotta' go feed my fish but I'll be back.