Another question I have is why CTD seems to fixate his questions on hand and foot bones. What makes you think that a) it is crucial to have these in order to work out the probability of the organism being bipedal; and b) that none exist? Or that certain crucial ones (please define) don't exist?
I did not fixate my questions. I remain fixed in my answer to
your question.
I haven't said anything at all about bipedalism. But if it'll help, I'll point out that people can learn to walk on their hands. I'll even offer you a "proof" of evolution I haven't seen before: babies learn to crawl on all fours before they learn to walk.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Well, then again, maybe I have seen it before - my memory's kind of foggy sometimes. But if it's new, you could be a hero.
You can read
here about hominid fossils, including information about how the leg bones and pelvis can tell us about bipedal locomotion.
Here is a picture of the pelvises and leg bones of a chimpanzee,
Australopithecus africanus, and a modern human. And also their feet.
What's so important about this ape man business? The way you carry on, it's like Darwin needs to be proven right about them, or everything else he said fails.
It is undeniable that africanus resembles the modern human bones. The fossil called Lucy is an australopithecus.
Undeniable? Your pdf says otherwise.
Similar controversy surrounds the
Australopithecus
afarensis
foot bones from Hadar, Ethiopia (
c
. 3.0–3.4 Ma)
that are described by some as being compliant with full
bipedal locomotion (Latimer & Lovejoy, 1982, 1989, 1990a,b;
Latimer et al. 1987), whereas others have suggested
that the same fossils show traits that indicate a mosaic
of terrestrial and arboreal locomotion (Susman & Stern,
1982, 1991; Stern & Susman, 1983, 1991; Susman, 1983;
Susman et al. 1985; Duncan et al. 1994; Berillon, 1998,
1999, 2000). Both sides of this controversy can also be
supported by the analysis of other aspects of postcranial
anatomy (e.g. Stern & Susman, 1983; Lovejoy et al. 2002).
And
Tuttle & Basmajian (1974) rejected Washburn’s
original ‘knuckle-walking’ hypothesis on the grounds
that modern human hands showed no evidence of
a knuckle-walking ancestry. Both Dainton (2001) and
Lovejoy et al. (2001) have also questioned the modern
revival of the hypothesis by offering different interpretations
of the
A. afarensis
wrist morphology.
Leave it to an evolutionist to deny the undeniable. What makes them do that?
I'm wondering if anyone else is learning to appreciate the frequency with which your links contradict your claims.
Now, will you answer my questions?
I'll make no commitment just now. If I stumble across some good supporting sites, or an amusing explanation occurs to me, I may answer at such time as shall be convenient for me, or inconvenient for you.
Speaking of off-topic questions, have you chanced to come upon evidence yet of any 19th century evidence-based conversions from biblical creationism to evolutionism? It's been quite a while now, and just maybe you have one name, huh?
RAZD wrote:
Yes "little foot" (mentioned in your article) is good for some amusing creo dancing .... Australopithicine, fits the Laetoli (bipedal footprints) and has a big toe intermediate between chimp and human.
And there are pictures in the pdf showing how much of the "little foot" is based on imagination. They also explain that the "hypothesis" associated with it involves
gorilla ancestors for humankind. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/boogie.gif" alt="" /> Amused?
I don't think the pdf link helps the cause of evolutionism very much. They're too honest:
Although emphasis on the likely ancestral locomotor
mode of hominins and on the transformation of the
ape foot into a human foot may have changed over
the years, there is still no current consensus on these
issues and there is unlikely to be one in the near future.
Furthermore, by its very nature, this approach, which is
based on the comparative anatomy of living species
and selected fossil evidence, and informed by changing
phylogenetic hypotheses, cannot answer essential questions
in relation to the pattern of bipedal evolution in
the hominin line once it separated from the line leading
to the living African apes.
Should've stuck with talkdeceptions. But then again, who has any confidence in them these days?
Who'll be the first to say "these are just trivial details & they fully agree about everything important"? Whoever you are, I laugh in advance!
