Your point being . . . what exactly? What's this got to do with the fossils under discussion?


OK, so you've looked at the diagram I linked to? You don't think that Australopithecus rather more resembles modern humans?

The quotes you gave from the pdf don't dispute this. If you read the entire file you will have found that it is up-front and honest (imagine that) about what we still don't understand, and what doubts there are. There are few doubts that most of the fossils under discussion here were indeed bipedal; the example you quoted discusses evidence for remaining arboreal characteristics. Presumably you don't assume that because these hominids could climb, they could not also be bipedal.

You have ignored much thoroughly-discussed evidence at that site about how the foot fossils show transition from ape to human, and how they display different bipedal characteristics. In particular you will see the tarsus (one of the heel bones) and the hallux (big toe) feature prominently -- because they provide evidence of how the foot was in transition from being ape-like to human.


I've seen this comment before. You'll finish here and start a new thread about how evolutionists are liars, all the while dodging questions about evolution that make a creationist interpretation difficult.


Your quote here was very predictable. There is a frank discussion of issues still to be clarified and studied and the creationist will at this point ignore everything else that's been said and seize on the fact that scientists don't know everything, and are in some doubt about things.

What they are in doubt about here, if you'd read carefully (as I did because I knew this point would come up), is that precisely pinning down the phylogenetic trees of human ancestry is difficult because a) it would be helpful to have more fossils; and b) it appears that bipedalism might have evolved independently in several different species, which makes it more complicated to trace through the ancestral line. That these species were bipedal is not in much doubt -- did you catch the comment about how homo erectus appears to have been better at walking than us, because we have had to adapt to carry and give birth to children with large brains? Also, the disputes about human phylogeny are not huge. If you look at the cladograms in the link, you will see that they all match quite closely, with disputes about where to place a few specific species (or sub-species).

When people say that they have all the evidence they need and no longer need to question or learn, that's when alarm bells should be ringing. Do creationists ever feel they want to see more evidence, or do they question? Strange things for scientists to be doing who allegedly want to conspire to "fool" everyone with "evolutionism."

Now would you like to have a go at discussing the skulls? Despite your claims, you haven't answered the question: how would you classify them? Your beliefs forbid you to consider that they might be transitional, so what are they: ape or human?