Complete Creation, 2nd Ed. Part 16 with Wazooloo

[SANHEDRIN666]

Obviously this idiot has no understanding about evolution, nor any research behind it. Not surprisingly his great works are NOT taught in universities. What an absolute Dumbass

[zelda0521]

Problem is ancient dictionaries or Chinese language experts already documented or studied the origin of many characters and they don't have biblical relationships that some Christians would like to believe. A lot if not all of the characters shown in this video have different explanations of their origin if one reads a Chinese dictionary. Many chinese characters have changed a lot, some people take their present form and fit the bible in there when the earlier form has different symbols.

[grimordwow]

Wow, amazing. Only 1 minute and 9 seconds in and I've already spotted a lie. Don't you christians have some kind of commandment telling you NOT to lie?

The lie? You can search it for yourself (hint: google, not the bible), but being in that layer wasn't what made them "assume" the toe bone was part of the skeleton. There's this one thing called DNA, you know? Now connect the dots.

[BathTubNZ]

Why does he identify Lucy's left lower leg/ankle as a knee? And then pretend it's the entirely separate knee joint fossil AL 129-1? It's interesting that he references the talkorigins page dedicated to how creationists make this deliberate deception, so he must have known what he's doing.

[Groxtheorc]

hehe im just blown away form that part about the chinese characters. looks like the story oftower of is taking ground

[Bueller007]

Protoavis was not a bird...

[Bueller007]

The "collagen fiber" argument for Sinosauropteryx is now known to be bunk. We have recovered melanosomes showing that they were keratinized epidermal structures (e.g., protofeathers).

The "flightless bird" theory for Caudipteryx is rejected by the scientific community because of the features that it shares with oviraptorid dinosaurs.

Archaeopteryx was "just a bird" with teeth and a skeleton identical to a non-avian dinosaur's. Ian might want to look up Anchiornis w.r.t. the "temporal paradox".

[Bueller007]

I thought Ian was supposed to be familiar with dinosaurs... He does realize that there was a trend in derived saurischians to develop a bird-like pelvis, right? Has he never seen a dromaeosaur pelvis?

[Bueller007]

Pakicetus was classified as a cetacean based on their shared unique inner ear structure, which is indeed part of the skull that was recovered.

However, Pakicetus's inner ear LACKS most of the specializations to aquatic environments that are found in whales, and it was found together with terrestrial animals. The scientists who published it suggested that it was a terrestrial-amphibious intermediate.

Why is this putz showing textbook pictures instead of looking to the scientific literature?

[Bueller007]

The paragraphs before and after the ones that Juby quotes make it clear that the knee joint belongs to a DIFFERENT A. afarensis skeleton. It's not Lucy's.

"In November 1973... I found a perfectly preserved knee joint (minus the kneecap)... In 1974, "Lucy" was found ... some 2-1/2 km northeast of the knee joint locality... As you can see, these are two very different discoveries; the 1973 knee joint in the lower part of the stratigraphic section, and "Lucy"'s skeleton some 70 m above it."

[GPLeague]

Got to hand it to you Mr Juby, your arguments are a bit more sophisticated than Dr. Hovind/Baugh's. Still, I think most of your assessments are superficial. Saying T. roseae is "just a fish" is not going to cut it; Dr. Shubin would be most disappointed.

[coolvideo28]

The Truth is so refreshing keep the Great videos coming.

God Bless you

[BLUCOPPER123]

Dang! Terrencje and Teno22 had a HUGE debate, bigger than mine haha. GJ 5/5 just to make sure ill do the chinease research for myself to find the oldest oracles or w.e they are.

[BLUCOPPER123]

Nevermind i read my commet corrected this dude does not stop replying with the same old comments. I probally doubled there debate.

[Iraqveterankill4real]

@BLUCOPPER123 its not about how much anyone person can produce in a debate it is about the facts contained within the statements/evidence. Plato once said "wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something". The question is are you a fool or a wise man who listens.

[jhbbunch]

This guy is an idiot. Lovejoy's reconstruction was dead accurate, as discoveries of intact hip structures has shown. The original configuration of the hip was anatomically impossible. One of the pieces was 90 degrees out of whack. The knee joint was never claimed to belong to Lucy, it is never shown with the Lucy remains, it has it's own catalog number. This guy is very deceptive and very ill-informed.

[Lacocacolaman]

WOw... HA HA ha someone is in denial. even when they see Lovejoy bring out his chain saw they still believe in it. Poor poor guys

[wILLiamking777]

hahaha pretty funny isn't it

[jnjoblon]

I can't tell if this guy is serious or if he's joking.

[9pt9]

EVOLUTION IS OWNED

[hyperseauton]

@9pt9

a) No, it is not.

b) Shut the fuck up, you stupid fucktard.

[grimordwow]

@9pt9 Evolution is owned? Have you ever opened a book? Or do you just accept the bullshit these guys tell you, without bothering to go check if it's true, and claim victory? Humanity conquered the world through curiosity and intelligence, and you creationist fucktards are just trying to bring us back in time, just because you're too lazy to get a proper education.

[9pt9]

@grimordwow Wow swearing at somebody you don't even know. See

How depraved you are? You need Jesus to forgive your sins.

And ofc evolution is owned.

[grimordwow]

@9pt9 I'm not half as depraved as the sexual predator you take for a pastor/priest. I need jesus to forgive my sins? You need to educate yourself to stop being such a burden to human progress.

[9pt9]

@grimordwow I have an education and still know evolution doesn't happen anywhere close to what they indoctrinate students with.

[grimordwow]

@9pt9 You KNOW Evolution doesn't happen? Then you have proof. If you have proof, why don't you present it? Why don't you show us your hypothesis? If you're right, and not just distorting facts, quote-mining and misinterpreting, then you'll prove it and most likely win a Nobel Prize. :)

[9pt9]

@grimordwow The Cambrian explosion and the fossil record demolish the theory. Everything suddenly appears already complex with eyes, brains and hearts etc. Then then the fossils show almost zero change over supposed eons of time. Seriously, think about it.

[grimordwow]

@9pt9 The Cambrian Explosion? Seriously? THAT is your argument? Do you have any idea how many times that has been addressed? Are just being dishonest or too lazy to do a google search? Don't trust the internet? Go to your local college, preferably one with a museum (or with ties to one) and ask for an explanation on the Cambrian Explosion and the formation of eyes. Also, search for an extensive chart of the known fossil record. Do you base all your opinions in only one side of the argument?

[9pt9]

@grimordwow Yes seriously. They had to make up that retarded "punctuated equilibrium" theory to explain the (still) unexplainable Cambrian explosion. Completely made up excuse instead of just saying we need another theory. Am I being dishonest? Lol There is no evidence or observable mechanism for the origin of complex biosystems. If there was I'd believe the theory. God could have made life thru evolution but clearly He didn't.

[9pt9]

@grimordwow Fossil chart? You mean an

Artists rendering of what the theory says happened.

[IStickyVI]

@9pt9 That statement alone makes anything else you say not worth listening to. Please keep your ignorance to yourself.

[Sabianstix85]

@grimordwow What?, so just because a fiew priests do it they al must huh?

Boy you evolutionists and your assuming never ends huh?

heres the facts sonny jim, all the above transitions are fakes and frauds!, deal with it!.

[grimordwow]

@Sabianstix85 Just because you're too dumb to understand it doesn't make it false.

[thxoneonethreeeight]

this is awesome, this guys good, thanks for putting this on you tube.

[kp13822]

No scientist would argue that a single find is "proof of evolution" as this person suggests. The abundance of evidence, however, definitely points towards evolution. This guy makes NO convincing points and is very misleading.

[kp13822]

The evidence that "Protoavis" was a bird is very suspect. Most paleontologists believe it was not a bird at all. More specimens would need to be found to give this claim any support.

[bradyspace]

ha ha, i thought the platypus was my sarcastic missing link to all the critters. that is so funny. Ya the evolutionist doesn't like to talk about the platypus.

[Bunyipz]

i do and what about echidnas the other montreme....

Please lets hear you're thoughtless mind numbing commentary on this subject

[Terrencje]

Thats right, move the goalposts.

Lucy didn't walk upright, then it wasn't ancestral, then it doesn't even count as transitional fossil.

No transitional creatures, italian walllizards with cecal valves are not transitional between the italian walllizard and a species that has to emerge from these distinct lizards, it is just variation. So when we see a population transiting to a new species throught new features it is just variation. How could we ever find transitions then? Goalpostmover4life?

[Terrencje]

"Tiktaalik: Okay, EVERY creature we have observed throughout history has produced after their own kind, so it is logical, and consistent with the known and observed facts to expect tiktaalik did likewise."

Ah the kinds...you forgot to wield your magic wand so Im not impressed. I know you struggle with definitions so I will not ask the definition of a kind....

[Terrencje]

"Even if she was, that doesn't mean she's an ancestor of man."

With all the features shown in A. afarensis they make a great transitional fossil. You can never say who evolved into who precisly or who is the exact ancestor of modern animals. But you can search for creatures in the fossil record with features that has features similar to earlier and later organisms in their phylogeny.

And they find them. They find many actually. Simpler bats, simpler turtles, synapsids, tetrapodomorphs etc.

[Teno22]

Just because creatures have similar features doesn't mean they have evolved from each other. Common features signify a Creator using the same plan, like Chrysler Neon and Stratus.

Most fossil creatures are very similar to the modern varieties. The earliest bats used echolocation - hardly simple.

[Terrencje]

"Just because creatures have similar features doesn't mean they have evolved from each other. Common features signify a Creator using the same plan, like Chrysler Neon and Stratus."

So there are no transitional fossils.

Then when presented with a few and their features it is just common design. Even when they are predicted by evolution to be found and when they are in the exact same timespan as mtDNA allows...

[Teno22]

Right, there are no provable transitional fossils. If we found a fossil of a duckbilled platypus, surely we would think that was a transitional, although we know it's not becuase they exist today.

Similar creatures are just similar creatures, not transitionals. A mouse is not a wingless transitional to a bat, even though it has some similarities.

BTW, just a couple months ago they found a new fossil bat, oldest yet. Just like modern, including echolocation adaptations.

[Terrencje]

When we would find a basal platypuslike fossil rougly 130 million years old it would count as a transitional fossil. The age of divergence is correct, the features are correct.

This does not mean it is ancestral (your confusing ancestral with transitional), but it does mean we would find a nessesary fossil.

And that is the point. We can never say which fossils are our ancestors, but we can find fossils in the right place that show structures from older and newer fossils in phylogeny.

[Teno22]

Dates (even if legit) don't indicate ancestry either. If a Neon is from 1998 and a Stratus is from 2006, that doesn't mean the Neon evolved into a Stratus. Nor does similarity indicate that an Intrepid is a transitional between the Neon and Stratus.

I saw the bat article a few months ago. I didn't bookmark it knowing you'd bring up bats a few months later. If I find it, I'll let you know the name.

[Terrencje]

"Dates (even if legit) don't indicate ancestry either."

Thats not the point of transitional fossils. But evolutionary theory does not predict ancestral fossils. Only fossils of creatures that have primitive features and derived features according to molecular phylogeny. And the theory of evolution gives good predictions for finding fossils (such as early whale fossils, synapsid fossils, tiktaalik, earliest turtle fossils and early hominin fossils).

[Teno22]

You MUST have common ancestry for evolution to be true. Creation would predict we'd find fossils of creatures with similar traits because life has many things in common at the structural level. That doesn't mean any different kinds of creatures had common ancestors.

[Terrencje]

"You MUST have common ancestry for evolution to be true."

True, but you can't see undoubtfull ancestry in the rocks. Therefore you can only satisfy with fossils that show features of creatures that lived before it and creatures who live after it according to phylogeny. Big chance that Tiktaalik isn't our ancestor, but that doesn't mean it is a great transitional fossil because of the mixed features.

Like I said before: transitional doesn't equal ancestral.

[Teno22]

Mixed features do not indicate something is transitional, or the platypus would eb considered a transitional. Tiktaalik reproduced other tiktaaliks, every time. We've never observed ANY creature produce a transition to another. Believing in transitionals is not science, it's faith.

[Terrencje]

"Mixed features do not indicate something is transitional"

omg that is the very DEFINITION of transitional fossil!

"Tiktaalik reproduced other tiktaaliks, every time."

Ever seen that happen? No? Not science, thats FAITH!

"We've never observed ANY creature produce a transition to another."

But when we observe this (like in the italian wall lizard) it is STILL a lizard. So it is never good enough for people like you anyway

[Teno22]

Yes, and your definition proves to be a fairy tale, not reality.

Tiktaalik: Okay, EVERY creature we have observed throughout history has produced after their own kind, so it is logical, and consistent with the known and observed facts to expect tiktaalik did likewise. It goes against facts, observations, reality, and reason to expect otherwise from ticky-tack.

I'm glad to see you admit a lizard is still a lizard. Now we're getting somewhere. That's not evolution, that's variation.

[Terrencje]

"Yes, and your definition proves to be a fairy tale, not reality."

finding animals of the correct age with the correct features was a nessecary thing for evolutionary theory right? Because without them the theory is false, but with them it doesn't count because you assert another meaning to the word transitional.

At least evolution predict the fossils we find. Without evolution, we would have more than half less the interresting fossils.

[Terrencje]

"BTW, just a couple months ago they found a new fossil bat, oldest yet. Just like modern, including echolocation adaptations."

Could you tell me it's name?

[Terrencje]

"The earliest bats used echolocation"

There is evidence that the first bats flew before they had eccolocation. Fully developed wings to fly but no adaptations in the skull for eccolocation: Onychonycteri.

"- hardly simple."

I said simpler, not simple...

[Terrencje]

About the foot.

They made a hypothesis, the bones of the feet of A. afarensis that were available matched those of O.H. 8 (H. habilis), they reconstructed a foot using O.H 8, and predicted that the foot of A. afarensis might have looked like this.

Falsification: findings of a A. afarensis foot that do not match the prediction.

Fraud, no. Hypothesis, yes.

If someone uses this prediction as evidence, it is HIS dishonesty. Just like creation musea.

[Teno22]

"They made a hypothesis"

You mean they made a GUESS. They took a HUMAN foot (homo habilis) and applied it to a chimp foot (afarensis).

Yes, that's fraud. They made it up.

[Terrencje]

- Hypothesis is the same as a Guess.

- They guessed what the foot must be like and put it under scruteny of falsification.

- This hypothesis is falsified when finding a A. afarensis foot that doesn't match these predictions.

- They never claimed that that constructed foot was proof of how the foot must have looked like. They state it is a guess.

- When someone else uses it as proof of how the foot of A. afarensis looked like they are guilty of fraud. But that has nothing to do with peer review.

[Teno22]

Where do they state it as a guess? Not in the museums where the PUBLIC gets the information. I've been to the Chicago Field Museum where Lucy is on display. There is nothing to indicate the foot is a fabricated guess. They may admit it in some technical journal that almost nobody sees, but they leave the perception to the public that the foot is genuine. That's fraud and misrepresentaion.

[Terrencje]

"That's fraud and misrepresentaion."

And you are right, when no complete foot is found of A. afarensis, no museum can state the constructed foot is the real deal.

So you suggest the technical journal must report these frauds or something?

Talked to the owner of the museum yet?

[datRock]

Wow, this is full of silly falsehoods, but he didn't even get his chinese etymology right ... yeesh

[KnowledgeAddicted]

Cool vids Ian, many new infos i didnt know yet!!!

[Bunyipz]

who is this moronic windbag

[iamleavingchina]

LivelyASweet get a load of this. His chinese word 'first' includes one character for man, then his word 'happiness' uses a different character for man. Both happen to be the wrong character for 'man' in Chinese. 'Huangdi' is actually 2 chinese characters, his again was wrong, as well huangdi is the mythical yellow emperor.

The word for naked is also 2 characters, somehow you come up with a 3rd character for man which again is wrong.

What university do you attend again to discount evolution?

[worm102]

What do you know about the "oracle bones" iamleaving china? Are you an expert on the subject please share your sources and evidence for your claims.

[iamleavingchina]

I never mentioned 'oracle bones' why are you?

I simply stated that Ian utilized the Chinese language incorrectly to prove it has something to do with the bible. My statements are easily checked by anyone with net access. Feel free to look up yourself how incorrect Ian is.

[worm102]

If you listen "oracle bones" are famous Chinese artifacts that predate to about 4200 years ago. The "oracle bones" are much closer to the original Chinese text.

[iamleavingchina]

Thats nice, what does them being old have to do with a connection to the bible as Ian describes?

[sweatytoothmadman]

Dr. Johnson found a complete knee joint one year (AL 129-1) and the next he found Lucy (AL 288) without a complete knee joint, he never put AL 129-1 in with the specimen Lucy but he did catalog them as the same species. You can confirm this by either reading the entire article that was presented to you or look up the following individual fossils find AL 129-1 with Lucy AL 288. If you do you will see the knee joint AL 129-1 was complete Lucys knee AL 288 was not just by looking at the pictures.

[Teno22]

How did Mr. Johnson (do you mean Johanson?) know the knee joint in fact belonged to the same species as Lucy? I've seen the reconstruction of Lucy at the Chicago Field Museum, complete with HUMAL-LIKE FEET - despite the fact no bones from feet were found. It is PURE PROPAGANDA, a total FABRICATION.

[sweatytoothmadman]

"How did Mr. Johnson (do you mean Johanson?) know the knee joint in fact belonged to the same species as Lucy?"

Because a partial knee joint was found with Lucy and the morphology matched the AL 129-1 which was found a year earlier not to mention other findings.

"despite the fact no bones from feet were found"

Lucy isn't the only example, there is another that has it's hands and feet intact. So much for pure propaganda.

[Teno22]

Lucy isn't the only example of what? How do you know the other alleged example is the same species as Lucy?

Please don't tell me the other bones match when we SAW the other bones put to a GRINDDER to force them to fit. If the bones from the other creature match Lucy, it's a sure bet it's NOT the same species, since Lucy's bones were disfigured from their original form.

[sweatytoothmadman]

"Lucy isn't the only example of what?"

a afarensis

"How do you know the other alleged example is the same species as Lucy?"

A simple google search would suffice.

"Please don't tell me the other bones match when we SAW the other bones put to a GRINDDER to force them to fit."

Actually more creationists propaganda all Dr. Lovejoy did was cut away the plaster. This is a man who does reconstruction for the police in homicide investigations.

[Teno22]

If a creature of the same species as Lucy, yet more complete, was found a year BEFORE Lucy, what made Lucy so special?

The morphology matched because they took Lucy to the GRINDSTONE to foce it to match.

Calling it pure propaganda was an understatement. How about an INTENTIONAL DECEPTION?

[sweatytoothmadman]

"If a creature of the same species as Lucy, yet more complete, was found a year BEFORE Lucy, what made Lucy so special?"

There have been finds after Lucy, she was the first and that's what make her so special.

"The morphology matched because they took Lucy to the GRINDSTONE to foce it to match."

No, again they were just cutting away the plaster, Dr. Lovejoy and Johanson explain this because Lovejoy does the same things for police investigations.

[Teno22]

Lucy was first? Earlier you said AL 129-1 was found first. Do you know what you're talking about? (Well, you confused Johnson for Johanson, so apparently not).

Cutting away plaster? It was a plaster cast - it was ALL plaster. He shaped it the way he wanted it.

Why didn't they place the actual bone pieces together? Wouldn't they fit?

[Terrencje]

If Lucy's morphology wasn't the way they presented they would be slaughtered in peer review. There are groups of scientists who do not like Lucy or Australopithecines to be our ancestors so they would destroy any evidence of bipedalism if they were not genuine.

Besides, we have more australopithecine hipbones to match it with...

[Teno22]

Peer review kept pretty quiet about Lucy's feet being fabricated. They've kept rather quiet about different museums having different recreations of Lucy. They've said only a little about Lucy's pure ape jaw. They've been rather mum about Lucy's knuckle-walking wrists. Why should we expect peer review to upset the evolutionary applecart?

[Terrencje]

"Peer review kept pretty quiet about Lucy's feet being fabricated."

With a few search seconds I find the peer reviewed article that states they used elements from O.H. 8 (Homo habilis) for reconstruction of the foot.

"They've kept rather quiet about different museums having different recreations of Lucy."

Museums can place anything they want for all I care, answersingenesis does that too.

[Terrencje]

"They've said only a little about Lucy's pure ape jaw."

Lucy WAS an ape. What is your point?

Its jaw is not much different from Chimpanzee jaws, but not so distinct from human jaws too. A. afarensis only holds the U form just like a Chimp.

"They've been rather mum about Lucy's knuckle-walking wrists."

They have shown A. afarensis had very similar hands to humans, it is also shown that if A. afarensis knucklewalked they would use more than twice the same energy than walking erect.

[Teno22]

Yes, Lucy was an ape. Not a link between apes and humans.

The jaw is a chimp V.

You have to assume humanlike feet that Lucy did not have to claim she walked erect. She DOES have the knuckle-walking wrists, so what we actually KNOW is she walked like an ape. You only GUESS and HOPE she walked like a human.

Thank you for admitting they fabricated her foot from another creature. They took human feet and put them on an ape. That's FRAUD. Too bad your peer-reviewers won't point it out.

[Terrencje]

We only know A. afarensis was capable of knucklewalking and probably also treeclimbing, but she could definitly not walk like other knuckle walking apes because the rest of the skeleton doesn't allow it. If we would have hands like a knuckle walker we couldn't suddenly walk as good as chimps or Gorillas, our bipedalism (and observed bipedalism in A. afarensis) forbids it, energy cost is at least twice as high forcing us to bipedal locomotion again.

A. afarensis was Bipedal, get over it.

[Teno22]

Rest of the skeleton? It is a very incomplete skeleton (albeit more complete than many others evolutionist make wild assumptions from).

Who observed bipedalism in afarensis? Are you that old?

Lucy was probably not any more bipedal than modern chimps. Even if she was, that doesn't mean she's an ancestor of man. Birds are bipedal. Shouldn't we stil have feathers?

[Terrencje]

"Lucy was probably not any more bipedal than modern chimps."

- The pelvis is far more human like than chimplike

- Femur is more humanlike than chimplike

- Anklejoint is human like

- Hands are human like with only slightly longer fingers and wristlock

- Spinal cords exits the skull just like humans, far from how that goes with quadrupels.

A. africanus also has sexual dimorphism in spine because of pregancy in bipedal apes (like we have) and not like quadsrupes or aboreals.

[Teno22]

Lucys anatomy reveals that she is a tree-dwelling ape with hands and feet even longer and more curved than a chimpanzees

Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Rochester, Virginia: Park Street Press, 1997), 207.

[Terrencje]

Try:

Alba DM, Moyà-Solà S, Köhler M. Morphological affinities of the Australopithecus afarensis hand on the basis of manual proportions and relative thumb length. J Hum Evol. 2003 Feb;44(2):225-54.

Or:

Tocheri MW, Orr CM, Jacofsky MC, Marzke MW. The evolutionary history of the hominin hand since the last common ancestor of Pan and Homo. J Anat. 2008 Apr;212(4):544-62.

[Teno22]

A UPGMA clustering diagram illustrates the similarity between the radii of A. anamensis and A. afarensis and those of the knuckle-walking African apes.

The skeletal anatomy of australopithecine fossils indicates a stooped gait, probably similar to the rolling knuckle-walk of chimps.

[Teno22]

Using multivariate analysis, anatomist Dr Charles Oxnard has shown that the big toe actually sticks out as in chimpanzees.

Australopithecine fossil foot bones show that Lucy could not possibly have made the Laetoli footprints.

CAT scans of australopithecine inner ear canals (reflecting posture and balance) by anatomist Dr Fred Spoor and his colleagues at University College, London, showed they did not walk habitually upright.

[Teno22]

The Dikika "Lucy child" had distinctly ape-like skull, a hyoid bone virtually identical to that of a chimp, a curved finger bone typical of tree dwelling apes, a gorilla-like shoulder blade for tree climbing and knuckle walking, and inner ear characteristics that confirm a largely quadrupedal locomotion.

Fingers and toes of other specimens of Lucys kind are long and curved, and the arms were long like tree-swinging apes.

same wrist mechanism as do chimps and gorillas.

[Terrencje]

Thank you for telling me more information I already knew. If she wouldn't have these features, she wouldn't be considered an intermediate, she would be placed as a Homo without those knucklewalking features.

So what do we know about A. afarensis?

She has ape like features as you describe and human like features that I describe.

Hmm clearly transitional....

[Teno22]

So what was Lucy? Oxnards multivariate analysis showed that Lucy could not possibly be an intermediate missing link between humans and knuckle-walking ape-like ancestors. He found that the australopithecine fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique

[Terrencje]

His analysis placed Ramapithecus (a species now classified in the Sivapithecus) very close to humans and placed the then known Sivapithecus fossils closer related to orang-utangs but later they found out Ramapithecus was just a species of Sivapithecus...talk about accurate.

Still done nothing with A. afarensis's foramen magnum, more humanlike teeth and the other human like features...

[Teno22]

His analysis says they are not transitional. Spin it however you like, you're arguing with your own side, not with me.

[Terrencje]

So what do I choose as usefull information? An outdated study with shacky and hardly any usefull results or the multiple studies done with locomotion, the femur, pelvis and foramen magnum screaming BIPEDAL, with some adaptations left for knucklewalking (heck we would expect that and even we have (slightly lesser) adaptations for knucklewalking, we can knucklewalk, and the way we do is just a little more inconveniant than A. afarensis would with her bipedal charakteristics.

[Teno22]

8-05 Scientific American suggests there might be a problem. Harcourt-Smith (American Museum of Natural History) and Hilton (WMU) challenge Lucys bipedality. They claim that the reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot is based on a mixture, some from the 3.2 myo A. afarensis collection, and some from the 1.8 myo Homo habilis collection. They claim the navicular, used to determine that the A. afarensis foot was arched, actually was a habilis fossil foot bone, not an afarensis fossil foot bone.

[Terrencje]

cont..

"Why should we expect peer review to upset the evolutionary applecart?"

Some scientists want to have Ardipithecus ramidus as our ancestors, some want Orrorin tunegensis as our direct ancestor (they claimed the femur looked more human like than that of Australopithecines). So they will examine every detail of Australopithecus trying to falsifie it as a human ancestor.

[sweatytoothmadman]

"It is PURE PROPAGANDA, a total FABRICATION."

As for propaganda what do you think of this video that stated Lucy was found in multiple locations when in fact that isn't true? This has been a consistent lie among creationists and they refuse to stop repeating it.

[patcowan70]

Great job again Ian.

[worm102]

Yeah this Awesome, best stuff I've ever come across in my life, this is gold! God Bless you Ian.

[biggbaddjohn]

This is Awesome !!!! Thanks Mr Juby. I really appreciate you making this available