Lucy (Australopithecus)

quote:

---

Conclusion? It's a hypothetical reconstruction. For display in a museum, not for scientific study.
Is the skin color and the amount of hair, eyes, etc accurate? No, nor is it claimed to be.

---

Ok I guess thats what I was scratching my head over.I see these sculptures that are shown in museums. Drawings like this And I see a striking similarity with renaissance art the way its presented. But as you said it's a hypothetical reconstruction where the finer details like hair amount, etc are an artists impression.Correct me if I'm wrong here. As the population grew in Africa about 100,000ya groups migrated, evolving (on a small scale of physical features) into different races around the world. (Depending on your definition of race and how broadly you define them) Caucasians in Europe, the Indian sub continent, into east Asia where they crossed the Bering strait into the Americas. Two other races emerged from Asia. The Polynesians and Aboriginals.So if these races remained isolated from each other could they have eventually evolved into different species of human right?

LoL dude it's not my fault your blind but I'll help you out by repeating the answer to your question... NO

If totally isolated, with no modern technology, and in different harsh environments, you would see different traits being selected for. Add a lot of time and you could get different species, but don't wait up...

Which is pretty much what has been found. The number of species included in the genus Homo has kept on growing as more and more data is discovered.

Firstly I did post a quote from that link.
Secondly I have received many bare links without fear or predjudice.
I actually encourage supporting references of any kind.And I don't understand what you mean by this

quote:

---

we have seen too many creationists link to a source that is either a creationist source (as you have already done)

---

If your saying I have used a religious based argument show me where...Otherwise it sounds as though you dismiss a source if written by a creationist regardless of weather the argument is secular. Thats not science, its just childish.
Another example of debating a persons view and not the subject.Apparently 15% of the leading ToE scientists are in fact creationists anyway. So according to your method we should dissmiss everything as another incorrect scientific theory then. Thats just silly.

They also use modern analogues to do these reconstructions. For example, the correlation between human skin color and latitude is well known. Populations at higher latitudes tend to have fairer skin than populations at lower latitudes because of the selection pressures for skin cancer and vitamin D production. The size of a muscle correlates with the size of the bone it is attached to, so smaller fragile bones will have smaller muscles attached to them. All of this allows artists to add an approximate details to the skull.At the end of the day, scientists use the bones themselves to determine if they are transitional, not these reconstructions.

It is always better to go to the original source, the scientists who actually did the science. Creationists on creationist websites aren't doing the science.

Correct. Dismiss with prejudice. Creationist simply do not tell the truth, constantly misrepresent sources and take lines out of context.No one should ever trust anything that comes from Creationist.

Make that an educated, evidence informed rendition and I'll agree. It's a bit more than someone making a pretty picture. Make that 200,000 years ago, and then add in some localized interbreeding with Neanderthals and Homo erectus as the various tribes dispersed across open (for hominids) ecological challenges and I would agree. Human ancestry is somewhat 'braided' rather than strict lineal descent, and there was some interbreeding before species became settled.See Interweaving Evolution & Hybrid VigorTechnically correct, but it would take many generations. Consider Native American and European explorer interbreeding.Enjoy

quote:

---

Correct. Dismiss with prejudice. Creationist simply do not tell the truth, constantly misrepresent sources and take lines out of context.
No one should ever trust anything that comes from Creationist.

---

Seriously? Every single one of them?
I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say that 15% of top ToE scienctists in the highest academy or something are creos. (not sure how cos the adam and eve yarn goes up in flames). Even them?How about if a piece of data is found that may support one of their things. I dunno some dates might not match up or something? Are scientists also dissmissing without prejeduce?

I would imagine you misheard. Perhaps he said 15% of top scientists are Christians. But it is absolutely impossible for someone to be a Creationist and honest when it comes to science. No Creationists have ever come up with any new data or done any honest "Creation" research. It is simply impossible.There is no culture of truth or honesty in Creationism and quite frankly, there cannot be such a culture.

I can't find any trace of this. But maybe some are. Based on my experience yes, even them.I've been involved in this debate for 20-ish years and haven't come across any valid science that supports their claims. I've seen some doozies of frauds. When and if that happens we'll deal with the evidence as it stands. So far there haven't been any opportunities to test the question. Mostly they are ignoring. For good reason.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I can't find any trace of this. But maybe some are. Based on my experience yes, even them.

---

On this clip go to 12:00. Neil says it there.
(If Im allowed to use references. Apparently Its illegal for me to)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN33tstYB50I guess what Im saying is that type of hate and stereotype is no good for science. Sure there will always be fanatics and their the people you guys are speaking of probs.
So I can't trust them because of their looking to oppose ToE.
So one might say ToE atheiest can't be trusted cos their only out to form a theory against creation.I watched this doco on Australopithecus. (Non-creo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR_9_5gxvxg
I notice this kind of urgency to present this so called "human missing link" which lead to hysteria, propaganda and painting a picture we are not 100% sure about. As admittedly we could do with more fossils which are obviously difficult to encounter.Yes its fair to say that humans most likley evolved from early primate species. Australopithecus may be directly related to us. But there is also a very good chance that particular species is not related directly related to humans as suggested in the doco.

Nope. Once again, creationists bending the truth or creating outright falsehoods to push forth their agenda.This was Tyson's actual quote:

quote:

---

I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t.

---

Quote by Neil deGrasse Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the ...He was referring to the fact that 15% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in god. He did NOT say they are creationists. Belief in god is not a belief in creationism. There are several members of this board (RAZD, Percy, Cat Scientist) who believe in god but do not believe in creationism.By the way, that internet search for Tyson's quote took me all of ten seconds. Please try to do better before you spew nonsense.

You are projecting. It is the creationists who constantly attack the character of scientists because they have no scientific evidence to stand on. Just look at your most recent posts. None of them contain anything close to scientific. Instead, they are allegations about scientists making speculations and other misdeeds. They are wrong because the evidence doesn't support their claims. Once again with the attacks on peoples' character. Why?Why can't you discuss the features the fossil has and how it relates to the fossil being transitional? Why the constant attacks on character?