Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lucy - fact or fraud?
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4040 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 25 of 47 (333443)
07-19-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by watzimagiga
06-07-2006 10:09 PM


Re: Once more for watzimagiga
Im not sure if this is the case. I am not aware of any evidence besides that they didnt find two of the same bone at the site, that suggests that ALL of the bones were from ONE individual.
tell me you don't think they come wrapped in a pretty little package that says "lucy" or "linus"?
generally, bones are found in close proximity to each other. and if they are consisten in size, shape, and abuse level, they are considered to be tha same ndividual.
imagine if you lay out a small dead rat and a large dead rat for a couple years. they're going to rot and wash clean eventually. the wind, the rain, other animals, etc are going to move them around a bit. but you'll still have a dead small rat and a big rat relatively in proximity to themselves. but even after just a couple years, they probably won't be laid out like you see those pretty frescos of dinosaurs all laid out like a perfect xray. almost never happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by watzimagiga, posted 06-07-2006 10:09 PM watzimagiga has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4040 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 33 of 47 (336223)
07-28-2006 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by pop
07-28-2006 10:41 AM


Re: AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE APES
THEY WERE TOO MUCH LIKE TO THE PYGMY CHIMPANZEES.
and that means exactly what?
"too much like" means nothing. imprecise and subjective terminology. you know who is too much like pygmy chimpanzees? modern humans. hardly different at all. we should be classified as merely a subspecies of chimp.
if humans are raised climbing trees, their bodies develop accordingly. they grow longer fingers and different strong muscles. we grow according to our conditions... and now we grow with large fat deposits around our middles. we are still tree climbers. we just don't actually have to anymore.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by pop, posted 07-28-2006 10:41 AM pop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 07-29-2006 1:26 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024