Creationist Wolf in Cheap Clothing

I find it hilarious that you reference Sahelanthropus tchadensis in the same thread where you mention australopithecines. Apparently I am not the one who needs to do the learning about evolution.

 

And see, that's the problem. You don't know. You should read the news sometime, although I'll grant that the U.S. is less proactive about publicizing such finds than Britain. Your paranoia that your faith will be negated by science is blinding you to all information you don't want to see. The fact of the matter is that we've been steadily moving back in time for decades without any significant gaps in our understanding of the evolutionary progression to modern humans. We have fossils for every single time period stretching back millions of years, and we've continuously been pushing back those dates with every decade of excavation. There never have been any missing links, we just didn't have the entire fossil record when we first snapped our fingers. The only missing parts are the ones still hidden in the ground deeper than we have yet ventured.


Have you ever stopped to notice that we can prove a line of descent from the australopithecines to modern humans? Desperately clinging to the fact that we could only trace a direct line of evolution back 4 million years twenty years ago, as opposed to only 7 million years now, is a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees, isn't it? We can show a line of evolution over millions of years, but because our knowledge is still limited about the millions of years before that, you're going to pretend that there's something wrong with evolution? Don't you find that a bit silly? Don't you feel a bit like the guy who insisted that the earth was flat or that the universe revolved around the earth?

Sahelanthropus tchadensis preceded the australopithecines (goes back to around 7 million years ago). The australopithecines only go back to Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 million years ago. Some include Ardipithecus ramidus at 4.4 million years ago, but most consider that to be part of the genus Paranthrapus, which preceded the australopithecines.

 

Did you read your own article? Get back to me when you figure out what the hell you are trying to say and quit embarrassing yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_09.html
and your own article all completely refute your claims

 

LOL!!!!!

So australopithecines devolved and then evolved again? Dear lord that is quite a claim.

 

Wow, you really don't know anything at all, do you? Neanderthals are also descendants of the australopithecines, but they have more robust, ape-like features than their immediate ancestors. That's because, yes, evolutionary pressures can push back and forth depending upon the environment and other factors. Moreover, the entire line of "robust" Australopithecines represents much more ape-like characteristics than other lines of Australopithecines.


But for the record, Sahelanthropus tchadensis represents a smaller figure than the more robust descendants that followed. People who haven't actually studied evolution will look at skeletons and say "this looks more like an ape," but the reality is that the brow ridges on tchadensis are much more pronounced than later descendants, along with numerous other features that demonstrate ancestry. And regarding the wiki article, when it says that apes didn't have brow ridges then you know it's worthless. Great apes have more pronounced brow ridges than we humans do. re:



Always keep in mind that wiki articles are written by normal people, not experts, so any evolutionist or anti-evolutionist can go in and change the article to say whatever they want, plus people make tons of unintentional mistakes.

And honestly, if you expect to be taken seriously by anyone, don't get quotes from a Christian site for information about evolution. As I already said, it would be ridiculous to get information about Hillary Clinton from the RNC website, wouldn't it? Or information about George Bush from the DNC website?



Moreover, you didn't answer my question. If evolution is false, how do you explain a direct line of australopithecines leading to modern man over the last four million years? We have tons of those fossils and they distinctly show the progression to Homo sapiens. You desperately cling to the margins of our knowledge because you're scared to death of admitting the truth.

 

A) I don't argue micro evolution just macro.
B) Your direct line isn't a direct line at all. It is a series of disparate fossils filled in with speculation.

 

My "Christian" article says THE EXACT SAME THING your article says yet you have a problem with it. Both refute your claim.

 

[Sly]The earth is flat, you idiots![/Sly]

 

If you don't want to or can't contribute to the thread in a meaningful way then stay the hell out.

 

Take your own advice Sly. This is supposed to be a no sniping zone. So far your major contibutions to thsi thread have been to:

1) Use false logic to argue nuances that do not invalidate the point of the original article.

2) Call people names.

Reread the original post. You're so far off topic, it's silly.