1 edit
@sonship saidThe specific evidence from Afarensis fossils that links them to ourselves (not just Lucy, there are remains of around 300 individuals of this species) relates to the structure of the hip joint and indicates that they walked upright. Artist's impressions of what members of a species may have looked like are not used to determine taxonomy.
@avalanchethecat
[quote] I think that it's certainly possible that Australopithecus Afarensis may be an ancestral form. It's also perfectly possible that it isn't. The evidence suggests that in the case of human evolution, and thus probably with other species, there's not so much an 'evolutionary tree' as an 'evolutionary bush'. Lucy may be a sideshoot of that bush. [/quo ...[text shortened]... lution is because of the artistic presentations of imaginative artists encouraging your assumptions?
@kellyjay saidIt is an assumption based on very sound evidence. I refer you to the Smithsonian page on the evolution of cetaceans that I posted previously.
So are living creatures; what is assumed by some fossils were turned into something else over time through evolution, that too is an assumption.
@avalanchethecat saidWell done for persevering with this thread. I dropped out as found it thoroughly depressing.
The specific evidence from Afarensis fossils that links them to ourselves (not just Lucy, there are remains of around 300 individuals of this species) relates to the structure of the hip joint and indicates that they walked upright. Artist's impressions of what members of a species may have looked like are not used to determine taxonomy.
@avalanchethecat saidMany assumptions are.
It is an assumption based on very sound evidence. I refer you to the Smithsonian page on the evolution of cetaceans that I posted previously.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt's easier once you accept that you're not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm quite enjoying sharing views with KellyJay.
Well done for persevering with this thread. I dropped out as found it thoroughly depressing.
2 edits
@kellyjay saidWell at least these assumptions do have an evidential basis. The assumptions made by those who follow the bible are all based on heresay, are they not?
Many assumptions are.
Heresay: hear·say (hîr′sā′ ) n. 1. Unverified information heard or received from another
@avalanchethecat saidNo, they’re not.
Well at least these assumptions do have an evidential basis. The assumptions made by those who follow the bible are all based on heresay, are they not?
John the Apostle, who wrote the Gospel of John, was an eyewitness to everything he wrote. And there are many more eyewitness accounts in the Holy Bible,
Surprised you don’t know this considering you read the Gospels “a whole bunch of times” after you decided they weren’t true 😉
2 edits
@pb1022 saidAnd you know this how? "skipper"?
Matthew the Apostle, who wrote the Gospel of Matthew, was also one of Jesus Christ’s 12 disciples and also an eyewitness to what he wrote.
You’ve really looked into the Holy Bible “extensively” haven’t you? 😉
@avalanchethecat saidThat’s who it’s attributed to by most sources.
And you know this how?
If you’re asking me if I saw Matthew the Apostle literally writing and publishing the Gospel of Matthew, the answer is no.
@pb1022 saidAnd you have no proof?
That’s who it’s attributed to by most sources.
If you’re asking me if I saw Matthew the Apostle literally writing and publishing the Gospel of Matthew, the answer is no.
@avalanchethecat
Are you standing by your statement that you read the Gospels “a whole bunch of times” after you decided they weren’t true?
Are you standing by your statement that you looked into the Holy Bible “extensively?”
It’s obvious both those statements by you are false. Why not admit it? It’s not like anyone believes them anyway 😉
1 edit
@pb1022 saidMost people don't use patronising and insulting pet-names and then say they do so out of fondness for the person to whom they're being consciously and deliberately unpleasant, but hey, takes all sorts.
Most people note when they edit a post 😉