Human Origins Rethink ?

Out of context: Reply #41

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 72 Responses
  • teleos0

    Khurram: We all fit the evidence to our worldviews.

    It looks like a biped was before quadrupeds in the narrative of human "evolution". So, it's a warranted conclusion that de-volution in the sense that started out "higher evolved" and perhaps took a more degenerative route for a while. That is all I am saying. Food for thought.

    And the thinking regarding exceptionalism is that the claim materialistis often make is that humans emerged from great apes and this find suggests it was not that way.

    http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/produ…

    teleos 0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • ok so you are taking liberty with semantics. Bipeds were BEFORE quadrupeds? How so?Khurram
    • this fossil had features of BOTH a biped AND a quadruped. Strongly suggesting a middle species.Khurram
    • It was found in strata dating WELL before the australopithecines. This is the issue.teleos
    • i dont understand. How does it prove that bipeds didn't come from quadripeds?Khurram
    • because this find shows that a strikingly human-like biped was earlier in the "lineage".teleos
    • so what if it was "earlier"?? are there NO QUADRIPEDS before it??? Did "lemurs" come after? lolKhurram
    • your conjectures are waaay off.Khurram
    • i'm simply point out that the earliest find to date, in alleged human evolution, is strikingly humanoid and biped.teleos
    • "pointing out"teleos
    • which is nothing like the claims you were makingKhurram
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread