Big break in evolution...

**Gotch** · October 8th, 2009, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Biggin

How can you say that with a straight face?

This was a previously undiscovered species.

This 'no big deal' discovery is of an ancient mammal that walked upright like a human.

The discovery could very well be the missing link, the piece of the evolution puzzle that both chimps and man evolved from.
The upright walking, the basic human structure, with long fingers and arms, and an opposable toe.

I just don't see how anyone can just laugh this off. To do that, is to mightily underestimate its importance. This is a major scientific discovery. This does not prove evolution, not even close. But this is a major piece in the evolution time line. This is not a definitive answer, or proof of concept, but this is a major piece of evidence to support the theory.
This is not the proof of evolution, this is a a big piece of evidence that supports the theory.

And Time is not a reputable source? Since when? There was nothing funny in the TIME story, it was a great recap of a very big scientific discovery.

The reason I just "laugh it off" is my memory of the other couple of dozen earth shattering evolutionary discoveries of my lifetime. Each of which were later partially or wholly discredited or at least shown to have been greatly exaggerated or misrepresented. Then there are the dozens upon dozens before my lifetime which met the same fate.

There was a time I would have bothered to point out the already dissenting voices among even other evolutionists. I'll simply say now that they are there and they are legion. From my experience this this running true to form to every such major find. Wait and see....very soon there will be minor withdrawals from the ranks, then some questions about findings, followed by a very quite fading into obscurity.

Seen it before (over and over) will see it again...

**Biggin** · October 9th, 2009, 12:12 PM

Lucy is still a major scientific discovery, that is the only case of something this big being discovered I can remember.

Since Lucy is so important, it only makes Ardi more important

**Gotch** · October 9th, 2009, 03:36 PM

Glad you brought that up.

There is a 1.2 million year gap between Ardi and Lucy, both supposedly walked upright, but both had the skull capacity of an ape.

So....in 3.2 million years Lucy evolved into us but in 1.2 million years no evolution of brain capacity occurred?

Now, I realize that this a very simplified version, but it runs the same path as the arguement that there are bird fossils older than Archaeopteryx.

**Gotch** · October 9th, 2009, 03:42 PM

Not to mention

YouTube - Bonobos: Walking upright

**Biggin** · October 9th, 2009, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Gotch

Glad you brought that up.

There is a 1.2 million year gap between Ardi and Lucy, both supposedly walked upright, but both had the skull capacity of an ape.

So....in 3.2 million years Lucy evolved into us but in 1.2 million years no evolution of brain capacity occurred?

Now, I realize that this a very simplified version, but it runs the same path as the arguement that there are bird fossils older than Archaeopteryx.

Ardi is nowhere near the full, evolved human.
It only showed progress towards the human, not the final stage of human evolution.

**Gotch** · October 9th, 2009, 05:29 PM

Sounds like you are missing my main points. From what I can find there was no progress in brain development between Ardi and Lucy in 1.2 million years, but then we are suppose to believe that "Lucy" progressed into us in another 3.2 million years? Must have gotten on the fast track.

Point of the vid is that there are upright walking apes today.....which means? You fill in the blanks.

**valour** · October 9th, 2009, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Shooter

How does this prove evolution at all? All it sounds like to me, is a discovery of a different species that went EXTINCT. I mean when you read the post you put up...it sounds a whole lot more like some type of ape then a human anyway. Just because its 4 illion years old doesnt mean it was the beginning of a human.

It doesnt prove evolution. Another thing that caught my eye was that the age of the remains that were found. I understand that Science uses Carbon Dating to attempt to determine the age of fossils, but Carbon Dating is not 100% accurate. If you will do a study on it you can clearly see this.

Darwinism is still very much alive today in the minds of those who attempt to disprove God as our creator. Also , we read in the Bible that God created animals and humans seperate and wouldn't you know it that evolutionists claim that we evolved from a common ancester

**valour** · October 9th, 2009, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by Gotch

Sounds like you are missing my main points. From what I can find there was no progress in brain development between Ardi and Lucy in 1.2 million years, but then we are suppose to believe that "Lucy" progressed into us in another 3.2 million years? Must have gotten on the fast track.

Point of the vid is that there are upright walking apes today.....which means? You fill in the blanks.

Actually, it goes a little deeper than that. If I am understanding naturalism or evolution in the manner that it is presented they say that nothing sprang to something, then to a fish, then to a hooved land animal, and then eventually back to the water.

That would be more logical to me if they could explain how a fish that breathes through gills survived the transition in the first place.

**R13** · October 9th, 2009, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by Gotch

Sounds like you are missing my main points. From what I can find there was no progress in brain development between Ardi and Lucy in 1.2 million years, but then we are suppose to believe that "Lucy" progressed into us in another 3.2 million years? Must have gotten on the fast track.

Point of the vid is that there are upright walking apes today.....which means? You fill in the blanks.

Isn't there going to be a special on this Sunday?