>>>Susan Brassfield wrote:
>>>
>>>>Australopithecus afarensis has a very apelike head but very humanlike hips
>>>>and knee joints. It is clearly transitional between humans and an apelike
>>>>ancestor.
>>
>>Cliff Lundberg:
>>>When are people going to realize that an intermediate form is not
>>>necessarily a transitional form? There were various hominid species,
>>>and it is extremely unlikely that each one evolved from another. It's
>>>the same old error of trying to force known forms into evolutionary
>>>sequences.
>>Susan Brassfield wrote:
>>My answer to this is a pithy "so what?" The hominid family tree was clearly
>>once much bushier than it is now. It really isn't necessary for A.
>>afarensis to be directly ancestral to homo sapiens. It is clearly *between*
>>and that is what must be concealed to preserve the fiction that there are
>>no transitionals.
>Cliff Lundberg:
>If 'pushing' evolution were my major concern, I suppose I would be
>annoyed if some fine example were disallowed because of some
>quibble. But I've accepted evolution, on general principles; now I'm
>interested in knowing how it happened. The subject is so obscure,
>we have to think carefully and logically. An intermediate form can't
>be assumed to be transitional without some argument, some
>evidence other than that the supposed transition fits some general
>model.
no kidding. It must resemble those just before it and just after it in time.
In this case Lucy does. Does comparing the fossils to each other through
time count for anything? Lucy sorta resembles more ancient fossils and sorta
resembles more modern fossils.
>Simply appearing *between* has no bearing at all on questions
>of direct-descent vs common-ancestry, nor is it even obvious in what
>direction a transitional move proceeded, that is, which form was primitive.
absent any previous or subsequent fossils I would agree. However, for human
ancestry we have a nice array of fossils from different time periods.
>Evidently you don't care about these questions; problems are to be
>glossed over, lest the creationists make capital out of them.
>
>Anti-creationism is not science, it's a propaganda program. You can
>be sure that creationists appreciate anti-creationists profoundly for
>implying that there is some controversy here to be debated.
cute!!!
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 03 2000 - 21:49:58 EST