477 replies to this topic

[Harsh86_Patel]

Clobhair-cean, on 07 November 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

This does nothing to disprove evolution. The bones and the Hell Creek formation where they were found were both dated to be 68 million years old. The fact that a researcher found some traces of soft tissue inside fossilised bone after said fossils were stripped of their mineral contents by being submerged in acid that ate away everything but the stone itself is surprising, but not impossible. We may have to reconsider what we know about the process of fossilisation, that's all. This is not a fossilised rabbit from the Cambrian.

Consider this (you won't):



http://laelaps.wordp...ale-of-a-t-rex/

"Surprising but not impossible"......that says it all.
But then again is anything impossible for evolutionist and crack pot anthropologists......................NO
They find dinosaur soft tissue and they still think it is 65 million years old lol..........empirical evidence suggests that soft tissue completely decays in a matter of few years but we would happily ignore it and call it a one time case lol.
One time absurdities could explain so many single skeletons around which we have weaved entire hominid species for eg-LUCY.........could have very well been a deformed human/nenaderthals.But no,just to satisfy our deluded evolutionist bretheren we have to claim that they were entirely different hominid species combining ape like and human features.

[Harte]

Harsh86_Patel, on 07 November 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

One time absurdities could explain so many single skeletons around which we have weaved entire hominid species for eg-LUCY.........could have very well been a deformed human/nenaderthals.But no,just to satisfy our deluded evolutionist bretheren we have to claim that they were entirely different hominid species combining ape like and human features.

One-time absurdities?

That better explains your position, not A. Afarensis (Lucy.)

Quote

Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals! Found between 3.85 and 2.95 million years ago in Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania), this species survived for more than 900,000 years, which is over four times as long as our own species has been around.  It is best known from the sites of Hadar, Ethiopia (‘Lucy’, AL 288-1 and the 'First Family', AL 333); Dikika, Ethiopia (Dikika ‘child’ skeleton); and Laetoli (fossils of this species plus the oldest documented bipedal footprint trails).

Source
So, 300 examples of deformed human-Neanderthals? Neanderthals were human, by the way.

I see where the absudity fits in here, and it's not in the field of Paleoanthropology.

Harte

[Clobhair-cean]

Harsh86_Patel, on 07 November 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

"Surprising but not impossible"......that says it all.
But then again is anything impossible for evolutionist and crack pot anthropologists......................NO

You are wrong. Just what I mentioned earlier, evolutionists say that finding fossilised rabbits in Cambrian layers would be impossible.

Harsh86_Patel, on 07 November 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

They find dinosaur soft tissue and they still think it is 65 million years old lol..........empirical evidence suggests that soft tissue completely decays in a matter of few years but we would happily ignore it and call it a one time case lol.

This wasn't a Tyrannosaurus steak. This was small, partially fossilised tissue fragments encased in solid rock. Without moisture, without air, without nothing. Decay needs air, moisture and bacteria, none of which was present in the rock, which was dated to be 68 million years old.

Harsh86_Patel, on 07 November 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

One time absurdities could explain so many single skeletons around which we have weaved entire hominid species for eg-LUCY.........could have very well been a deformed human/nenaderthals.But no,just to satisfy our deluded evolutionist bretheren we have to claim that they were entirely different hominid species combining ape like and human features.

Have you ever seen even a picture of Lucy? She could not have been a deformed human or Neanderthal. She is too small and her anatomy is way different than anything any known deformity could produce. And how would you explain the Laetoli footprints? Were there so many deformed humans running around in the middle of Africa that they formed family groups? Don't be ridiculous.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Harte, on 07 November 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

One-time absurdities?

That better explains your position, not A. Afarensis (Lucy.)
Source
So, 300 examples of deformed human-Neanderthals? Neanderthals were human, by the way.

I see where the absudity fits in here, and it's not in the field of Paleoanthropology.

Harte

Lucy is the only one that is 40 % complete Rest are all random bones.



This is all we have of Lucy.Look at it and tell me if you can really call this any sort of credible evidence.There have been many cases where mainstream anthropologists have found ape bones and human bones and fused them to give rise to figments of their imaginations for eg-the pilt down man.



This is the lucy they reconstructed..........lol.It's a muscular monkey lol.Though i am still wondering how they reconstructed the soft tissue,body hair feet and hands with absolutely no sort of evidence.

http://en.wikipedia....stralopithecus)

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 08 November 2012 - 05:49 AM.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Clobhair-cean, on 07 November 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

You are wrong. Just what I mentioned earlier, evolutionists say that finding fossilised rabbits in Cambrian layers would be impossible.



This wasn't a Tyrannosaurus steak. This was small, partially fossilised tissue fragments encased in solid rock. Without moisture, without air, without nothing. Decay needs air, moisture and bacteria, none of which was present in the rock, which was dated to be 68 million years old.



Have you ever seen even a picture of Lucy? She could not have been a deformed human or Neanderthal. She is too small and her anatomy is way different than anything any known deformity could produce. And how would you explain the Laetoli footprints? Were there so many deformed humans running around in the middle of Africa that they formed family groups? Don't be ridiculous.

JBS Haldane said that a pre cambrian rabbit would convince him that evolution is false.Sadly,complex eyes in trilobites right after the cambrian explosion didn't convince him,he was adamant asking only for a rabbit.
All fossils are encased in solid rocks,why don't they have soft tissue remanents?

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

Lucy is the only one that is 40 % complete Rest are all random bones.



This is all we have of Lucy.Look at it and tell me if you can really call this any sort of credible evidence.There have been many cases where mainstream anthropologists have found ape bones and human bones and fused them to give rise to figments of their imaginations for eg-the pilt down man.



This is the lucy they reconstructed..........lol.It's a muscular monkey lol.Though i am still wondering how they reconstructed the soft tissue,body hair feet and hands with absolutely no sort of evidence.

http://en.wikipedia....stralopithecus)

Wow. Just wow. Your comprehension of the techniques used in reconstruction from bones is really, really deplorable.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

JBS Haldane said that a pre cambrian rabbit would convince him that evolution is false.Sadly,complex eyes in trilobites right after the cambrian explosion didn't convince him,he was adamant asking only for a rabbit.
All fossils are encased in solid rocks,why don't they have soft tissue remanents?

Complex eyes in trilobites? What the hell are you on about now? Trilobite eyes are well understood, and occur in exactly the place in the fossil record where we expect to find them. That's the point of the rabbit test: the evolution of rabbits didn't occur for many millions of years after the Cambrian, ergo, if we were to find a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian, there would be need to revise the theory of evolution. However, unfortunately for the anti-evolution crowd, that hasn't happened; and don't any of you hold your breath, because it isn't going to happen, either.

And most fossils were already bare skeletons, eaten away by scavengers, ravaged by insects and water, etc., before they were finally buried and fossilized. You have a nasty habit of declaring things you don't understand to be false; just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it wrong. It means that first and foremost, you should educate yourself about it; a measure which you clearly haven't bothered to take.

[Clobhair-cean]

Firstly, piltdown man was not a hoax by an anthropologist, but an untrained fraudster and it was highly controversial from the get-go. There is no controversy about Lucy or other Australopithecines.

And while to your untrained eye, a partial skeleton means little, if you actually knew about anatomy, you could read a lot from it. We have more than half of the pelvis, which shows both ape and human-like features, just like the femur and the arms. And we can reconstruct the skeleton based on our knowledge of anatomy (for instance, we can infer the size of muscles based on the bones with pretty good accuracy) and the other Australopithecus africanus remains that were found, which include at least two complete skulls (From both adults and juveniles. How do you explain that?). Based on this information, pretty accurate, albeit admittedly fanciful reconstructions are made for museums. But you have to keep in mind also that reconstructions are not really factors in science, they are only there to help the public who don't see as much into mere bones.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

JBS Haldane said that a pre cambrian rabbit would convince him that evolution is false.Sadly,complex eyes in trilobites right after the cambrian explosion didn't convince him,he was adamant asking only for a rabbit.

Because the two are not nearly the same. Trilobite eyes are not out of place in any way. They are preceded by almost a hundred million years of complex life (remember, it took 65 million years for mammals to diversify to their contemporary state), of which we know little because most animals at that time were small and did not have hard or hard enough shells to fossilise in great numbers. A fossilised rabbit would completely break evolutionary theory and our knowledge of geological history. Compound eyes are just something that evolved in animals that didn't fossilise.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

All fossils are encased in solid rocks,why don't they have soft tissue remanents?

Not all fossilisation is the same, it depends on many circumstances. Also, this was the first time a researcher broke up a massive bone and dissolved it in acid, people tend not to do that with precious finds. Probably if more people start doing it, more will be found.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Clobhair-cean, on 08 November 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

Firstly, piltdown man was not a hoax by an anthropologist, but an untrained fraudster and it was highly controversial from the get-go. There is no controversy about Lucy or other Australopithecines.

And while to your untrained eye, a partial skeleton means little, if you actually knew about anatomy, you could read a lot from it. We have more than half of the pelvis, which shows both ape and human-like features, just like the femur and the arms. And we can reconstruct the skeleton based on our knowledge of anatomy (for instance, we can infer the size of muscles based on the bones with pretty good accuracy) and the other Australopithecus africanus remains that were found, which include at least two complete skulls (From both adults and juveniles. How do you explain that?). Based on this information, pretty accurate, albeit admittedly fanciful reconstructions are made for museums. But you have to keep in mind also that reconstructions are not really factors in science, they are only there to help the public who don't see as much into mere bones.





Because the two are not nearly the same. Trilobite eyes are not out of place in any way. They are preceded by almost a hundred million years of complex life (remember, it took 65 million years for mammals to diversify to their contemporary state), of which we know little because most animals at that time were small and did not have hard or hard enough shells to fossilise in great numbers. A fossilised rabbit would completely break evolutionary theory and our knowledge of geological history. Compound eyes are just something that evolved in animals that didn't fossilise.




Not all fossilisation is the same, it depends on many circumstances. Also, this was the first time a researcher broke up a massive bone and dissolved it in acid, people tend not to do that with precious finds. Probably if more people start doing it, more will be found.

Surprisingly i do have a working knowledge of anatomy,that is the reason i am completely baffled by how they imagined the hands and feet,number of carpels,metacarpels,tarsals,metatarsals without any sort of evidence? there is no way to even determine the shape or size of the hands and feet.There is no way to determine whether the bones belong to a hominid/ape or human,all they can do is a physical visual examination and rest is all imagination.
Pilt down man was accepted and heralded by 'Stupid' anthropologists and evolutionist irrespective of the discoverer for quite some time,if i remember correctly it was for approx 40 years.

When you say complete skulls were found,there is still no clue of whether they belonged to an entirely different species.There is no way to determine that the two skulls and Lucy belong to the same distinct species.Either ways skull binding giving rise to oddly shaped skulls is common knowledge now,so oddly shaped skulls are not necessarily representing a seperate species.
The pelvis is where the deformity could have taken place in the case of Lucy.Or in all probabilities Lucy was a deformed monkey/ape.

Forget about the trilobyte eyes,the whole cambrian explosion is inexplicable by the slow gradual process of darwinian evolution.

Reconstructions like these should not be entertained by science or museums,only the bones should be displayed and let the observers use their own imagination.Though i guess that very few rational people will attribute these bones to a distinctly seperate Hominid species.If the myth of evolution was not so commonplace,you would hardly find a person who would interpret these bones as a seperate species of hominids.

Nothing would break down evolutionists,even a precambrian rabbit wouldn't.Even if a rabbit fossil is found in the Pre cambrian level,it would be interpreted as a intrusive burial or a hoax.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Surprisingly i do have a working knowledge of anatomy,that is the reason i am completely baffled by how they imagined the hands and feet,number of carpels,metacarpels,tarsals,metatarsals without any sort of evidence? there is no way to even determine the shape or size of the hands and feet.There is no way to determine whether the bones belong to a hominid/ape or human,all they can do is a physical visual examination and rest is all imagination.

Yeah, you don't understand reconstructive methods; and for the n^th time, kindly cease in ignoring every ******* thing I say.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Pilt down man was accepted and heralded by 'Stupid' anthropologists and evolutionist irrespective of the discoverer for quite some time,if i remember correctly it was for approx 40 years.

You do realize the time in which that happened, right? The same time when they still thought that T. rex dragged its tail on the ground; in other words, they didn't know ****.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

When you say complete skulls were found,there is still no clue of whether they belonged to an entirely different species.There is no way to determine that the two skulls and Lucy belong to the same distinct species.Either ways skull binding giving rise to oddly shaped skulls is common knowledge now,so oddly shaped skulls are not necessarily representing a seperate species.
The pelvis is where the deformity could have taken place in the case of Lucy.Or in all probabilities Lucy was a deformed monkey/ape.

Wow, you don't know a thing about science; and I thought the things you said in the other thread were stupid... "Lucy", incidentally, was an ape; so are humans. And no, you don't need a full skull in order to match it with another skull; there are a number of australopithecine fossils, and their features are far too uniform to be "deformities".

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Forget about the trilobyte eyes,the whole cambrian explosion is inexplicable by the slow gradual process of darwinian evolution.

No it isn't. You've been lied to son, and the fact that you so adamantly and willingly spout those lies as if they were true is just unscrupulous on your part, frankly.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Reconstructions like these should not be entertained by science or museums,only the bones should be displayed and let the observers use their own imagination.Though i guess that very few rational people will attribute these bones to a distinctly seperate Hominid species.If the myth of evolution was not so commonplace,you would hardly find a person who would interpret these bones as a seperate species of hominids.

Wow. Just... wow. I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between a lion skeleton and a tiger skeleton. Now try to tell the difference between a human skeleton and an australopithecine skeleton. VERY, VERY EASY.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Nothing would break down evolutionists,even a precambrian rabbit wouldn't.Even if a rabbit fossil is found in the Pre cambrian level,it would be interpreted as a intrusive burial or a hoax.

First off, a Precambrian rabbit fossil would, very likely, be a hoax or an intrusive burial.

Second, if somehow it was proved that it wasn't either of those things, then evolutionary theory would require revision. Plain and simple. Again, don't hold your breath...

[Clobhair-cean]

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Surprisingly i do have a working knowledge of anatomy,that is the reason i am completely baffled by how they imagined the hands and feet,number of carpels,metacarpels,tarsals,metatarsals without any sort of evidence? there is no way to even determine the shape or size of the hands and feet.There is no way to determine whether the bones belong to a hominid/ape or human,all they can do is a physical visual examination and rest is all imagination.

No you don't. If you did have any knowledge of anatomy, you would know that if you look at a femur, you can tell if its human or not, especially if you can compare it with other bones. Lucy's femur (which is complete) is the the wrong length compared to the humerus (also complete) and its anatomy shows both human and ape-like traits. That's only one.

And yes, some bits are imagined in reconstructions, because they are illustrations, nothing else. We don't have Australopithecine hands for example. But it doesn't matter, because we have enough bones to put things into context

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Pilt down man was accepted and heralded by 'Stupid' anthropologists and evolutionist irrespective of the discoverer for quite some time,if i remember correctly it was for approx 40 years.

The first paper questioning Piltdown Man came out months after it was introduced to the scientific community and the controversy continued until the whole thing was completely demolished in 1953. Many scientists believed the hoax, that is true, but that can be explained by the biased attitudes of early 20th century British anthropologists, who placed their nation above science and their lack of knowledge of early human evolution, which isn't true today. But no-one of any academic standing ever questioned Lucy.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

When you say complete skulls were found,there is still no clue of whether they belonged to an entirely different species.There is no way to determine that the two skulls and Lucy belong to the same distinct species.Either ways skull binding giving rise to oddly shaped skulls is common knowledge now,so oddly shaped skulls are not necessarily representing a seperate species.

And here, you show that you know nothing of anatomy. Let me demonstrate. You don't need complete skulls to match two species. We have the near-complete lower jaw of Lucy and some bones from her neurocranium. We can compare these to the other skulls and if they match, then the species match.

This is a reconstruction of an Australopithecine skull:



Please explain how binding can cause the vast differences in dentition, the size of the neurocranium, the shape of the viscerocranium, and the tiny size of even adult specimens. Or, if you say that these are congenital deformities, please tell me what known medical condition results in exactly the same deformities and how could multiple individuals (adults and children) with the exact same deformities proliferate in such high numbers in Africa at that time, while there were no healthy individual anywhere nearby.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

The pelvis is where the deformity could have taken place in the case of Lucy.Or in all probabilities Lucy was a deformed monkey/ape.

What is more likely, an ape with deformities to all of its body parts (suspiciously human-like, but not quite human deformities), or something that is not quite an ape?

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Forget about the trilobyte eyes,the whole cambrian explosion is inexplicable by the slow gradual process of darwinian evolution.

Nope. The cambrian explosion is not inexplicable. It was not a sudden appearance of complex animals. It is the sudden appearance of complex animals in the fossil record, there is a difference there (and also, sudden is meant in a geological sense, so over millions, if not tens of millions of years). Fossilisation is rare in itself, and animals without a hard shell or skeleton rarely fossilise. By the time of the Cambrian Explosion, enough animals had hard shells, while their evolutionary precursors had softer bodies. As I said before (which you ignored, like you do with anything that destroys your arguments), we are know of at least 100 million years of complex life before the Cambrian, with plenty of time for eyes to develop.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Reconstructions like these should not be entertained by science or museums,only the bones should be displayed and let the observers use their own imagination.Though i guess that very few rational people will attribute these bones to a distinctly seperate Hominid species.If the myth of evolution was not so commonplace,you would hardly find a person who would interpret these bones as a seperate species of hominids.

Why not? The reconstructions are, to our knowledge, mostly correct. Why not help people like yourself, who are without any concept of biology and anatomy visualise extinct life forms?

Would you please stop stating what people would do or think? It is not an argument for anything.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Nothing would break down evolutionists,even a precambrian rabbit wouldn't.Even if a rabbit fossil is found in the Pre cambrian level,it would be interpreted as a intrusive burial or a hoax.

Nope. This is why this example is so good. You can't explain a Cambrian rabbit as intrusive, since those layers are way too deep for that to have happened, and rabbits are too rare. This is not a hadrosaur bone that ended up slightly on the wrong side of the K-T boundary, this would be a 500 million year discrepancy. And it wouldn't be interpreted as a hoax if it clearly wasn't one.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 08 November 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

Yeah, you don't understand reconstructive methods; and for the n^th time, kindly cease in ignoring every ******* thing I say.



You do realize the time in which that happened, right? The same time when they still thought that T. rex dragged its tail on the ground; in other words, they didn't know ****.



Wow, you don't know a thing about science; and I thought the things you said in the other thread were stupid... "Lucy", incidentally, was an ape; so are humans. And no, you don't need a full skull in order to match it with another skull; there are a number of australopithecine fossils, and their features are far too uniform to be "deformities".



No it isn't. You've been lied to son, and the fact that you so adamantly and willingly spout those lies as if they were true is just unscrupulous on your part, frankly.



Wow. Just... wow. I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between a lion skeleton and a tiger skeleton. Now try to tell the difference between a human skeleton and an australopithecine skeleton. VERY, VERY EASY.



First off, a Precambrian rabbit fossil would, very likely, be a hoax or an intrusive burial.

Second, if somehow it was proved that it wasn't either of those things, then evolutionary theory would require revision. Plain and simple. Again, don't hold your breath...

I understand reconstructive procedures but their accuracy is only based on statistical data collected from various living specimens of those species.When you try to reconstruct entirely new species without ever seeing a living representative then you are pretty much in Alice's Wonderland.That is the reason why Pilt Down man was accepted for such a long period of time,since it was a part of the race to find the missing link in the myth of Human evolution and there was no precedant to compare the find to.
BTW had taken up forensics as a side course during my graduation and am very aware of how reconstruction including muscle and facial feature reconstruction is done to identify victims from skulls but the reconstruction is done employing a lot of stastical data that already exists from Living and dead Specimens.

Far too similar?I can pretty much give you fragments of Human skulls/Monkey skulls and tell you it is Australopithicus,and you would probably design a species around it.The skull of so called Australopithicus has almost the same features as that of a Monkey/Human,it doesn't have two foramen magnums to make it distinct.The only difference in skulls is in the shape which as i pointed out cannot be taken as evidence for an entirely distinct species.

If not me,many zoologists will be able to tell you all the difference between Tiger and Lion skulls since they have seen and studied living members of the species.



Tell me which species the above skull belongs to tran.Maybe it's the missing link of Human evolution.



See a new species of hominids..called Elongatus Americana.



Human Dwarf skeletons or a new species?Or probably Lucy's cousins.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel... I will, for the first time, thank you... For giving me the heartiest laugh of my evening.

You really are the most scientifically-illiterate person I think I've spoken with; and I've spoken with Ray Comfort and the super-fundies!

[Clobhair-cean]

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

I understand reconstructive procedures but their accuracy is only based on statistical data collected from various living specimens of those species.When you try to reconstruct entirely new species without ever seeing a living representative then you are pretty much in Alice's Wonderland. That is the reason why Pilt Down man was accepted for such a long period of time,since it was a part of the race to find the missing link in the myth of Human evolution and there was no precedant to compare the find to.

Wow, something that isn't actually complete nonsense, just a little bit. We can reconstruct most animals just from skeletons with reasonable accuracy. We can't be sure, but we won't be too far-off either.

No, Piltdown Man was accepted by some scientists (not all, as I've said before, many saw through the hoax almost instantly) because they wanted it to be real and did not do their work properly. Had they examined it, they would have instantly recognised that it was a bad fake.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

BTW had taken up forensics as a side course during my graduation and am very aware of how reconstruction including muscle and facial feature reconstruction is done to identify victims from skulls but the reconstruction is done employing a lot of stastical data that already exists from Living and dead Specimens.

Then why aren't you using that knowledge?

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

Far too similar?I can pretty much give you fragments of Human skulls/Monkey skulls and tell you it is Australopithicus,and you would probably design a species around it..

No. I wouldn't, and someone who's actually trained in these things sure wouldn't. If you have a bone that's confirmed to be from an animal, and you compare it from another one, and the two are the same, then you can infer that they belong to the same, or at least extremely similar animals.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

The skull of so called Australopithicus has almost the same features as that of a Monkey/Human,it doesn't have two foramen magnums to make it distinct.The only difference in skulls is in the shape which as i pointed out cannot be taken as evidence for an entirely distinct species.

What? Two foramen magnums? How do you come up with such nonsense? What, you expect ancestral hominids to have two spinal columns?

The difference is in skull shape, proportions and dentition. Hell, the only difference between a human and a dolphin skull is the shape. What else would be different??

We also have both juvenile and adult skulls alongside various skeletons from different individuals. That makes a distinct species.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

If not me,many zoologists will be able to tell you all the difference between Tiger and Lion skulls since they have seen and studied living members of the species.

Lions and tigers are so closely related that they can produce non-viable offspring, like horses and donkeys. It's a completely different thing. There

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

Tell me which species the above skull belongs to tran.Maybe it's the missing link of Human evolution.

See a new species of hominids..called Elongatus Americana.

Human Dwarf skeletons or a new species?Or probably Lucy's cousins.

These are all anatomically modern humans, anyone with a cursory understanding of anatomy or anthropology would tell you that. Australopithecines have comparatively much smaller neurocraniums when compared to other parts of the skull. And they have different teeth. And bones. And everything.


And please answer my question:

"please tell me what known medical condition results in exactly the same deformities (that affect practically every bone in the body) and how could multiple individuals (adults and children) with the exact same deformities proliferate in such high numbers in Africa at that time, while there were no healthy individual anywhere nearby?

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 08 November 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Harsh86_Patel... I will, for the first time, thank you... For giving me the heartiest laugh of my evening.

You really are the most scientifically-illiterate person I think I've spoken with; and I've spoken with Ray Comfort and the super-fundies!

Happy to entertain the ignorant.