To: DannyTN
I love your first link. The writer relies on a 1974 computer study, which he say is "recent," to claim that Austrolopithecus isn't related to other primates. But I thought the whole creationist schtick was that no animals are related to one another.
16 posted on
02/16/2005 11:29:20 AM PST by
Alter Kaker
(Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
To: Alter Kaker
The article in the first link was written in 1975. So a 1974 study would have been recent. I posted that because of the information about the evidence for modern humans and Homo Erector being found below Austrolopithecus. Because that establishes that Austrolopithecus could not have been a human ancestor. Which even Leakey began to conclude.
20 posted on
02/16/2005 11:38:42 AM PST by
DannyTN
To: Alter Kaker
But I thought the whole creationist schtick was that no animals are related to one another. Actually, the whole creationist stick is that they may be YOUR relatives, but they're not ours...
To: Alter Kaker
But I thought the whole creationist schtick was that no animals are related to one another.That's the evolutionist characterization of creationism.
Natural Selection
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson