Creationists: "Kind" = Species; species that evolve.

[David M]

How many times do you have to be told that Homonini is the FAMILY tribe ABOVE the genus HOMO. Homonini INCLUDES chimps and bonobos and the HOMO line starts with the HOMO genus. CHIMPS HAVE NOT BEEN PUT IN THE HOMO LINE...YET.... This is BIO101 stuff and I am sick of your stupidity. Do you speak English?

Yes I know that tribe is above Genus, you are the one who has to be repeatedly told what this actually means. It means that all members of the Genus Homo are members of the Tribe Hominini, living or extinct.

From Wiki.

Hominini is the tribe of Homininae that comprises Humans (Homo), and two species of the genus Pan (the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo), their ancestors, and the extinct lineages of their common ancestor.

But finally you have admitted that all species of the Genus Homo (and all species of the Genus Pan) are of the Tribe Hominini. So perhaps you can apply your Bio101 and explain how a disagreement as to whether "hobbits" were encaphalic Homo sapiens or our close relatives Homo floresiensis could lead to them not being of the Tribe Hominini.

That was one of your (stupider) claims:

Paintedwolf...I have pasted research that speaks to florensiensis being queried as belonging to homonini.

If both sides of the debate you pasted place "hobbits" in the same Genus how can this query that they are not in the same Tribe. Someone could propose that "hobbits" were close relatives of bonobos and should be called Pan floresiensis and that still would not be querying whether they belong to the hominini.

Again for the 6th time...Wiki...Hominini currently comprises the extant species human (the only living member of the genus Homo), bonobo (genus Pan), and chimpanzee (genus Pan); their ancestors; and the extinct lineages of their common ancestor.[1][3]

And if both sides of the disputes you pasted both say that "hobbits" belong in the Genus Homo how can they be querying that they belong to the tribe Hominini.

And from September 2010.…this.. Have you got anything more recent?
'Hobbit' Was an Iodine-Deficient Human, Not Another Species, New Study Suggests
ScienceDaily (Sep. 28, 2010) — A new paper is set to re-ignite debate over the origins of so-called Homo floresiensis -- the 'hobbit' that some scientists have claimed as a new species of human
Their work confirms the close grouping of H. floresiensis with the hypothyroid cretins, and the clear separation from both modern humans and from chimpanzees. This leads them to conclude that the Liang Bua remains were indeed most likely cretins from a population of unaffected H. sapiens. They have, further, provided a series of predictions for the further testing of the cretin hypothesis.
"This is consistent with recent hypothyroid endemic cretinism throughout Indonesia, including the nearby island of Bali," Professor Oxnard said.

Do you ever read things before you paste them?

This claim says still places "hobbits" in the Genus Homo. It argues that there were Homo sapiens and not Homo floresiensis. Its the SAME GENUS, so its the same tribe.

Once again you have failed to provide any evidence of a dispute that "hobbits" were not members of the Tribe Hominini.

And here's my original point:

No reputable scientist with any qualification in palaentology disputed that Florensisensis was a human (and thus a primate), what they disputed was exactly where it should fit among the recent members of the genus Homo. The only people claiming it was a non-human primate were the liars for jesus crowd.

Thanks for confirming yet again that the discussion is not whether "hobbits" were human but where they should be placed within the Genus Homo.

The point being that deciding if a fossil is a chimp or belongs in the human line at all, does not appear to be as clear cut as one would expect.

Wrong, because every single one of your pastes has explicitly shown that "hobbits" are considered to be human (i.e. members of the Genus Homo). Its clear cut to people who pay attention to reality.

As a result I have concluded that scientists can make what they wish of fossils. These so called Homo mid species could just as likely be variations of chimp and other non human primates, Researchers have no idea what ancestral chimps or any other primitive non human primate looked like, nor how the environment/adaptation, let alone genetic drift, has impacted on their morphology. Smooth transitions just did not happen, hence staged evolution.

You conclusion is wrong.

After looking to Wiki “Gene”, I am even less convinced by these percentage similarities the researchers speak to as I do not think they have any clue what genes to count nor how to count similarity. Hence a chimp currently is anywhere from 95-99% similar to humans, depending on whose work you wish to quote. Researchers can and will report the data in such a way that backs their current claim to fame.

So you know even less about genetics than you do cladistics.

The 95%-99% is not dependent on whose work you wish to quote, its dependent on which method you used to count the differences in the genomes because there is more than 1 valid way of counting the differences between genomes.

 

[newhope101]

This thread is a good example of the futility in debating creationists imo. PW wrapped this thing up long ago yet the obstinate responses keep pouring in....

PW has wrapped nothing up simply based on the fact that none of you here get to say what is the final word or not. Your own researchers can hardly agree on anything and you have the hide to allude to anyone here having the self importance to 'wrap anything up'.

We are still waiting for PW or anyone else for that matter, to tell us all about "high genetic similarity", a topic I'd advise you all to stay away from lest the ToE joke be made obvious. This is advice that PW has taken, much to her credit.

 

[painted wolf]

PW has wrapped nothing up simply based on the fact that none of you here get to say what is the final word or not. Your own researchers can hardly agree on anything and you have the hide to allude to anyone here having the self importance to 'wrap anything up'.

We are still waiting for PW or anyone else for that matter, to tell us all about "high genetic similarity", a topic I'd advise you all to stay away from lest the ToE joke be made obvious. This is advice that PW has taken, much to her credit.

Are you freaking kidding?

I've addressed this at least three times and you accepted it! >2% difference in mtDNA... ring any bells?

Do you let other people use your account or are there deeper issues here?:areyoucra

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Yes I know that tribe is above Genus, you are the one who has to be repeatedly told what this actually means. It means that all members of the Genus Homo are members of the Tribe Hominini, living or extinct.

We are also in the line of single celled organisms. If a creature MAY belong to hominini then it may be a chimp as much as it may make it to hominina. Big difference champ. If these guys really knew what the hell they were looking at there would not be all the debate you appear to deny as you have settled it for your self, in your own little lab called dreamtime.

From Wiki.
But finally you have admitted that all species of the Genus Homo (and all species of the Genus Pan) are of the Tribe Hominini. So perhaps you can apply your Bio101 and explain how a disagreement as to whether "hobbits" were encaphalic Homo sapiens or our close relatives Homo floresiensis could lead to them not being of the Tribe Hominini.
The prob here is that you think you know better than your researchers. If it was all worked out between them there simply would not be any debate, but there is. All your researchers look at the same fossils the same info and all of them are credentialed and they still disagree. This is what is commonly known as a lack of clarity, we do not know, the subject is currently being debated, your guess is as good as mine...Do you get this?

That was one of your (stupider) claims:


If both sides of the debate you pasted place "hobbits" in the same Genus how can this query that they are not in the same Tribe. Someone could propose that "hobbits" were close relatives of bonobos and should be called Pan floresiensis and that still would not be querying whether they belong to the hominini.
Again you simply do not know what debte means, obviously. If it were just me alluding to debate, you'd have some point. Purposely denying or misrepresenting what your researchers say is another.


And if both sides of the disputes you pasted both say that "hobbits" belong in the Genus Homo how can they be querying that they belong to the tribe Hominini.
Honestly, this is circular. Are you trying to state that Wiki misrepresented the information that florensiensis is queried as being an australepthicene? Are you not reading the article that suggests they think this is where it belongs? Australopethicicus eventually evolved into Homo but were not homo yet. It evades the point anyway, all this talk. Quite clearly there is loads of difference beween being chimp like or being human like and one would expect these researchers would be much clearer about where florensiensis belongs as well as other much debated fossils.


Do you ever read things before you paste them?

This claim says still places "hobbits" in the Genus Homo. It argues that there were Homo sapiens and not Homo floresiensis. Its the SAME GENUS, so its the same tribe.

Once again you have failed to provide any evidence of a dispute that "hobbits" were not members of the Tribe Hominini.

And here's my original point:



Thanks for confirming yet again that the discussion is not whether "hobbits" were human but where they should be placed within the Genus Homo.

No this was simply given as an example of evolutionary researchers not having all the answers. That should not be hard for you to accept. Likewise creationists that do not have all the answers, are no more stupid that your own researchers.


Wrong, because every single one of your pastes has explicitly shown that "hobbits" are considered to be human (i.e. members of the Genus Homo). Its clear cut to people who pay attention to reality.
Australepithicus are not human yet and still look like apes regardless of what they are called. Big difference between the two ends of the scale, yet so many of your fossils are debated. I do not think your researchers know what they are looking at.


You conclusion is wrong.



So you know even less about genetics than you do cladistics.

The 95%-99% is not dependent on whose work you wish to quote, its dependent on which method you used to count the differences in the genomes because there is more than 1 valid way of counting the differences between genomes.

Oh really...then please inform us all what "high genetic similarity means". You can count mitochondrial DNA, active genes, inactive genes in junk DNA etc. What does 1%, 2%, really mean?. Really I think it is all hogwash, particularly in light of horizontal gene transfer.

Anyway I have put up my definition of kind and I am happy with it. Furthermore there have been many definitions of kind put forward and all of them are just as good as any definition of species. And..no ones acceptance, or liking it, is required.

 

[outhouse]

Oh really...then please inform us all what "high genetic similarity means". You can count mitochondrial DNA, active genes, inactive genes in junk DNA etc. What does 1%, 2%, really mean?. Really I think it is all hogwash, particularly in light of horizontal gene transfer.

Anyway I have put up my definition of kind and I am happy with it. Furthermore there have been many definitions of kind put forward and all of them are just as good as any definition of species. And..no ones acceptance, or liking it, is required.

is this thinking not putting ones head in the sand surrounded by facts???

 

[painted wolf]

Oh really...then please inform us all what "high genetic similarity means". You can count mitochondrial DNA, active genes, inactive genes in junk DNA etc. What does 1%, 2%, really mean?. Really I think it is all hogwash, particularly in light of horizontal gene transfer.

That within a species the total variation within the mtDNA is less than 2%. There are less than 2% differences in the base pares of the mtDNA.... how many times should I restate it?

Of course you will think it's hogwash... unless you think you can somehow score points with it.

Anyway I have put up my definition of kind and I am happy with it. Furthermore there have been many definitions of kind put forward and all of them are just as good as any definition of species. And..no ones acceptance, or liking it, is required.

You keep telling yourself that. :beach:

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I have already thrashed out my definition here.

that post was not directed at you. You've posited a definition--and good for you. So now you have to live with it. And under your definition, humans, chimps and gorillas are all the same kind.

In fact I'd prefer it if you didn't like my or any other creationsists definition of anything.

Sorry, I LOVE your definition. It's great. I think you don't like it though, because it means that humans, chimps and gorillas are all the same kind.

If not, why not?

 

[painted wolf]

Honestly, this is circular. Are you trying to state that Wiki misrepresented the information that florensiensis is queried as being an australepthicene? Are you not reading the article that suggests they think this is where it belongs? Australopethicicus eventually evolved into Homo but were not homo yet. It evades the point anyway, all this talk. Quite clearly there is loads of difference beween being chimp like or being human like and one would expect these researchers would be much clearer about where florensiensis belongs as well as other much debated fossils.

What the smeg are you talking about?
The wiki article never suggests once that the hobbits belong in the Australopithecines.
It says they have some similar features in their wrist bones... that is all.

You've jumped the shark again.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Yep it was hominini. Still the point remains in that there is big difference between homonini and modern humans for researchers to be so unsure over which end of the spectrum any fossil belongs.

I’ve said to throw out your old text books. But this guy, Lovejoy, reckons you can throw them all out. What do any of you think of this?
　
　

Man Did Not Evolve From Apes Says Leading Anthropologist

Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy Helps Unveil Oldest Hominid Skeleton That Revises How We Think of Human Evolution

Published on Oct 1, 2009 -
By: Kent State University

KENT, Ohio, Oct. 1, 2009 - Throw out all those posters and books that depict an ape evolving into a human being, says Kent State University Professor of Anthropology Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy. An internationally recognized biological anthropologist who specializes in the study of human origins, Lovejoy is one of the primary authors who revealed their research findings today on Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominid species that lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia.

“People often think we evolved from apes, but no, apes in many ways evolved from us,” Lovejoy said. “It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or ‘Ardi,’ we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas.”
When comparing “Ardi” to “Lucy,” Lovejoy said that working on “Ardi” was much more exciting and interesting. “She provides real answers,” he said.

A resident of Kent, Ohio, Lovejoy has taught at Kent State for 40 years. He is a widely published author, with more than 100 articles in prestigious publications. He also holds the honor of being one of the Institute for Scientific Information’s “Most Highly Cited” authors in social sciences. In 2007, he was elected to membership in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for excellence in original scientific research. Membership in the NAS is one of the highest honors given to a scientist in the United States.

….Yeah. This fellow reckons Ardi predates the chimp human split. I know there are refutes, I know you’ll heap on this guy, but he has those fancy credentials many of you would like to have

 

[outhouse]

LOL this is old news

didnt you know we never evolved from apes or monkeys

owen stands behind evolution whole hearted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Lovejoy_(anthropologist)

Lovejoy is most well known for his work on reconstructing Lucy (Australopithecus)--a near-complete fossil of a human ancestor that walked upright more than three million years ago—and heading the biological analysis of Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus)--a near-complete 4.4 million year old hominid fossil that has recently cast new and sometimes surprising light on the evolution of human limbs and locomotion, the habitats occupied by early hominids, and the nature of our last common ancestor with chimps

NOTICE the key word "ancetsor" with chimps,,, not from them.

 

[Nepenthe]

He is a biologist isnt he?

A geneticist?

He's technically a zoologist. I was being nit picky since Dawkins hasn't published much on taxonomies.

 

[Nepenthe]

Yep it was hominini. Still the point remains in that there is big difference between homonini and modern humans for researchers to be so unsure over which end of the spectrum any fossil belongs.

I’ve said to throw out your old text books. But this guy, Lovejoy, reckons you can throw them all out. What do any of you think of this?
　
　

Man Did Not Evolve From Apes Says Leading Anthropologist

Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy Helps Unveil Oldest Hominid Skeleton That Revises How We Think of Human Evolution

Published on Oct 1, 2009 -
By: Kent State University

KENT, Ohio, Oct. 1, 2009 - Throw out all those posters and books that depict an ape evolving into a human being, says Kent State University Professor of Anthropology Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy. An internationally recognized biological anthropologist who specializes in the study of human origins, Lovejoy is one of the primary authors who revealed their research findings today on Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominid species that lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia.

“People often think we evolved from apes, but no, apes in many ways evolved from us,” Lovejoy said. “It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or ‘Ardi,’ we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas.”
When comparing “Ardi” to “Lucy,” Lovejoy said that working on “Ardi” was much more exciting and interesting. “She provides real answers,” he said.

A resident of Kent, Ohio, Lovejoy has taught at Kent State for 40 years. He is a widely published author, with more than 100 articles in prestigious publications. He also holds the honor of being one of the Institute for Scientific Information’s “Most Highly Cited” authors in social sciences. In 2007, he was elected to membership in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for excellence in original scientific research. Membership in the NAS is one of the highest honors given to a scientist in the United States.

….Yeah. This fellow reckons Ardi predates the chimp human split. I know there are refutes, I know you’ll heap on this guy, but he has those fancy credentials many of you would like to have

Lovejoy is a brilliant anthropologist- his work on the origin of bipedalism is awesome. Why would anyone "heap" on him?

Yes, Lovejoy supports the idea that Ardi' predates the CLCA (Chimpanzee-human Last Common Ancestor)- he's arguing that a strict chimpanzee model is too restrictive to reconstruct or base our hominin ancestry on. He views the traditional chimp-centric emphasis of human evolution as insufficient:

"The primitive nature of the craniodental and postcranial anatomies of Ar. ramidus suggest that the CLCA, unlike African apes, was predominantly arboreal. However, all of its descendants have since developed relatively sophisticated adaptations to terrestrial locomotion. What was the CLCA’s socio-reproductive structure before these events? Whereas African ape have, in the past, almost invariably been selected as CLCA vicars, Ar. ramidus now allows us to infer that they have undergone far too many pronounced and divergent specializations to occupy such a role."
​

Thus:

"Ar. ramidus thus indicates that the last common ancestors of humans and African apes were not chimpanzee-like and that both hominids and extant African apes are each highly specialized, but through very different evolutionary pathways."

Yes, Ardi' is controversial and some, like primatologist/anatomist Sarmiento, disagree with White/Lovejoy's analysis and place Ardi' phylogenetically with humans after our divergence with chimps. It's normal scientific debate. No need to throw out any books much less all of them.
​

 

[painted wolf]

Yep it was hominini. Still the point remains in that there is big difference between homonini and modern humans for researchers to be so unsure over which end of the spectrum any fossil belongs.

I’ve said to throw out your old text books. But this guy, Lovejoy, reckons you can throw them all out. What do any of you think of this?

What the smeg are you talking about?

No one argues that Ardi or the Hobbits are in Homonini... there is no "spectrum". It's either in or out. Modern Humans are homonini just as much as Chimps are.

And I'm not going to "heap on" Lovejoy... I don't fully agree with him on the timing of Ardi... but there was a long "fuzzy" period where the hominids like Ardi and the ancestors of chimps were subspecies and then sister species. Again, modern chimps are highly specialized and evolved, and our shared common ancestor was not a knuckle walker. Which is why Lovejoy says looking at modern chimps is not a good model for human evolution... they have their own unique evolutionary path from our common ancestor.

You are jumping the shark again.

wa:do

 

[David M]

We are also in the line of single celled organisms. If a creature MAY belong to hominini then it may be a chimp as much as it may make it to hominina. Big difference champ. If these guys really knew what the hell they were looking at there would not be all the debate you appear to deny as you have settled it for your self, in your own little lab called dreamtime.

Where have I denied that there as debate? What I pointed out was that you were telling a lie when you implied that scientists were debating as to whether the "hobbits" were members of the Genus Homo and whether they belonged to the Hominini.

Every single paste you made confirmed had them as being members of Homo and Hominini. Which showed that your assertions were lies. No reputable scientist argues that hobbits are not members of the Genus Homo and thus also Hominini.

The prob here is that you think you know better than your researchers. If it was all worked out between them there simply would not be any debate, but there is. All your researchers look at the same fossils the same info and all of them are credentialed and they still disagree. This is what is commonly known as a lack of clarity, we do not know, the subject is currently being debated, your guess is as good as mine...Do you get this?

The problem here is that you have been misrepresenting what the researchers have written. Not one of the ones you referred to has suggested that "hobbits" are not Homo (something) so they do not support your assertions that scientists have been saying that "hobbits" were non-humans or that they were not Hominini.

That was one of your (stupider) claims:

Honestly, this is circular. Are you trying to state that Wiki misrepresented the information that florensiensis is queried as being an australepthicene?

No, I am stating that you are misrepresenting the information in Wiki. Wiki did not suggest that floresiensis IS an australepithecene it said that floresiensis shared a couple of features with australepithecenes that they do not share with H. Sapiens.

That is a good reason to argue that floresiensis is not H. Sapiens. And you need to realise that we share some features with australopithecenes. Thats why they are classed as being part of the human lineage.

Are you not reading the article that suggests they think this is where it belongs? Australopethicicus eventually evolved into Homo but were not homo yet. It evades the point anyway, all this talk. Quite clearly there is loads of difference beween being chimp like or being human like and one would expect these researchers would be much clearer about where florensiensis belongs as well as other much debated fossils.

The article does not suggest that floresiensis belongs to the australopithecenes, thats what you have got wrong. None of the articles suggest that floresiensis is chimplike, the researchers are all very clear that floresiensis is extremely like a human which is why some of them want to class them as being Homo sapiens.

No this was simply given as an example of evolutionary researchers not having all the answers. That should not be hard for you to accept. Likewise creationists that do not have all the answers, are no more stupid that your own researchers.

No this was not, this was you making 2 statements that were not true and then repeatedly arguing that there were.

You said that scientists were saying that a) floresiensis was a non-human primate and b) that it was not a hominini.

I told you both those statements were wrong and showed you repeatedly that every single word you pasted confirmed those statements were wrong.

You are the one who can't accept being wrong, and on a statement peripheral to your main argument at the time.

Australepithicus are not human yet and still look like apes regardless of what they are called. Big difference between the two ends of the scale, yet so many of your fossils are debated. I do not think your researchers know what they are looking at.

Wiki does not suggest that floresiensis is anything like Australepithecus. No scientists suggests that floresiensis is anything like Australepithecus. Remember that we share some feautures with Australepithecus.

 

[newhope101]

Are you freaking kidding?

I've addressed this at least three times and you accepted it! >2% difference in mtDNA... ring any bells?

Do you let other people use your account or are there deeper issues here?:areyoucra

wa:do

No, I remember you suggesting that would be a good idea, not actually putting it forward. I also remember you heaping on me when I suggested 1% as a throw off one time. It appears that guess wasn't too far from your educated guess.

Nonetheless it does not appear counting genes is as straight forward as one may think.


Wiki Gene ; The concept that genes are clearly delimited is also being eroded. There is evidence for fused proteins stemming from two adjacent genes that can produce two separate protein products. While it is not clear whether these fusion proteins are functional, the phenomenon is more frequent than previously thought.[25] Even more ground-breaking than the discovery of fused genes is the observation that some proteins can be composed of exons from far away regions and even different chromosomes.[2][26] This new data has led to an updated, and probably tentative, definition of a gene as "a union of genomic sequences encoding a coherent set of potentially overlapping functional products."[12] This new definition categorizes genes by functional products, whether they be proteins or RNA, rather than specific DNA loci; all regulatory elements of DNA are therefore classified as gene-associated regions.[12]

 

[Autodidact]

newhope: What is your rationale for humans being an exception to your definition of kind?

 

[newhope101]

Lovejoy is a brilliant anthropologist- his work on the origin of bipedalism is awesome. Why would anyone "heap" on him?

Yes, Lovejoy supports the idea that Ardi' predates the CLCA (Chimpanzee-human Last Common Ancestor)- he's arguing that a strict chimpanzee model is too restrictive to reconstruct or base our hominin ancestry on. He views the traditional chimp-centric emphasis of human evolution as insufficient:

"The primitive nature of the craniodental and postcranial anatomies of Ar. ramidus suggest that the CLCA, unlike African apes, was predominantly arboreal. However, all of its descendants have since developed relatively sophisticated adaptations to terrestrial locomotion. What was the CLCA’s socio-reproductive structure before these events? Whereas African ape have, in the past, almost invariably been selected as CLCA vicars, Ar. ramidus now allows us to infer that they have undergone far too many pronounced and divergent specializations to occupy such a role."​

Thus:

"Ar. ramidus thus indicates that the last common ancestors of humans and African apes were not chimpanzee-like and that both hominids and extant African apes are each highly specialized, but through very different evolutionary pathways."​

Yes, Ardi' is controversial and some, like primatologist/anatomist Sarmiento, disagree with White/Lovejoy's analysis and place Ardi' phylogenetically with humans after our divergence with chimps. It's normal scientific debate. No need to throw out any books much less all of them.​

Thanks for the links. Yes lots of debate... and this research appears to address the fossil records better. I don't understand why researchers have not readily "accepted" it. It's like trying to prise away an old myth from creationists? The current evo myth being we evolved from chimps.

 

[David M]

Man Did Not Evolve From Apes Says Leading Anthropologist

Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy Helps Unveil Oldest Hominid Skeleton That Revises How We Think of Human Evolution

Published on Oct 1, 2009 -
By: Kent State University

KENT, Ohio, Oct. 1, 2009 - Throw out all those posters and books that depict an ape evolving into a human being, says Kent State University Professor of Anthropology Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy. An internationally recognized biological anthropologist who specializes in the study of human origins, Lovejoy is one of the primary authors who revealed their research findings today on Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominid species that lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia.

“People often think we evolved from apes, but no, apes in many ways evolved from us,” Lovejoy said. “It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or ‘Ardi,’ we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas.”
When comparing “Ardi” to “Lucy,” Lovejoy said that working on “Ardi” was much more exciting and interesting. “She provides real answers,” he said.

A resident of Kent, Ohio, Lovejoy has taught at Kent State for 40 years. He is a widely published author, with more than 100 articles in prestigious publications. He also holds the honor of being one of the Institute for Scientific Information’s “Most Highly Cited” authors in social sciences. In 2007, he was elected to membership in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for excellence in original scientific research. Membership in the NAS is one of the highest honors given to a scientist in the United States.

….Yeah. This fellow reckons Ardi predates the chimp human split. I know there are refutes, I know you’ll heap on this guy, but he has those fancy credentials many of you would like to have

Again you do not comprehend before you paste.

All that is being argued here is that features seen in chimps and other living apes that people thought were basal to the lineage before the split (such as knuckle-walking) were in fact derived in the lineage that lead to chimps.

In this instance Ardi and similar early fossils show us that it is the chimp lineage that developed knuckle walking and not the human lineage that moved away from knuckle-walking and stood up. I will note that in science this has always been a question that was considered not fully resolved.

None of this argues against evolutuion.

The current evo myth being we evolved from chimps.

This is exactly the sort of crap that shows you know nothing about evolution. Evolution does not say we evolved from chimps, this is what ignorant creationists say.

And if you had read the links you would have seen that the 2nd one clearly shows how the new information clears up areas where questions were unresolved due to the sparsity of fossils. This is not about overturning existing knowledge its about filling in the gaps where things were unclear.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The current evo myth being we evolved from chimps.

Not aware of any "evos" saying that we evolved from chimps. We share a common ancestor with chimps, but we did not evolve from them.

 

[PolyHedral]

Is there a flaw in post #350? Or are you just ignoring it?