You may all continue to clarify points with your reflection of research. Picking and explaining particular points in my examples re various controversies appears to evade my bottom line. There are many debates about many things to do with fossils as well as genomes. There’s great evidence for and against LUCA, with accompanying models, there’s good evidence for dino to bird and bird to dino theories, there’s debate about Ardi that we have just spoken about.
There’s plenty more, and we‘ve merry go rounded many of them. So picking one or two points and giving a rendition of your thoughts, any of you, and commonly held views or not, does not refute the fact that researchers can look at the same old bones, same genetic research, know all this stuff you go on about (as they are very credentialed) and still the debates going on.
Like Outhouse you can show your ignorance re debates and try to find points in my ignorance and that does not solidify your stance at all.
These researchers that challenge various research know your bones and all the genetic research too. It is not a secret on RF.
What you need to do is tell these leading researchers that challenge the currently most popularly held views that you agree with, that they are idiots because you know what’s what. ..and show them your pictures and websites. Then no where in Wiki, or anywhere else will there be conflicting data ever again in evolutionary science. I have faith in you PW and others here..you sort them out..
Remember everything supports Toe..there is no LUCA or there is, we came from chimp like creatures or we didn’t,..it doesn’t matter. Do you intend on clarifying every concern any leading researcher has?
All I speak to does not destroy Toe, nor your fossil & genetic evidence, but it makes reasonable anyone’s decision to question it, and surmise it is not convincing. Here’s just a bit re Ardi..where this researcher reckons Ardi belongs to a species that evolved before the moment human, chimps, apes diverged. He looks at the same bones, know the same stuff and yet sees room for challenge. So do the challengers of LUCA, Denisova hominin, dino to bird theory and all the rest…not so black and white nor simple obviously.
Putting up your personal refutes, does not explain why there is debate amongst leading researchers around a range of issues. Creationists have reason to say the fossil and genetic evidence is not convincing.
For Ouhouse..look up Wiki..then the research quoted and stop being a pest.
Bipedalism Wiki: Provisioning model
One theory on the origin of bipedalism is the behavioral model presented by C. Owen Lovejoy, known as "male provisioning".
[33] Lovejoy theorizes that the
evolution of bipedalism was a product of monogamy. As
hominid males became monogamous, Lovejoy contends, they would leave their mates and offspring for the day to search for food. Once they found food for their family, the male hominids would return carrying the food in their arms and walking on their hind legs.
There is no particular evidence, however, that early hominids were monogamous. And some evidence indicates that early bipedal hominids were in fact polygynous. Among all monogamous primates, males and females are about the same size. That is
sexual dimorphism is minimal. In
Australopithecus afarensis, males were thought to be nearly twice the weight of females (as well as a great deal taller), which suggests[
citation needed] that they were polygynous. Modern monogamous primates are also highly territorial, but fossil evidence indicates that
Australopithecus afarensis lived in large groups. There is likewise no evidence that female hominids did not forage themselves. Early hominids did not have the large brains that require that infants be born premature and helpless. Females in ape species similar to early hominids do not wait for food to be brought to them. In short, there is no direct evidence to support either monogamy or polygamy in early hominids and indirect evidence points to polygamy.
Homo Wiki:
Homo floresiensis, discovered in 2003, may have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago. The discovery of
Denisova hominin, announced in March 2010, may reveal it to be yet another species in the genus.
Denisova hominin: Little is known of the anatomical features of the individual in question since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the
finger bone from which only mitochondrial genetic material was gathered. The Siberian bone's mtDNA differs from that of modern humans by 385 bases (
nucleotides) in the mtDNA strand out of approximately 16,500, whereas the difference between modern humans and
Neanderthals is around 202 bases. In contrast, the difference between
chimpanzees and modern humans is approximately 1,462 mtDNA base pairs. Analysis of the specimen's
nuclear DNA is under way and is expected to clarify whether the find is a distinct species.
[1][4] Even though the Denisova hominin's mtDNA lineage predates the divergence of modern humans and Neanderthals,
coalescent theory does not preclude a more recent divergence date for her nuclear DNA
Ardi: The Human Ancestor Who Wasn't?
By
Eben Harrell Thursday, May. 27, 2010
An excerpt……..
In the first article, titled "Comment on the Paleobiology and Classification of Ardipithecus ramidus," Esteban Sarmiento, a primatologist at the Human Evolution Foundation, argues that many of the "characters" — the scientific term for physical traits — used by White to place Ardi on the human lineage are also shared by other primates. He argues that the evidence suggests Ardi belongs to a species that evolved before the moment when humans, apes and chimps diverged along different evolutionary paths. That is significant because one of the things that made Ardi interesting scientifically was that she had been identified by White as the earliest known descendant of the last common ancestor of humans and African apes — thus her physiology could offer clues to what makes humans different from their nearest relatives.
"[White] showed no evidence that Ardi is on the human lineage," Sarmiento says. "Those characters that he posited as relating exclusively to humans also exist in apes and ape fossils that we consider not to be in the human lineage."
