If you admitted that the Australopithecus are not intermediate and Oxnard said it was different from both humans and apes, so how do you say that it posses human-like characters?
I stated no such thing, and neither did Oxnard. You need to understand that many paleoanthropologists still argue that at least one of the australopithecine species is our ancestor. As I said before, the problem with the hominid fossil record isn't a lack of intermediates, it's that there's so many of them it's difficult to tell who fits where. There likely will
never be total consensus on the arrangement of all these species in our evolutionary tree.
It doesn't appear this way at all, it has distict pelvis different from man but more like apes, small brain capacity more like apes, skull and teeth different from that of humans, knee not able to lock like humans which makes walking in the human pattern so difficult, wide pelvis which also makes walking like humans very hard and energy consuming, rib cage similar to that of apes, knees with angles different from that of humans and necessary for walking upright- taking into consideration that the Orang-utan has the same angle at the knee like humans, yet it's not considered a transition and can't walk like humans-, wrist suitable for knuckle walking and hanging from trees.
Again, you're either missing the point or deliberately avoiding it.
A. anamensis has a skull and teeth that are more primitive, but leg bones that more modern (but not exactly like humans).
A. afarensis has a more primitive skull and face, but has teeth, legs, knees, and a pelvis that are more modern (but not exactly like humans).
A. africanus has the same mixture of features as afarensis, but is somewhat larger.
These species existed 2-4 million years ago and are not that far removed from when the human and chimp lines split from the last common ancestor. Given that, we would
expect them to be mostly primitive and more similar to that last common ancestor. They represent the hominid tree's early diversion from primitive ape-like ancestors. You keep pointing out that various features aren't exactly like modern humans, but we wouldn't expect them to, would we? As we discussed earlier, we
expect early hominids to be more primitive ape-like.
How can I reach the brother of my great great great great great great grandfather, if I don't even know who's my father and the father of my father? It's a great dilemma
So you're saying that unless you can "reach" every single member of your ancestry and precisely determine his relationship to you, you cannot ever know anything about your ancestry?
I meant that nobody said that adding a new member to the birds family means evolution is true
Evolution is "true" because we see it happen every day, right before our eyes. Every single new trait, feature, ability, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution.
why not to say that all birds have been created in a similar way by God in a good and fantastic variation that serves both shape and function?
So did this god create
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, decide he didn't like it, wipe it out, and then create a little bit different Ardipithecus? And then he didn't like that either, so he wiped them out and created a bunch of Australopithicene species, each a little different than the others? But then he didn't like those either, so he wiped all of them out and created
H. habilis? And then he was bored with that, so he killed all them and created
H. erectus, which were slightly different than habilis? And then after a while, he decided to kill off erectus and created a slightly different species,
H. heidelbergensis? But then he tired of them, so he killed them and created the first
H. sapiens, which were only slightly different than heidelbergensis? And just for kicks, he created the slightly different
H. neanderthalensis alongside sapiens, but then for whatever reason he just killed them off leaving just
H. sapiens?
So I have to ask, just what the heck was this god doing? Trial and error? You honestly think that's a better interpretation of the hominid fossil record? Given that all we've ever seen is evolution and we never see any gods creating a single thing, you honestly think the above makes
more sense than evolution?
So, adding a new member to the family of Primates -that is distinct from humans and more similar to apes- is not a clue for the occurrence of evolution.
Again, you're not examining these specimens within the context of the overall record. Given the time they existed, we would expect them to be more similar to the primitive ape-like ancestor of humans and chimps, and to only show the first evolutionary steps towards modern humans.
I think it's time we move on to the next set of specimens.
