"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do men have nipples?
- Thread starter FDRC2014
- Start date
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
How come some girls don't?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
You'll love the lab experiments.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
Very strange , if all these fossils were present the evolutionary propaganda won't leave alone. I said before don't day dream. I have inspected this issue multiple times and all the alleged fossils proved to be fake.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
I can't believe in evolution only because u study biology.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
I totally respect all kinds of science but I don't believe evolution is a part of it. It's a man made idea that hasn't been proved it.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
All of them? Every single one of these? Fake? Any chance you can explain to us the analysis you did and why your analysis is better than the specialists that consider them real?
So you respect all kinds of science except biology, geology, paleontology, chemistry, physics, and anthropology. Y'know, the types of science used to provide evidence of evolution. Those sciences are all bunk. But the real sciences, you respect those. Things like...uh...hey, guys, are there any sciences that tarekabdo12 hasn't called bunk?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Undoubtedly it was so that atheists could use this question to prove He doesn't exist.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
*sigh*
Earlier you told me that you have no idea what a "transitional fossil" would look like...you couldn't even imagine such a thing. But now here you're telling me you've studied the human fossil record and that they're all fake?
So, if you've indeed studied the human fossil record in sufficient detail to determine that they're fake, then you also must know which ones the scientific community claims are "transitional", right? If so, then you have to have some idea what "transitional" means and what sort of characteristics they are claimed to have, right?
I'm starting to wonder if you're being honest with me. Are you at all willing to discuss this subject openly and honestly?
tarekabdo12
Active Member
Man, I am totally honest with u but u've misunderstood me. I studied what was claimed to be transition between humans and other primates and they were really fake e.g once used a pig's tooth to imagine a whole intermediate creature. And i've posted before that a walking style between that of man and monkey is not possible. so i believe that i can't imagine a truly scientific transitional creature. However, an imaginary creature like those seen in cartoons can be designed by anyone , yet it remains impossible to occur on the true land. The problem also is that the genetic transition appears impossible at least to me so if i try to imagine , i said before that it would be a freak that will die soon. So I can't imagine this creature on a scientific base that can occur then we can search 4 something like it.
Yet, even if we may have contradicting opinion we must always respect each others. Thank u.
So what you're saying is that it's God's will for atheists to pester theists?
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Actually, the transition from a primate gate to a human gate is not all that difficult to imagine.
Evolution: Library: Walking Tall
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Why were they claimed to be transitional? What characteristics did they point to to justify that claim?
You mean "Nebraska Man"? Do you realize it was never published in the scientific literature and was more of a media story than anything else?
So you are an expert in primate anatomy?
You're also an expert in comparative genomics?
Sure, as long as you participate in this discussion in good faith.
So let's try it this way: Would you agree that if humans evolved from a non-human, ancient primate (not a modern chimp), then we should find fossil specimens that show this transition? These fossils should show a mix of human and ancient primate characteristics, with the general overall trend being more human-like as we move forward in time?
Do you agree?
tarekabdo12
Active Member
yes, proceed
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
If humans share a common ancestor with other primates, then an obvious prediction would be that we should find fossilized remains of organisms reflecting this evolutionary past. We would also predict that the older the fossils (IOW, the farther back we go on our branch of the phylogenetic tree), the more primitive those specimens should be and conversely, the younger the fossils, the more modern they should be.
So, is this what we see in the fossil record?
A brief summary of the major hominid fossils follows. In the interest of brevity, Ive left a few out but you can CLICK HERE to see a good overview of the specimens, with access to more detailed information.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Found in Chad and named in 2001, this species existed between 6 and 7 million years ago. It had many primitive ape-like features including a very small skull size (350 cc), brow ridges and small canine teeth (which are characteristic of later hominids). This mixture of hominid and ape features, along with its age, makes it a very, very important find.
Ardipithecus ramidus
This species was named in 1994 from fossils of 17 individuals found in Ethiopia. It existed 4.4 to 5.8 million years ago. It was slightly larger than a chimpanzee, likely bipedal, and had teeth that are intermediate between later hominids and earlier apes. A skeleton that is reported to be about half complete was discovered in 2001, and was described in a 2009 publication.
Australopithecus anamensis
This species was named in 1995 from numerous fossils found in Kenya. It existed 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago and has a mixture of primitive ape-like features in the skull (teeth and jaws are more similar to older apes). However, it also has more advanced features in the body, including leg bones that show characteristics that are consistent with bi-pedalism.
Australopithecus afarensis
First named in 1981, this species consists of many separate finds throughout Ethiopia, the most famous of which is Lucy. Afarensis existed between 3 and 2 million years ago and had an ape-like face with a prominent brow ridge, low forehead, flat nose, no chin, protruding jaw, and a cranial capacity from 375 to 550 cc. The skull is very similar to that of a chimpanzee, but with humanlike teeth. The jaw is intermediate between humans and chimps. The remainder of the skeleton leaves no doubt that afarensis was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus
First discovered in southern Africa in 1924, africanus existed between 3 and 2 million years ago. This species is similar to afarensis, but was larger, and had a brain size of 420 to 500 cc (slightly larger than chimp brains). Africanus was also bipedal, and had teeth and jaws that were more similar to humans than those of apes.
Australopithecus robustus
First discovered in southern Africa in 1938, this species is known from other fossil finds from southern Africa and existed between 2 and 1.5 million years ago. Robustus is similar to africanus but has a larger skull (530 cc) and teeth. It has a massive, flat face with no forehead and large brow ridges. Some excavations indicate that robustus may have used bone tools.
Homo habilis
First discovered by the Leakeys in the 1960s, habilis is now known from many different finds from Tanzania, Kenya and South Africa. Habilis means handy man and is so named because of the large number of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but projects less than africanus. The teeth are smaller than australopithecines, but are still larger than modern humans. Brain size ranges from 500 to 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the lower end, and erectus at the higher end. Also, habilis shows a bulge in the Brocas area of the brain, which is essential for speech. This suggests that habilis may have been capable of rudimentary speech. Because the older habilis specimens differ so much from the later ones, splitting this species into two is being considered.
Homo erectus
First discovered in 1891 in Java, erectus is known from many different finds from Africa, China, and Georgia (the Russian republic). Erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). There is also evidence that erectus was the first hominid to use fire.
Homo heidelbergensis (archaic humans)
First discovered in 1907 in Germany, archaic humans are known from many fossils found throughout Europe, Africa, and Asia. Archaic humans first appeared around 500,000 years ago. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.
Homo neanderthalensis
Neanderthal man existed between 230,000 to 30,000 years ago. They had slightly larger brains than modern humans, likely due to their greater body size. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The midfacial area also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to cold. They are also the first people known to have buried their dead.
Homo sapiens sapiens (modern)
Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years.
So when we consider the hominid fossil record as a whole, we see precisely what we would expect under human/primate shared ancestry. We see a range of specimens that generally are more primitive the farther back in time we go and are more modern as they get younger. We also see very unmistakable developmental trends in the fossil record.
One last thing to keep in mind is that before 190,000 years ago, we never find modern human remains or anything associated with modern humans alongside other hominid species. Instead, we see an overall progression from primitive forms that clearly lead up to modern humans, exactly what is predicted by human/primate shared ancestry.
So, is this what we see in the fossil record?
A brief summary of the major hominid fossils follows. In the interest of brevity, Ive left a few out but you can CLICK HERE to see a good overview of the specimens, with access to more detailed information.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Found in Chad and named in 2001, this species existed between 6 and 7 million years ago. It had many primitive ape-like features including a very small skull size (350 cc), brow ridges and small canine teeth (which are characteristic of later hominids). This mixture of hominid and ape features, along with its age, makes it a very, very important find.
Ardipithecus ramidus
This species was named in 1994 from fossils of 17 individuals found in Ethiopia. It existed 4.4 to 5.8 million years ago. It was slightly larger than a chimpanzee, likely bipedal, and had teeth that are intermediate between later hominids and earlier apes. A skeleton that is reported to be about half complete was discovered in 2001, and was described in a 2009 publication.
Australopithecus anamensis
This species was named in 1995 from numerous fossils found in Kenya. It existed 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago and has a mixture of primitive ape-like features in the skull (teeth and jaws are more similar to older apes). However, it also has more advanced features in the body, including leg bones that show characteristics that are consistent with bi-pedalism.
Australopithecus afarensis
First named in 1981, this species consists of many separate finds throughout Ethiopia, the most famous of which is Lucy. Afarensis existed between 3 and 2 million years ago and had an ape-like face with a prominent brow ridge, low forehead, flat nose, no chin, protruding jaw, and a cranial capacity from 375 to 550 cc. The skull is very similar to that of a chimpanzee, but with humanlike teeth. The jaw is intermediate between humans and chimps. The remainder of the skeleton leaves no doubt that afarensis was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus
First discovered in southern Africa in 1924, africanus existed between 3 and 2 million years ago. This species is similar to afarensis, but was larger, and had a brain size of 420 to 500 cc (slightly larger than chimp brains). Africanus was also bipedal, and had teeth and jaws that were more similar to humans than those of apes.
Australopithecus robustus
First discovered in southern Africa in 1938, this species is known from other fossil finds from southern Africa and existed between 2 and 1.5 million years ago. Robustus is similar to africanus but has a larger skull (530 cc) and teeth. It has a massive, flat face with no forehead and large brow ridges. Some excavations indicate that robustus may have used bone tools.
Homo habilis
First discovered by the Leakeys in the 1960s, habilis is now known from many different finds from Tanzania, Kenya and South Africa. Habilis means handy man and is so named because of the large number of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but projects less than africanus. The teeth are smaller than australopithecines, but are still larger than modern humans. Brain size ranges from 500 to 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the lower end, and erectus at the higher end. Also, habilis shows a bulge in the Brocas area of the brain, which is essential for speech. This suggests that habilis may have been capable of rudimentary speech. Because the older habilis specimens differ so much from the later ones, splitting this species into two is being considered.
Homo erectus
First discovered in 1891 in Java, erectus is known from many different finds from Africa, China, and Georgia (the Russian republic). Erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). There is also evidence that erectus was the first hominid to use fire.
Homo heidelbergensis (archaic humans)
First discovered in 1907 in Germany, archaic humans are known from many fossils found throughout Europe, Africa, and Asia. Archaic humans first appeared around 500,000 years ago. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.
Homo neanderthalensis
Neanderthal man existed between 230,000 to 30,000 years ago. They had slightly larger brains than modern humans, likely due to their greater body size. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The midfacial area also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to cold. They are also the first people known to have buried their dead.
Homo sapiens sapiens (modern)
Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years.
So when we consider the hominid fossil record as a whole, we see precisely what we would expect under human/primate shared ancestry. We see a range of specimens that generally are more primitive the farther back in time we go and are more modern as they get younger. We also see very unmistakable developmental trends in the fossil record.
One last thing to keep in mind is that before 190,000 years ago, we never find modern human remains or anything associated with modern humans alongside other hominid species. Instead, we see an overall progression from primitive forms that clearly lead up to modern humans, exactly what is predicted by human/primate shared ancestry.
FDRC2014
WHY?
Just look on wikipedia, there are many hypothesises of reasonable logical approaches to abiogenesis, with research backing it up. Just because you cant perceive this molecules spontaneously being created doesn't mean it cant happen.
But as i say, we simple don't know for sure right now.
FDRC2014
WHY?
Well, here is what I have picked up, reading the last few posts.
It seems that the creationists view, is that scientists have made up fossil and genetic evidence of evolution to spread propaganda against creationism. The so called lack of evidence then makes it reasonable to believe that a superior being (who has no designer them selves) designed man, then took out a rib and made a woman.
This is completely insane.
Sceptical is ok, asking questions is ok. But outright denying it, with no scientific reason.
It seems that the creationists view, is that scientists have made up fossil and genetic evidence of evolution to spread propaganda against creationism. The so called lack of evidence then makes it reasonable to believe that a superior being (who has no designer them selves) designed man, then took out a rib and made a woman.
This is completely insane.
Sceptical is ok, asking questions is ok. But outright denying it, with no scientific reason.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
[FONT="]Australopithecus[/FONT][FONT="]: An Ape Species[/FONT]
[FONT="]The first category, the genus [/FONT][FONT="]Australopithecus[/FONT][FONT="], means "southern ape", as we have[/FONT]
[FONT="]said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago, and[/FONT]
[FONT="]lived until 1 million years ago. There are a number of different species among the[/FONT]
[FONT="]astralopithecines. Evolutionists assume that the oldest [/FONT][FONT="]Australopithecus [/FONT][FONT="]species is [/FONT][FONT="]A.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Afarensis[/FONT][FONT="]. After that comes [/FONT][FONT="]A. Africanus[/FONT][FONT="], and then [/FONT][FONT="]A. Robustus[/FONT][FONT="], which has relatively bigger[/FONT]
[FONT="]bones. As for [/FONT][FONT="]A. Boisei[/FONT][FONT="], some researchers accept it as a different species, and others as a subspecies[/FONT]
[FONT="]of [/FONT][FONT="]A. Robustus[/FONT][FONT="].[/FONT]
[FONT="]All of the [/FONT][FONT="]Australopithecus [/FONT][FONT="]species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of[/FONT]
[FONT="]today[/FONT][FONT="]. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day.[/FONT]
[FONT="]There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like[/FONT]
[FONT="]today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. They are[/FONT]
[FONT="]short (maximum 130 cm. (51 in.)) and just like today's chimpanzees, male [/FONT][FONT="]Australopithecus[/FONT]
[FONT="]is larger than the female. Many other characteristics-such as the details in their skulls, the[/FONT]
[FONT="]closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms,[/FONT]
[FONT="]and their short legs-constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's[/FONT]
[FONT="]ape.[/FONT]
[FONT="]However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of[/FONT]
[FONT="]apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.[/FONT]
[FONT="]This claim that australopithecines [/FONT][FONT="]walked upright [/FONT][FONT="]is a view that has been held by[/FONT]
[FONT="]paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet[/FONT]
[FONT="]many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of[/FONT]
[FONT="]australopithecines have proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on[/FONT]
[FONT="]various [/FONT][FONT="]Australopithecus [/FONT][FONT="]specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and[/FONT]
[FONT="]the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did[/FONT]
[FONT="]not walk upright in human manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of[/FONT]
[FONT="]15 years thanks to grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five[/FONT]
[FONT="]specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only [/FONT][FONT="]an ordinary ape genus[/FONT]
[FONT="]and were [/FONT][FONT="]definitely not bipedal[/FONT][FONT="], although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.[/FONT][FONT="]72[/FONT]
[FONT="]Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionist famous for his research on[/FONT]
[FONT="]the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of today’s orangutans.[/FONT]
[FONT="]73[/FONT]
[FONT="]The fact that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man is also[/FONT]
[FONT="]accepted by evolutionist sources. The well-known French magazine Science et Vie made[/FONT]
[FONT="]this its cover story of its May 1999 issue. The story dealt with Lucy, the best-known fossil[/FONT]
[FONT="]specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, under the title "Adieu Lucy," (Goodbye Lucy) and[/FONT]
[FONT="]wrote of the need to remove Australopithecus from the human family tree. The article, based[/FONT]
[FONT="]on the discovery of a new Australopithecus, code number St W573, stated:[/FONT]
[FONT="]A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human[/FONT]
[FONT="]race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are[/FONT]
[FONT="]different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the[/FONT]
[FONT="]hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been[/FONT]
[FONT="]removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human)[/FONT]
[FONT="]species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be[/FONT]
[FONT="]discovered.[/FONT][FONT="](Evolution Deceit ,Haroun Yahia)[/FONT]
tarekabdo12
Active Member
Australopithecus
This is the first genus of human being in the imaginary evolutionist schema; the name means “southern ape.” This creature is thought to have first appeared in Africa 4 million years ago and lived until one million years ago. All the species of Australopithecus [A. aferensis, A. africanus, A. boisei. A. robustus (or Zinjanthropus)], comprise an extinct genus of apes that closely resembles apes we see today.
Their brain volume is the same or slightly smaller than that of a modern chimpanzee. Like modern apes, they had protrusions on their hands and feet to facilitate climbing trees, and their feet were shaped to allow them to grasp tree branches. They were short (130 centimeters, or 51 inches at the most), and like modern apes, males were much larger than the females. Many features of their skulls—the position of their eyes close together, their sharp molar teeth, jaw structure—long arms, and short legs show that they were no different from modern apes.
Despite the fact that Australopithecus had the anatomy of an ape, evolutionists claim that unlike other apes, it walked upright like a human. But the skeletal structure of Australopithecus has been studied my many scientists who reject the validity of this claim. Two world-renowned anatomists, Lord Solly Zuckerman from England and Prof. Charles Oxnard of the U.S.A., did an extensive study of Australopithecus remains and determined that this creature didn’t walk on two feet and moved in a way quite different from that of humans.
Lord Zuckerman, with the support of the British government and a team of five experts, examined the bones of this creature for a period of 15 years. Even though he was an evolutionist, he concluded that Australopithecus was a species of ape and that certainly did not walk upright.
Studies done by another noted evolutionist anatomist, Charles E. Oxnard, showed that the skeleton of Australopithecus resembles that of a modern orangutan.
The fact that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man is accepted even by evolutionist sources. The well-known French magazine Science et Vie made this the cover story of its May 1999 issue. The story dealt with Lucy, the best-known fossil specimen of A. afarensis, under the title "Adieu Lucy (Goodbye, Lucy)” and detailed the need to remove Australopithecus from the human family tree. The article was based on the discovery of a new Australopithecus, code number St W573:
A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race. . . . The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree. . . . Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.
Australopithecus was nothing more than an extinct species of ape, with no relation to human beings whatsoever.
(Evolution Impasse 1/ Haroun Yahia) http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/8268/THE_EVOLUTION_IMPASSE_I
This is the first genus of human being in the imaginary evolutionist schema; the name means “southern ape.” This creature is thought to have first appeared in Africa 4 million years ago and lived until one million years ago. All the species of Australopithecus [A. aferensis, A. africanus, A. boisei. A. robustus (or Zinjanthropus)], comprise an extinct genus of apes that closely resembles apes we see today.
Their brain volume is the same or slightly smaller than that of a modern chimpanzee. Like modern apes, they had protrusions on their hands and feet to facilitate climbing trees, and their feet were shaped to allow them to grasp tree branches. They were short (130 centimeters, or 51 inches at the most), and like modern apes, males were much larger than the females. Many features of their skulls—the position of their eyes close together, their sharp molar teeth, jaw structure—long arms, and short legs show that they were no different from modern apes.
Despite the fact that Australopithecus had the anatomy of an ape, evolutionists claim that unlike other apes, it walked upright like a human. But the skeletal structure of Australopithecus has been studied my many scientists who reject the validity of this claim. Two world-renowned anatomists, Lord Solly Zuckerman from England and Prof. Charles Oxnard of the U.S.A., did an extensive study of Australopithecus remains and determined that this creature didn’t walk on two feet and moved in a way quite different from that of humans.
Lord Zuckerman, with the support of the British government and a team of five experts, examined the bones of this creature for a period of 15 years. Even though he was an evolutionist, he concluded that Australopithecus was a species of ape and that certainly did not walk upright.
Studies done by another noted evolutionist anatomist, Charles E. Oxnard, showed that the skeleton of Australopithecus resembles that of a modern orangutan.
The fact that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man is accepted even by evolutionist sources. The well-known French magazine Science et Vie made this the cover story of its May 1999 issue. The story dealt with Lucy, the best-known fossil specimen of A. afarensis, under the title "Adieu Lucy (Goodbye, Lucy)” and detailed the need to remove Australopithecus from the human family tree. The article was based on the discovery of a new Australopithecus, code number St W573:
A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race. . . . The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree. . . . Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.
Australopithecus was nothing more than an extinct species of ape, with no relation to human beings whatsoever.
(Evolution Impasse 1/ Haroun Yahia) http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/8268/THE_EVOLUTION_IMPASSE_I