Valgus angle human evolution

[It should be made perfectly clear at the outset, that when evolutionist authorities are cited as being critical of various aspects of the human evolutionary ‘structure’, it is not implied that they now reject the theory.In truth, there is often precious little science but much speculation; this contention is powerfully supported by recent publications from Table 1.A survey of the palaeoanthropological literature reveals the controversies raging between various discoverers of australopithecine and habiline bones and their followers.It can also be readily demonstrated that preconceptions have already decided the interpretation of these bones as belonging to human ancestors, even when the contrary evidence is obvious.However, almost every single fossil link in this ‘chain’ can be successfully challenged by educated and informed creationists by demonstrating the biased interpretation of much of the evidence by the experts.Despite a similar molecular structure, there is a huge gap between man and the apes.Roger Lewin is a highly respected palaeontologist and palaeoanthropologist, but upon observing the antics of his fellows over the past few decades, he felt compelled to expose the bitter divides, personal ego-trips, jealousies, and hunger for fame of many workers in the field who have dominated these branches of science in this century.Not only are a number of experts at variance with each other, but most have allowed their preconceptions to colour facts to such an extent that an entirely false picture of human origins now dominates the entire world’s educational systems and public media networks.Debate continues over the australopithecines, but close examination of the dentition and jaws, the position of the foramen magnum, the upper body bones, the rib-cage and waist, the arm, hand and phalanges, the pelvis, hip and thigh, the legs, knees and feet, and the ankle joint not only shows that they were not bipedal, but that they were probably the ancestors of today’s great apes, the chimpanzees and gorillas.The habilines likewise have been difficult for the palaeoanthropologists to classify as a uniform group, because the evidence clearly shows that they were variants of the australopithecines and not a separate taxon within the genus Various camps in the field of human historical study have manipulated or distorted (probably unconsciously) the facts about the australopithecines and habilines to suit their own particular viewpoints, and consequently their own fame, fortune and standing in the scientific community, plus the very generous taxpayer-funded research grants available.Another protohuman which supposedly links these creatures to humans is the so-called habiline group, which supposedly arose after the gracile australopithecine stage around 2 Ma, and which thereafter evolved directly into approximately 1.8—1.9 Ma.

It should be noted that some humans such as and neanderthals have a degree of facial prognathicity, but not to the degree of the apes/australopithecines.The most important stage in this chain of alleged events was the transformation of a quadrupedal chimp-like ‘common ancestor’ into a supposedly erect group of creatures described as australopithecines some 4 to 5 million years ago (Ma).Lewin himself still remains committed to an evolutionary origin for humanity, despite his clear view that there has been far too much emotionalism and preconception on the part of researchers in their quest.Some of the main differences between the morphology of apes and of humans.These curious animals, mostly discovered since 1924 in various regions of southern and eastern Africa, have become the only candidates for the alleged transition to ‘primitive’ man.


Datum: 14.03.2013 | Sichtbarmachung: 4827

Ahnliche Beitrage