[Fwd: [Fwd: Lucy's Link is still missing] Atten: Steve Carson]
Jeff Magill (jmagill@sm1.gte.net)
Tue, 04 Mar 1997 19:01:29 -0800
> >
> > Aside from the fact that the original Lucy was indeed piecemeal
> > constructed from various digs ranging in variance of over 200' in depth
> > and a five mile radius in diameter, it wasn't only the kneebone which
> > was added. I will in future dialogs present evidence supporting this
> > position. This is not to be my focus today though.
> >
> > In a National Geographic article dated 12-1976, Johanson claimed that:
> > "The angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at its knee
> > joint end....proved she walked on two legs."
> >
> > However it must be stated that the knee joint end of the femur Johanson
> > discovered was severely crushed. Therefore his(Johanson's) conclusions
> > are pure speculation.
> >
> > Anatomist Charles Oxnard, using a computer technique for analysis of
> > skeletal relationships, has formally reached the obvious conclusion that
> > australopithecines never walked upright as do human beings. He further
> > asserts that lucy and others like her are clearly just different species
> > of apes.
> >
> > Australopithecus:
> > This word assigned to a group of fossils discovered mostly in East
> > Africa by Louis Leakey and others means "southern ape." I will say that
> > Lucy is indeed named correctly but that is the extent of it.
> >
> > Australopithecus is believed to have existed some 2 to 3 million years
> > ago, to have walked erect or upright, and to have even used various
> > forms of crude tools. This speculation is proposed in light of the fact
> > that she had a brain size of only approximately 500 c.c., the same as
> > that of some modern apes. Gee- big evolutionary advances here!
> >
> > For many years, confusion and division among anthropologists has been
> > the staus quo concerning lucy and her contemporaries. Some have asserted
> > that she is ancestral to man and others say she is an evolutionary dead
> > end.
> >
> > Evoulution - "The perfect definition of blind religious faith"
> >
> > For a brief time, the controversy appeared to have been settled by the
> > more recent finds of Richard Leakey, son of Louis, who has furthered his
> > father's finds and continued his fathers work. Because many new and more
> > complete sets of remains of Australopithecus now are available for
> > study, several significant changes in interpretation have resulted.
> >
> > For example, In Science News, vol 100 (November 27, 1971), p.357, we
> > read, "Australopithecus limb bone fossils have been rare finds, but
> > Leaky now has a large sample. They portray Australopithecus as
> > long-armed and short legged. He was probably a knuckle walker, not an
> > erect walker, as many present archeologists presently believe."
> >
> > Leakey would change his mind again along with Johanson (discoverer of
> > Lucy) and claim these creatures may have walked erect. Other specialists
> > such as Oxnard and Zuckerman argue to the contrary.
> >
> > One of the strong evidences we can examine are his jaw and teeth
> > structures. In relation to his peculiar teeth, Australopithecus is
> > clearly connected to Ramapithecus, both having the same type of eating
> > apparatuses. Both are probably this way because of their habitat and
> > resulting diet are very simialr. In this connection, there is living
> > today in Ethiopia a species of high-altitude baboon, scientifically
> > named, Theropithecusgalada, which has teeth and jaw characteristics very
> > much like those of both Ramapithecus and Australopithecus. Given the
> > very "human - like" characteristics of the teeth and jaws of this modern
> > day babbon, it is logical to argue that they are simply the result
> > again, as previously stated concerning "Ramie and Aussie," of his
> > habitat and diet and although may be simialr in design to that of human
> > they are clearly not indicative of a near approach to humanoid...
> >
> > The fact that there is a modern day babbon with the same jawlike
> > structures as these supposedely 2 to 3 million year extinct species
> > shredds all speculation and argument. Neither Australopithecus nor
> > Ramapithecus were missing links. They are simply extinct variations of
> > the same apes species we see living today. There is no evidence of
> > evolution here. The only evidence we see is how far modern day
> > evolutionary anthrolpologists, archeologists, paleontologists, and
> > scientists in general are willing to go in science fantasy/fiction to do
> > mental gymnastics, jumping leaps and bounds into the realm of absurdity
> > to prove the existence of that which never happened. Man did not evolve
> > from apes. Man was formed from the dust of the ground and God breathed
> > life into him and he became a living being. Everywhere one looks, there
> > is evidence of forethought, intelligence and purpose not random chance.
> > The universe has order, structure, design. It was created with
> > intelligence by an all intelligent being. Creation itself points to
> > this. If you don't believe me, answer to yourselves this one question?
> > -Riddle me this...Name one thing in existence today that wasn't created,
> > formed, or brought about from something pre-existing it. Name one thing?
> > Just one????? Nothing comes from nothing. In the beginning GOD...(Gen.1)
> >
> > I can answer my own question because there is only ONE answer- His Name
> > is GOD and He revealed Himself to us Through His only begotten Son Jesus
> > Christ.
> >
> > "In the beginning was the Word and the Word with God and the Word was
> > God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him,
> > and without Him nothing was made that was made.
> >
> > Professing to be wise they became fools...(Rom 1)
> >
> > Sincerely in His Love,
> >
> > Jeff Magill
>
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.