I hear ICR is looking for a few good men (and the rest will be idiots).

You blathered -
"1. She had a U-shaped jaw, which is usual for Gorrilas

2. Long curved fingers and toes, which meant she was well adapted for swing in trees"

Are we to assume from these two statements that gorillas are arboreal? Do gorillas swing from tree to tree? Let me ask you this. Is a gorilla a monkey or an ape? Do you even know the difference? Go ahead and look it up on the web, then give us your version of what you meant by your statements.

And what would happen if a certain segment of tree-dwelling old-world monkies was exposed to a shift in climate, making their forest biome a grassland biome. Do you suppose they hopped the next airplane and flew to the nearest forest.

I got an idea - try reading about the descent of man and learn the scientific theory behind it. What a novel idea. Nobody can take you seriously because you don't have even the basics of evolutionary theory or biology learned in order to debate logically.

You rambled -
" Pygmy chimps today can walk paritally upright."

And bonoboos engage in frontal copulation, so what? So because other animals walk upright that is evidence that there is no direct lineage present. That is great - with one fatal swoop you tore down the entire theory of australiopithocene and hominid evolution. You are good, I bet ICR is licking their chops for you to get on board.

"6. The knee points to the ability to climb trees, not so much to walk upright."

Transitional species, perhaps?

"Not on the evolutionary path to man."

Stirring. Profound. Insipid?

Scott

• Thanks! - kc2gwx - May 30, 2002 - 21:07 UTC
  • Funny - darwinpoodle - June 1, 2002 - 15:46 UTC
    • be nice big guy - carefuluniverse - June 1, 2002 - 19:11 UTC