Human evolution Intelligent Design

Researchers: Sediba is not a human ancestor after all. Back to Lucy, but…

Spread the love
Statistical study finds it unlikely South African fossil species is ancestral to humans

Fossil casts of Australopithecus afarensis (left), Homo habilis (center), and Australopithecus sediba (right) Credit: Matt Wood, UChicago

Rumors flew that Sediba would be dumped in 2017. But Lucy isn’t a straightforward candidate either, it turns out. Now, from ScienceDaily:

Statistical analysis of fossil data shows that it is unlikely that Australopithecus sediba, a nearly two-million-year-old, apelike fossil from South Africa, is the direct ancestor of Homo, the genus to which modern-day humans belong.

The research by paleontologists from the University of Chicago, published this week in Science Advances, concludes by suggesting that Australopithecus afarensis, of the famous “Lucy” skeleton, is still the most likely ancestor to the genus Homo.

The first A. sediba fossils were unearthed near Johannesburg in 2008. Hundreds of fragments of the species have since been discovered, all dating to roughly two million years ago. The oldest known Homo fossil, the jawbone of an as yet unnamed species found in Ethiopia, is 2.8 million years old, predating A. sediba by 800,000 years.

Despite this timeline, the researchers who discovered A. sediba have claimed that it is an ancestral species to Homo. While it is possible that A. sediba (the hypothesized ancestor) could have postdated earliest Homo (the hypothesized descendant) by 800,000 years, the new analysis indicates that the probability of finding this chronological pattern is highly unlikely. Paper. (open access) – Andrew Du and Zeresenay Alemseged. Temporal evidence shows Australopithecus sediba is unlikely to be the ancestor of Homo. Science Advances, 2019 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aav9038 More.

The discussion of probabilities is interesting:

“It is definitely possible for an ancestor’s fossil to postdate a descendant’s by a large amount of time,” said the study’s lead author Andrew Du, Ph.D., who will join the faculty at Colorado State University after concluding his postdoctoral research in the lab of Zeray Alemseged, Ph.D., the Donald M. Pritzker Professor of Organismal and Biology and Anatomy at UChicago.

“We thought we would take it one step further to ask how likely it is to happen, and our models show that the probability is next to zero,” Du said.

Du and Alemseged also reviewed the scientific literature for other hypothesized ancestor-descendant relationships between two hominin species. Of the 28 instances they found, only one first-discovered fossil of a descendant was older than its proposed ancestor, a pair of Homo species separated by 100,000 years, far less than the 800,000 years separating A. sediba and earliest Homo. For context, the average lifespan of any hominin species is about one million years.

“Again, we see that it’s possible for an ancestor’s fossil to postdate its descendant’s,” Du said. “But 800,000 years is quite a long time.” University of Chicago Medical Center, “Statistical study finds it unlikely South African fossil species is ancestral to humans” at Phys.org

So we’re back with Lucy again, for now at least. But the evidence for Lucy is hardly decisive either:

“This is probability statistics at its best,” said Yohannes Haile-Selassie, a physical anthropologist from the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, in an email to Gizmodo. “I had no doubt in my mind—nor did many in our field—that A. sediba could not have been the ancestor of Homo, not only because the earliest known representative of Homo is 800,000 years older, but also because A. sediba does not have all of the morphological features that one would expect to see from the earliest Homo,” said Haile-Selassie, who wasn’t involved with the new research.

“I hope Du and Alemseged’s work lays this issue to rest,” he wrote. “We still have to look for the ancestor of the genus Homo even though A. afarensis appears to be the best candidate for now. Let’s keep looking, the fossil record is always full of surprises!” George Dvorsky, “New Analysis Debunks Controversial Claim About the Origin of Humanity” at Gizmodo

The anthropologist is right, the fossil record is full of surprises. But the news that Lucy is only “the best candidate” is worth some reflection. It sounds like we have little to go on and Lucy is at best plausible.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

See also: Australopithecus sediba to be dumped from human family? (2017)

and

Choosing between Sediba and Naledi as human ancestor? (2015)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

6 Replies to “Researchers: Sediba is not a human ancestor after all. Back to Lucy, but…

  1. 1
    vmahuna says:

    I think it’s in one of Anne Gauger’s books that a man who was present at the first viewing of Lucy immediately concluded that “Lucy” (who didn’t have a name yet) was some flavor of small gorilla, perhaps an immature one. There was NOTHING about the skeleton that seemed obviously human. But of course getting PUBLICITY for the find (and LOTS of future funding) was a WHOLE LOT easier if the reconstruction had a name the public could connect with (the Beatles “Lucy in the Sky” was popular at the time) and if the the skeleton was MARKETED as the long sought Missing Link.
    So Lucy is ONLY considered important amongst the Darwinists who BELIEVE, in a VERY religious way, that Lucy is human. Otherwise, the Homo Erectus skeletons from further south are MUCH more interesting.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    “But the evidence for Lucy is hardly decisive either”

    Along that line,,,

    “a team of paleo-experts from the State University of New York, Stony Brook, (which includes distinguished leaders in the field such as Tuttle, Tardieu, Senut, Susman, Stern, and Jungers, among others) insist Lucy was predominately a tree dwelling ape that did not habitually walk upright”
    Review of “Contested Bones” (Part 6 – Chapter 6 “Australopithecus afarensis” – “Lucy”) by Paul Giem – 25:00 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/QHZnhOUAe4c?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm&t=1435
    26:00 minute mark: Craig Stanford 2012, “,, Afarensis as an arboreal adapted species is still valid and still represents the consensus view held by paleoanthropologists today”.
    35:00 minute mark:
    Body size of an ape
    Skull of an ape
    Shoulders of an ape
    Rib cage of an ape
    Spine of an ape
    Hip of an ape
    Hands of an ape
    Feet of an ape
    Knee joint of an ape
    Conclusion: Lucy’s kind in mostly ape.
    36:00 minute quote: “Lucy’s distinctly ape-like nature is defended by numerous experts in the field who have published in highly respected peer-reviewed scientific journals such as,,,”

    Lucy – The Powersaw Incident – a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the evidence – 32:08 mark of video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4ADhPVpA0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1928

    My Pilgrimage to Lucy’s Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism
    Excerpt: —“We were sent a cast of the Lucy skeleton, and I was asked to assemble it for display,” remembers Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich.,,, “When I started to put [Lucy’s] skeleton together, I expected it to look human,” Schmid continues “Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....ly_re.html

    Miller: The evidence shows that Lucy is an ape species, not a human ancestor – July 10, 2018
    Excerpt: In addition to the evidence that Lucy should be classified as an ape species, there is additional evidence which excludes the possibility australopithecines are a transitional ancestor to the genus Homo.The Australopithecus sediba finding in 2008 by Matthew Berger was first assumed to put an end to the taxonomic confusion surrounding Australopithecus and provide a clear link between ape and man. However, research since then demonstrates the failure of this fossilized “mosaic of ape and human features” to provide any such link. Like A. habilis and A. aferensis, the evidence suggests that A. sediba is most likely a mixture of bones from various species. R&S provide evidence for seven key lines of argument:,,,
    Been and Rak’s study in 2014 show that Sediba’s spine jaw are mixed bones, not a morphological mosaic of ape-man traits,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/miller-the-evidence-shows-that-lucy-is-an-ape-species-not-a-human-ancestor/

    Besides Lucy, the entire field of paleoanthroplology is not “decisive”

    Contested Bones: Is There Any Solid Fossil Evidence for Ape-to-Man Evolution? – Dr. John Sanford and Chris Rupe
    Excerpt: We have spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on this subject. We have discovered that within this field (paleoanthropology), virtually all the famous hominin types have either been discredited or are still being hotly contested. Within this field, not one of the hominin types have been definitively established as being in the lineage from ape to man. This includes the famous fossils that have been nicknamed Lucy, Ardi, Sediba, Habilis, Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal. Well-respected people in the field openly admit that their field is in a state of disarray. It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils.
    We will show that the actual fossil evidence is actually most consistent with the following three points. 1) The hominin bones reveal only two basic types; ape bones (Ardi and Lucy), and human bones (Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal). 2) The ape bones and the human bones have been repeatedly found together in the same strata – therefore both lived at the same basic timeframe (the humans were apparently hunting and eating the apes). 3) Because the hominin bones were often found in mixed bone beds (with bones of many animal species in the same site), numerous hominin types represent chimeras (mixtures) of ape and human bones (i.e., Sediba, Habilis).
    We will also present evidence that the anomalous hominin bones that are of the human (Homo) type most likely represent isolated human populations that experienced severe inbreeding and subsequent genetic degeneration. This best explains why these Homo bones display aberrant morphologies, reduced body size, and reduced brain volume.
    We conclude that the hominin bones do not reveal a continuous upward progression from ape to man, but rather reveal a clear separation between the human type and the ape type. The best evidence for any type of intermediate “ape-men” derived from bones collected from mixed bone beds (containing bones of both apes and men), which led to the assembly of chimeric skeletons. Therefore, the hominin fossils do not prove human evolution at all.,,,
    We suggest that the field of paleoanthropology has been seriously distorted by a very strong ideological agenda and by very ambitious personalities.
    https://ses.edu/contested-bones-is-there-any-solid-fossil-evidence-for-ape-to-man-evolution/

    “Contested Bones” review by Paul Giem – video playlist – 2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm

    No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests – Oct. 21, 2013
    Excerpt: The article, “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,,
    They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match.
    “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....153202.htm

    Darwinists try to couple their ‘indecisive’ fossil record for supposed human evolution with genetic evidence. Yet, like the fossil record, the genetic evidence, contrary to what Darwinists say, is just as indecisive as the fossil record is turning out to be.

    In fact, according to a Darwinist, the 98.5% Chimp-Human DNA similarity comparisons, because of the fraudulent way in which it was derived, “needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years”,,,

    The Rise and Fall of DNA Hybridization – Jonathan Marks – 2011
    Excerpt: the technique of DNA hybridization had devolved into being doubly “tricky” – but more significantly, the outstanding charge of data falsification was there in black-and-white in the leading science journal in America. It seemed as though nothing more needed to be said for the “wheels of justice” to begin turning. Yet they didn’t.
    In 1993, I was asked by The Journal of Human Evolution to review Jared Diamond’s book, The Third Chimpanzee. Noting that the book’s “hook” was based on the Sibley-Ahlquist work, which Diamond was still touting uncritically, I said:
    Perhaps you recall Sibley and Ahlquist. In a nutshell, their results were: (1) chimp-gorilla DNA hybrids were more thermally stable than chimp-human hybrids; (2) the differences were insignificant; and (3) reciprocity was very poor when human DNA was used as a tracer. Unfortunately, the conclusions they reported were: (1) chimp-human was more thermally stable than chimp-gorilla; (2) differences were significant; and (3) reciprocity was near-perfect. And they got from point A to point B by (1) switching experimental controls; (2) making inconsistent adjustments for variation in DNA length, which was apparently not even measured; (3) moving correlated points into a regression line; and (4) not letting anyone know. The rationale for (4) should be obvious; and if (1), (2) and (3) are science, I’m the Princess of Wales. This work needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years.31
    31Marks, J. (1993) Review of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. Journal of Human Evolution,
    24:69-73.
    http://webpages.uncc.edu/~jmar.....isited.pdf

    A more reliable estimate for percent genetic similarity is turning out to be somewhere around 85%:

    New Chimp Genome Confirms Creationist Research
    BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2018
    Excerpt: The first time they constructed a chimp genome and compared it to humans, they claimed 98.5% DNA similarity based on cherry-picked regions that were highly similar to human. However, an extensive DNA comparison study I published in 2016 revealed two major flaws in their construction of the chimp genome.1
    First, many chimp DNA data sets were likely contaminated with human DNA, especially those produced in the first half of the chimpanzee genome project from 2002 to 2005. Second, the chimpanzee genome was deliberately constructed to be more human-like than it really is.2 Scientists assembled the small snippets of chimp DNA onto the human genome, using it as a scaffold or reference. It’s much like putting together a jigsaw puzzle by looking at the picture on the box as a guide. Since many chimpanzee data sets likely suffered from human DNA contamination, the level of humanness was amplified. I studied the 2005–2010 data sets that showed less human DNA data contamination and found they were only 85% similar to human at best.1
    Just this year, scientists published a new version of the chimpanzee genome.3 This new version incorporated an advanced type of DNA sequencing technology that produces much longer snippets of DNA sequence than earlier technologies. It also involved better protocols that greatly reduce human DNA contamination. And most importantly, the authors report that the DNA sequences have been assembled without using the human genome as a scaffold.
    They also acknowledged the flawed nature of previous versions of the chimp genome:
    The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies.3
    This confirms what many creationists have been pointing out for years.
    Curiously, the authors of the new chimp genome paper said very little about the overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees. However, the University of London’s specialist in evolutionary genomics, Dr. Richard Buggs, evaluated the results of an analysis that compared this new chimp version to the human genome and discovered some shocking anti-evolutionary findings.
    Dr. Buggs reported on his website that “the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”?4 Assuming the chimpanzee and human genomes are about the same size, this translates to an overall similarity of only about 80%! This outcome is way outside the nearly identical level of 98 to 99% similarity required for human evolution to seem plausible.
    http://www.icr.org/article/new.....t-research

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    On top of that, and completely contrary to Darwinian thinking, kangaroos and dolphins are far more genetically similar to humans than was originally presupposed by Darwinists:

    Kangaroo genes close to humans – 2008
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

    Dolphin DNA very close to human, – 2010
    Excerpt: They’re closer to us than cows, horses, or pigs, despite the fact that they live in the water.,,,
    “The extent of the genetic similarity came as a real surprise to us,” ,,,
    “Dolphins are marine mammals that swim in the ocean and it was astonishing to learn that we had more in common with the dolphin than with land mammals,” says geneticist Horst Hameister.,,,
    “We started looking at these and it became very obvious to us that every human chromosome had a corollary chromosome in the dolphin,” Busbee said. “We’ve found that the dolphin genome and the human genome basically are the same. It’s just that there’s a few chromosomal rearrangements that have changed the way the genetic material is put together.”
    http://www.reefrelieffounders......-to-human/
    Kolber, J., 2010, Dolphin DNA very close to human,
    Kumar, S., 2010, Human genes closer to dolphin’s than any land animal, Discovery Channel Online,

    Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization)
    5:30 minute mark quote: “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species”,,,
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....-dna-pt-2/

    Where you will find the greatest differences between humans, chimps, kangaroos, dolphins, etc.. etc.. is not in the DNA sequences but is in the species-specific ‘alternative splicing patterns’ between the different species.

    Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
    A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
    On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....plicing%2F

    Moreover, “Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,, and,,, As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes,, collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification.”

    Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing – 2016
    In Brief
    Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,
    Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013).
    http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/.....M_2016.pdf

    To say that the preceding findings are a problem for the ‘selfish gene,’ i.e. gene-centric, view of Darwinists is to make a severe understatement. It is a straight-up empirical falsification of their gene-centric view.

    Moreover, the biological form of any given organism is not even reducible to mutations to DNA in the first place (as is presupposed in the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian thought):

    Darwinism vs Biological Form
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    In fact, recent advances in quantum biology have now shown that Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand molecular biology in the first place:

    Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate (27:15 minute mark – how quantum information theory relates to molecular biology)
    https://youtu.be/4f0hL3Nrdas?t=1635

    The preceding evidence from quantum biology removes molecular biology from its present presupposed foundation on reductive materialism, and firmly places it, specifically embryological development, on the foundation of Theism, even Christian Theism.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note, so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that, (since, surprisingly, pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are), a Darwinist actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:

    A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? – July 3, 2013
    Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,,
    The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal “valves of Kerkring,” heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-c.....umans.html

    Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article, (since the preceding article badly upset the prevailing just so story of the ‘march to man’), showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins was much harder to shoot down than many Darwinists, who had strongly reacted against McCarthy’s hypothesis, had first supposed it would be:

    Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence – July 25, 2013
    Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy.
    ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-h.....dence.html

    of supplemental note: The morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimps are so great that, before Darwinists apparently rearranged the classification to reflect their evolutionary bias, “biologists (use to) place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families.”

    In “Science,” 1975, M-C King and A.C. Wilson were the first to publish a paper estimating the degree of similarity between the human and the chimpanzee genome. This documented the degree of genetic similarity between the two (approx. 99% amino acid similarity) ! The study, using a limited data set, found that we were far more similar than was thought possible at the time. Hence, we must be one with apes mustn’t we? But…in the second section of their paper King and Wilson honestly describe the deficiencies of such reasoning:
    “The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38).
    Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38).
    Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
    King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems.
    David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion – Page 162&163
    Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees Mary-Claire King; A. C. Wilson – 1975
    http://academic.reed.edu/biolo.....5(classic)

    Moreover, humans have many unique phenotypic traits that are simply missing in great apes

    Table 1. Unique phenotypic traits of humans compared to those of great apes
    http://genome.cshlp.org/conten.....nsion.html

    On top of that, and as the following researchers honestly admitted,,, “For the most part, we do not know which genetic features interact with the environment to generate these differences between the “phenomes””

    Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack – Ajit Varki1 and Tasha K. Altheide – 2005
    Excerpt: we have many characteristics that are uniquely human. Table 1 lists some of the definite and possible phenotypic traits that appear to differentiate us from chimpanzees and other “great apes”2. For the most part, we do not know which genetic features interact with the environment to generate these differences between the “phenomes”3 of our two species. The chimpanzee has also long been seen as a model for human diseases because of its close evolutionary relationship. This is indeed the case for a few disorders. Nevertheless, it is a striking paradox that chimpanzees are in fact not good models for many major human diseases/conditions (see Table 2) (Varki 2000; Olson and Varki 2003).
    http://genome.cshlp.org/conten.....l.pdf+html

    Thus, the evidence for human evolution is certainly not ‘decisive’ for Darwinists. Not in the least. In fact, the evidence contradicts their materialistic presuppositions at every turn. Theism, even Christian Theism, is certainly far better supported by the evidence, specifically evidence from quantum biology, than atheistic materialism is.

  5. 5
    Brother Brian says:

    I read one of Johanson’s books years ago but for the life of me I can’t remember the title. I will have to dig through my books and find it. But I do remember that I thought his arguments and conclusions were very well written, well presented and compelling.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    A Look at Lucy’s Legacy – 2015
    Excerpt: Owen Lovejoy, who worked with Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion. Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23
    https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/a-look-at-lucys-legacy/

    Lucy – (Owen Lovejoy) The Powersaw Incident – a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the evidence – 32:08 mark of video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4ADhPVpA0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1928

    Further notes:

    Lucy Makeover Shouts a Dangerously Deceptive Message About Our Supposed Ancestors
    by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on October 5, 2013
    Excerpt: Australopithecus afarensis is extinct. Its bones suggest it was not identical to living apes, but it did have much in common with them. Many have assessed the skeletal pieces of the various afarensis and possible afarensis fossils that have been found. Overall, these skeletal parts reveal an animal well-adapted to arboreal life. Its wrist bones also suggest it was a knuckle-walker. Reconstructions of its pelvis demonstrate its so-called “bipedal” gait was nothing like a human being’s upright gait. In fact, it is only the evolutionary wish to impute a bipedal gait to this animal that marches its fossils upright across the pages of the evolutionary story.
    https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/lucy-makeover-shouts-a-dangerously-deceptive-message-about-our-supposed-ancestors/

    Lucy, the Knuckle-walking abomination? by Dr. David Menton and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on October 24, 2012
    Excerpt: We would submit that the anterior migration of the afarensis foramen magnum occurred not deep in the evolutionary history of humanity but quite possibly sometime after 1992 in the laboratory.
    https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/lucy-the-knuckle-walking-abomination/

    Here is the fraudulent reconstruction of Lucy displayed by Darwinists

    Lucy – fraudulent reconstruction
    http://www.live-news24.com/ass.....-13376.jpg

    And here is the anatomically correct reconstruction of Lucy

    Lucy – a correct reconstruction
    https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/campaigns/lucy-exhibit.jpg

Leave a Reply