I. SCIENCE F. The Origin of Man, Evolution Style 1.

20 Feb

1 million bc poster

We have come all this way down the scientific trail in our effort to hunt and track down its explanation for the Origin of Man. Through this journey, so far, we have studied the dating methods used by this science, we have explored the methods by which it measures distance, we have talked about Artist’s Conceptions in the scientific world, and we have looked at the history of its answer for the origin of species, Evolution. But we have yet to pin down this Evolution as it accounts for Man in particular, and so that will be the point of this chapter. Undoubtedly, this section will be a long one, because there is much to discuss.

In the poster above, from the movie One Million B.C., you have in a nutshell the prevailing view of man’s Origins as understood by science. I could have used an ancient skull fragment, or a flint tool as an opening picture, but I think, all considered, the metaphor of the cinematic presentation does fairest justice to the prevailing scientific view. This view, let me propose at the outset, is very much like a film or movie. It has taken select footage in specific locations, it has edited and manipulated the snippets to tell a better story, and its sequels, based on the successful pilot, are numerous.

Astute moviegoers will remember that One Million BC is a work of fiction. It is not even meant to be a documentary. The descent of Man, from primates, as given by Evolution, like Planet of the Apes as well, is also, as we will see, fiction. The Origin of Man by Natural Selection, espoused by Evolution, taught as fact, and now speaking in language befitting madmen, has not even the makings of a good movie, a good legend or myth. Madmen like S. Jay Gould, who have offered the opinion that the various species come about through the ‘Hopeful Monster” Theory, a supplement to Evolution, stating that every once in a while, oh, a chicken will lay an egg, and a lizard will come out (see here for one argument against this, click here for one in support of it, and click here for what it is supposed to be). Apparently modern geneticists have refuted this theory, we spend time to notice the trendy, chameleon-like grasping-at-straws Evolution employs to keep itself alive.

Before we get into the actual proofs offered for the scientific view, the evidences by means of which we are told that Evolutionary Theory regarding Man is logically correct and undisputed fact, we need to tell the legend as contained in the Books of Science, and it goes something like this. Let us then jump right into the plot of this movie, and state clearly for the layman the current scientific explanation for the Origin of Man.

Somehow, without a deus ex machina, Life formed on this planet out of inanimate matter which came from an explosion of nothingness. Slowly, over time spanning billions, if not trillions of years, this matter, somehow, altered its propelled trajectory, coagulated and mingled and came to form the celestial bodies, some of which, by lightning strike or whatever stimulation, bore living creatures. A Primordial slime, protozoa, bacteria formed and so Life began.

Slowly, again, after millions if not billions of years, this Life, by a process of “Natural Selection,” began to change, we know not why nor in what direction, and eventually led to, by mutation of genetic material, the variety of animals, plants, and minerals we have on this planet Earth.

The Fossil Record: Toumai

Fast forwarding a few million years, the Evolutionary story continues, we arrive eventually at that time, oh let’s say 7 million years ago, when the first human-like creature appeared. This is a workable story, and would make a mediocre fairy tale beginning, but we are now supposedly doing science.

What distinguishes science from speculation is Truth, and Truth requires evidence. So what is the evidence that a “Man-like,” or hominid creature, even existed? Remember we have already discussed at some length the problems with the dating methods we know and continue to nevertheless use;  we can know it if it is human, or human like, maybe, but we will always, as we have seen, have major difficulty in determining any age beyond the written records.

Beyond allusions found in ancient histories to times around, let us say, 10,000 BC (for now), every date remains a study in speculation. Our methods simply do not appear strong enough to determine with accuracy anything beyond that date, and our refusal to come to grips with this reality is costing us dearly. The longer we rely on the unreliable for facts, the more we increase our chances of adopting something that could threaten not just our worldview, but the very quality of our physical existence. We have to at least consider that we may have more to lose by scientists playing with genomes and bacteria, viruses and protobionts, than we have to gain…especially if we consider the quality of their existing theories regarding Man.  A mistake in this molecular regards would cost us exponentially more than someone’s tenure.

Here, below, is the evidence for this earliest Simian, our oldest ancestor according to Evolution:

fossil from Chad of sahelanthropus-tchadensis TOUMAIThis is our ancestor from Chad, which scientists have named Toumai. By most accounts (or here, e.g.), he is representative of an ape which lived 7 million years ago. The picture above is an Artist’s Conception, the type with which we have become familiar. Were we to take away the human hand in making this skull appear so human, we would be left with hundreds of erratic pieces, little bits of bone. Once assembled in the form it is imagined to have, the clay comes in and science makes its theoretical dream the reality. Then, what at first glance looks like an ape baby which died at birth or shortly thereafter, is further postulated as much, much more. This is so dishonest, it makes me want to question everything theoretical about which science has a say.

Here below is another view of the same fragment, further insult to our intelligence, we could say:

toumai actual and computer

Now all those cracks in this skull are not the way it was found. Michel Brunet found it in pieces, as we have said. Besides the glued-together gray parts, wherever you see tan, rather than gray, in this skull, you are looking at more man-made addenda; Brunet filled, as all our bone-scavengers fill, the missing pieces in. Brunet, perhaps only second to the “work” of the Leakeys, provides the majority of fossil “support” for the claim that apes and Man have a common ancestor. I’ll cite here verbatim a good synopsis regarding the tangible fossils extant, as well as the accompanying and usual speculation based on the “discoveries”:

“Six fossils have been assigned to Toumai to date: a cranium, two lower jaw fragments and three isolated teeth. Two mandibles and an upper premolar have now been described. These items from the head bones and teeth enable us to estimate a height in the range 105cm to 120cm, which is close to that of the common chimpanzee ancestor (Pan troglodytes). But Toumai resembles neither a chimpanzee nor a gorilla. Its teeth (incisors, canines, premolars and molars) differentiate it from two other more recent hominids known in the Upper Miocene: Orrorin tugenensis in Kenya and Ardipithecus kadabba in Ethiopia. In terms of cranial morphology (face, braincase and cranium floor) and the more primitive dentition (less derived canines and cheek teeth with thinner enamel) Toumai is also different from all examples of Australopithecus described up to the present time. Conversely, it shares derived characteristics with more recent bipedal hominids: facial similarities (weak prognathism), basicranium (shortening of the basioccipital leading to the beginning of the migration forward of the foramen magnum) and a nuchal plane sloping sharply toward the rear.” (source)

A cranium, 2 lower jaw fragments, and 3 teeth. Let us accept that these bones exist, and make the leap of faith that the reconstruction we have been looking at is an accurate one. By what line of reasoning do we, nevertheless, come to the following conclusions?

1. It is as tall as a “chimpanzee ancestor”: Absolutely no way but to guess this based on the size of the skull.

2. It has teeth different from other apes. Not only that, it goes on to say the evidence it will base on these teeth are drawn from “…incisors, canines, premolars and molars“. This, when a few lines prior, it states we have found three isolated teeth.

3. The head bones and teeth can determine the height. I would like to see proof of this, in apes supposedly millions of years of age. Millions of years of age, and still apes…

4. It shares characteristics with Australopithecus, but differs also. The point it is trying to make in the passage is that this creature began to walk upright, or resembles later ones which did. This, from the “evidence.”

I do not want to dwell long on this particular supposed ancient ancestor itself. What I would like to do is by the examples I present show clearly the tendencies for this Evolution to make all evidence try to fit the theory, and to stretch the scant fossil record beyond what it is, sometimes omitting or ignoring whole other, more logical possibilities for what is found. Some will say Evolution downright manufactures evidence in support of its claims regarding Man. We will have to see if this, too, is the case. So far, this little chimp seems indicative of the Truth about a manipulative and conniving science.

We should also mention here that not 30 years ago this line of Man did not exist, and that the categorizing of early Man continues to be a study in confusion, changes, and amendments, misinterpretations, and even frauds. As example of the latter Consider the hoax of Piltdown Man, never emphasized enough, and the imaginary Nebraska Man, whose evidence of teeth later turned out to belong to an extinct type of pig, or even the Tasaday, all of which fooled the majority of experts, and treated science like it was a schoolboy. It is then not out of line for us to even question how much of the actual evidence we have is still fabricated.

Artists wasted no time showing us what the hoax Nebraska Man looked like

Artists wasted no time showing us what the hoax Nebraska Man looked like

The "tasaday" an imaginary staged "tribe" working the flint for the cameras

The “tasaday” an imaginary staged “tribe” working the flint for the cameras

The hoax Piltdown Man

The hoax Piltdown Man

The scientists of especially macro-evolution, furthermore, throw around millions of years as if they are grains of sand, and assemble sometimes hundreds of pieces into one skull thereby granted dissimilarity to existing specimens. And from this “skull,” we get these reconstructions of what our oldest ancestor looked like:

Toumai Recontchadensis

Get used to these reconstructions, if you aren’t already. I could have posted at least a dozen more examples, all different, of what this earliest ancestor was supposed to have looked like. Not only does Evolution ask we believe their “evidence” as such, they also ask us to accept haphazard conclusions drawn from this scanty evidence as well.

On the Reconstruction of Things

I have read recently an interesting article about the reconstruction of creatures that we have dug up. How do we know how much fat they contained, how much cartilage, how much skin between bone and surface of the creature? How do we know whether or how to clothe the skeletal remains, should we imagine hairy, scaled, or smooth? Consider this picture showing the bone structure of whales, I understand it originally came from the very interesting read “Omniology Society“:


Regardless of where it comes from, this picture accurately represents 3 major types of whale, showing the relation of bone to actual structure. The blue, right, and sperm whales are shown as how they would be reconstructed by science based on knowledge of the skeleton alone, then again as to how they actually appear. It is no different with skeletons of simians or humans that we find. We can attempt to mold their appearance, but without an intact specimen, skin and all, the task should be looked at as all but impossible, any statement based on it, conjecture.  Our point here is to call attention once again to the role the Artist’s Conceptions play in this mass hypnosis known as Evolution, and the extent to which theory is represented as fact.

Along these lines, I reproduce here a chart— or rather several charts, at least one of which  I think would be acceptable to most Evolutionary theorists— as indicative of the current science regarding the Origin of Man, specifically, how he emerged from other species:


I should like to add that at the source of this chart (above, bottom left) can be found the claim that this particular ordering is “no longer open to dispute.” Well let’s just post a couple more that I can gather up on the spur of the moment, because I think that statement is a obviously mistaken, not to mention, decidedly unscientific:

evolution chart 2


Oh what the heck let’s do one more, for flavor:

hominid timeline

Ardipithecus Ramidus, or Ramapithecus

Let us follow then this last, I believe originally a National Geographic source, because there are many problems with collating these recent graphs one to another, not only because of time differences, but more importantly differences arising from reclassification of existing material. Sometimes, as unscientific as it sounds,  remotely related bones are considered as parts of the same specimen, in effort to more accurately reconstruct one individual. Plus, I like the graphic.

Let us accept this Holy Writ for the time being and move on to the next episode of this fairy tale drama, one that portrays serially a Man slowly rising from an ape-like animal walking on four feet with a tail, to one standing on two and tailless, with ingenuity.

Our next most distant ancestor is usually said to be Ramapithecus, or Ardipithecus ramidus. Fossils claiming to be of this creature have been found in several places, ranging from India to Ethiopia. Kadabba, the earliest species, we are told, “could have” walked upright “…because of his toe structure,” and is also considered possibly related to humans because its teeth resemble those of Australopithecus. Here then, the evidence for Ramapithecus:


There is a blow-up photograph of some these bones located here.

Ardipithecus is often claimed to be the earliest hominid, despite the challenge of our recent acquaintance Tomai. The consensus is, on Rama, that there is no consensus. For some theorists this creature is considered an ancestor of only the chimpanzee. For others it is the first proto-human being. I quote from, who have beat up many a creationist using “evidence” such as we are now discussing, to tell us what fossil record, for this entire species, exists. According to our first chart, above, 15 individuals have “contributed parts.” Do we ever ask why we find so few parts? Or if they are maybe not related at all?

“Discovered by a team led by Tim White, Berhane Asfaw and Gen Suwa  […] at Aramis in Ethiopia. Estimated age is 4.4 million years. The find consisted of fossils from 17 individuals.Most remains are teeth, but there is also a partial lower jaw of a child, a partial cranium base, and partial arm bone from 2 individuals. ARA-VP-6/1 consists of 10 teeth from a single individual. ARA-VP-7/2 consists of parts of all three bones from the left arm of a single individual, with a mixture of hominid and ape features.” (ibid. my emphasis)

A “partial arm bone from 2 individuals”? Is this science? Let’s just assume the 2 individual discrepancy is a result of new digs. In the photo above we can see 18 pieces. The ARA-VP series indicate 17 pieces, and so the one extra must mean we have since found one new tooth, or they count the traveling arm as one. So, our photo is up to date, and yes, that IS the entire evidence of Rama-p. That’s it. It is tempting to claim here that this avowed “mixture of characteristics” is due to no more than scientists “mixing up” several different apes into one. Here, an updated photo of re-classified bones, upping the number, by my count, to 35 pieces if all considered genuine and exclusive to Ramapithecus:


Now what do we claim about this “ancestor” of ours, other than it walked upright, and probably lived on the savannah (ibid.)? Not much more, other than plenty of contestants in the “best fantasy adaptation” category, which make sure we can tell by these random bones what this creature looked like, such as this:


Or even this:


No this last photo isn’t supposed to be showing the aggressive nature of our grandfathers, our babas, it is merely showing two juvenile ramapithecoids playing around.

While we should admit that scientists are no longer in agreement over the status of these two creatures and their relation to human lineage—perhaps a small majority now even consider them as nothing more than early apes or monkeys—with our next jump up the Evolutionary ladder we enter into more uniform agreement. For most Evolutionists, still, Australopithecus, or one of its kind, is considered a true hominid, a positive link in the descent of Man.

Australopithecus and the Lucy

According to our chart, Australopithecus anamensis is next in line. I do not want to spend much time with this animal because Lucy, its close kin, is next, and important. Anyway, here is the fossil evidence for A. anamensis:

australopithecus anamensis Again from (which appears a bit dated), the content of the fossil record for this creature:

KP 271, “Kanapoi Hominid”, Australopithecus anamensis
Discovered by Bryan Patterson in 1965 at Kanapoi in Kenya (Patterson and Howells 1967). This is a lower left humerus which is about 4.0 million years old. 

KP 29281, Australopithecus anamensis
Discovered by Peter Nzube in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya (Leakey et al. 1995). This is a lower jaw with all its teeth which is about 4.0 million years old.

KP 29285, Australopithecus anamensis
Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya. This is a tibia, missing the middle portion of the bone, which is about 4.1 million years old. It is the oldest known evidence for hominid bipedalism.

As one can see, this species is the one science usually cites as really being biped. Really, we know this animal walked upright because of  “…it’s tibia missing the middle portion of bone“? Well how big do you suppose the missing piece was? Why is this and an ape pelvis considered human-like at all, or their imagined arrangement, conducive to walking? Where are the toes?

The Australopithecines nevertheless gain then, for most scientists today, status as first of the hominid line, our remotest direct ancestor. Well, most of them, as some today even place these with the apes, a reflection of their continued categorization outside of the homo line.  Still, despite more scanty evidence seemingly indicative only of the remains of apes, we create nevertheless assumptions about its behavior, and fabrications as to what these a. anamensis things looked like:

australopithecus anamensis-recon 1

The discovery of this creature is by and large a Leakey Production, small puns intended. By the fossil evidence we conclude for this creature, as for the two prior, that the fossils are indicative of nothing more than, at best, an ancient ape of some kind. Nothing, despite the claims made about the scant bones available, as you can see, is indicative of standing upright, let alone a human ancestor.

Lucy, on the other hand, our next stop, has received much acclaim, and deserves a proper elucidation of the terms and conditions surrounding her and the other supposed examples of Australopethicus afarensis. We know that Lucy was discovered in Ethiopia, and here this has significance. The place where D. Johanson and T. White first discovered this creature, in 1978, Hadar, is very close to a place called Simien Mountain, in Ethiopia. Here is a photo of Simien Mountain:


This allows us to make explicit mention that just about everywhere we seem to be finding these ape-like, or simian fossils, monkeys, apes or chimps of some kind continue to exist. Is it any surprise that places where various apes mingle might produce, and might have in the past, occasionally unrecognizable half-breeds and mutations, deformed apes that we might dig up? Is it not possible that what we dig up is explainable by variations evidenced by even existing examples of, say, a chimp?

If we were to examine the skulls of one hundred chimps of various ages, we would find a standard deviation of some significance even there. Why would we not think that over the generations anomalies are bound to occur? It seems like we have elevated the freak and the imbecile to the status of founding fathers. That, or we have found extinct apes only, and not yet a human being.

According to our topmost chart, there are extant fossils available from 120 individuals of this afarensis line. I have been unable to find them all. Here are some I have been able to locate. First the 38% “complete” skeleton:


From again:

“…Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years and was assigned to the species Australopithecus afarensis. About 40% of her skeleton was found, and her pelvis, femur (the upper leg bone) and tibia show her to have been bipedal, although there is evidence that afarensis was also partly arboreal (tree-dwelling). She was about 107 cm (3’6″) tall (small for her species) and about 28 kg (62 lbs) in weight. The humerofemoral ratio, or length of humerus divided by length of femur, is 84.6 for Lucy, compared to 71.8 for humans, and 97.8 and 101.6 for the two species of chimpanzee (all these figures have a standard deviation of between 2.0 and 3.0). In other words, humans have much shorter arms compared to their legs than chimpanzees do, and Lucy falls roughly in the middle.” (Korey 1990)

Obviously, for this skeleton at least, we cannot use any humerofemural ratio because we can only estimate the length of the missing part of the tibia (see photo)! No evidence yet of bipedalism either. Here some more photos of of the Lucy evidence, and reconstructions:


The “skull” on the right, in the composite photograph above, is the reconstructed skull of A. afarensis. What we have found are the silvery-looking parts; all the yellow is man-made, and could in fact force the other parts into any desired position. At the left, for strength of comparison, is a modern chimpanzee skull.


Above, this composite photo shows two views of an Australopethicus mandible. On the right, is a modern gorilla mandible.


This photo, above, shows a skull of the same type of animal. The brown stuff is what we supposedly found; the white, is man-made. This, like many such “specimens,” are actually reconstructions of several individuals.


Ab0ve, a nice collage, thanks to the folks at, of actual pictures and photos that have been offered for what Lucy looked like, and another look at the actual evidence. Let’s see again that “incomplete skeleton” (source here):


Yes those ribs are on wires and not as extended as they appear. The skull is just a mess.  It is just too scanty to rely on this sort of thing to base a whole history of the human race. It is not even as if we are seeing progress, that we getting closer to the Truth. The more we look at the evidence the more we grimace at the science involved. Consider this Haeckelian-type drawing found here:


This picture is supposed to be showing the length of the femur of a chimpanzee, compared to that of afarensis and modern man. You can see the femur is the same in the afarensis and the chimp. But the pelvis is different, and that is because this animal was not a chimp, it was a different type of ape, and the pelvis of that chimp is way too big. Here some more photos:


Like Frankenstein, science coagulates parts of separate finds and forms them into one conglomerate they then call an ancestor of Man. For millions of dollars in research, testing, digging, and restorations, we have gleaned a whole headache of unsurety and speculation.

I realize this is getting long, so I will separate this section and stop here, before we get into the hominid line proper, the subject next time, after we delve into the last Australopithecus, Afrikanus (or A. africanus). I’ll end with two pictures, where the apes we have been discussing came from, and another of where many fossil finds come from. They may come in handy later.

Ethiopia, Simien Mountains highlighted

Ethiopia, Simien Mountains highlighted



Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

11 responses to “I. SCIENCE F. The Origin of Man, Evolution Style 1.

  1. Bryon tackett

    May 17, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    hey i have found a what we believe looks like a human skull it is deffinately not just a stone if you could contact us to let me know what steps to take to get this item verrified, please contact me at 1-586-404-2972

  2. truthopia

    May 17, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    First let’s see what you think you have.

    1. Where did you find it? Please be precise: geographic location; depth; surrounding rock and/or sand, and altitude.

    2. What is it’s size in inches and centimeters, both vertically and horizontally?

    3. Please attach photos from several angles.

    There are many ways to handle it once we are sure you have found could possibly be what you think it may be.

    You can email it to me here or attach it as a post response.


  3. youramoron

    March 25, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    i dont know how you can say this, lucy although you are correct is an incomplete skeleton by looking at certain parts you can determine the length width hieight and so on of the bones, were symetrical on both sides if you have one side of the skull you can determine the other side of the skull, depending on how thick the skull is can determine how long or how short the front of the face is and also how big the jaw bones are, of a human just below the elbow is where the hip bones begin, and just above the elbow for primates so they have done a good estimate on her size because they have one portion of the arm on the left and the other on the right, the hip bone right side looks almost completly intact so its safe to “guestimate” wat the other side will look like. because we basically all have the same bone structure (ie skull legs, arms ribs so on) when they mash a skull togeather it becomes a “rough estimate” on how the ape/human like creature thing looks like. just a little fyi on homosapian anatomy

  4. truthopia

    March 26, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Mr. Moron,

    Lucy has already been stricken from the human tree. And really the evidence for it being a human ancestor borders on the ridiculous. But you can go on believing any fairy tale you like. Otherwise, show clearly with pictures and data how the available evidence of Lucy, or for that matter her brother or any other Australopethicus, is in any way human.

    But thank you for reading Mr. Moron!

  5. no quarrels with the 21th century

    June 21, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    Lucy, be the specific specimen or even the species, or even the genus, may well be placed outside of the human lineage, but that does not change really much the overall scenario that overwhelmingly favors the hypothesis/fact for the non-fundamentalist parallel world that species have originated by descent with modification on splitting lineages. And we don’t need even to compare with “alternatives” such as earth and water obeying Yahveh and creating all the species by spontaneous generation (depending on the degree of ignorance of who you ask, all the billions of species, or just original kinds that can evolve into different species or even genera, but whose “edges” of non-relatedness can never be defined, just leaving it vague and implying that it’s possible to have had all animals on a huge wooden boat and that there is no universal common ancestry/we didn’t come from monkeys will suffice), or that extraterrestrials created them/just us, or that the god Bumba vomited them.

    Not knowing precisely where each species fits on the evolutionary tree does not vanishes away with the tree, just like finding that Siberian huskies are more closely related to Chow-chows than to German shepherds does not really mean anything to the hypothesis that all dog breeds are modified descendants of a common wolf/wild dog ancestor. That’s specially not that unexpected when we’re talking of fossil species, which more often than not can only have their relationship inferred by limited morphological alone, which, despite of not being as imprecise as in this misportrayal someone fooled you into believing, isn’t as good as the data we can gather from living organisms.

    But my point is that, either way, does not matter whether you try to infer the evolutionary tree just from morphology or with the aid of more rigorous evidence, the fact is that the tree remains. Dogs nest into canids, which along with bears and other species nest into caniforms, which then nest with feliforms, both forming the carnivora, and so on, always smaller groups nesting within larger groups, in a classification that is only possible because it just happens that organisms have traits/genes just like we’d expect if they were restricted by branchings of lineages, rather than organs being like lego pieces you can assemble in any way you want, creating several “chimeric” organisms that wouldn’t fit in a coherent evolutionary tree, nesting on a single branch, but rather having traits of many different “branches” (that wouldn’t even be expected to exist at all, the distribution of traits could simply be so that no sketch of a single tree would make any sense) like sirens or monkeys with bat wings. Or even some birds having bat wings and some bats having bird or pterosaur wings. But nope, never happens. Just “as if” the species were created by a known, non-mysterious, non-supernatural process of biological reproduction, hereditary changes on lineages.

  6. truthopia

    June 21, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    All speculation, based on prior speculation. When you say “either way, does not matter whether you try to infer the evolutionary tree just from morphology or with the aid of more rigorous evidence, the fact is that the tree remains” is begging the question rather severely. You are asking we accept Lucy as part of the “tree” because it is [art of the tree you buy into. Circular to boot. In essence you are saying your ancestor is a one-celled organism, which says little since they still exist. It is farfetched, but for example that one-celled organism COULD have come from a human being…all things considered.

  7. Chris

    August 5, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Just stumbled on here…first impression: nicely done! I certainly have a lot of catching up to do, but so far I enjoy what I have seen!

  8. Hannah

    March 15, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    Very well put together page! I will finish reading it another day, but I need to point out that you have misread the paper on Toumai- it says there are three isolated teeth, but also part of a lower jaw; this had teeth in. Also have a look at the literature on body-size models, which have been put together by measuring thousands of teeth of living primates an comparing them to their owner’s body size. There are lots of fossil taxa only represented by teeth, so a great deal of effort has gone into producing models to give us estimates of body size and diet. Still only estimates, but no-one has ever claimed otherwise.

  9. martin

    June 26, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    This is so informative , I enjoyed seeing some honest truth on this subject
    I am convinced Evolution is an ideology not a science
    Atheism is the new religion of the masses
    None so blind as thoes who don’t want to see
    Good work on a truthful and hard hitting reality check

    Wake up every one

    This is all true!!!!

    Respect to you for all the hard work .


  10. Nan

    April 26, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    First, Lucy has not been stricken from the human tree. Second, I just love how you call people morons when they not only disagree with you but present proof that you are wrong and that you are spreading false propaganda…to what end? Do you wish to truly stupidify your followers even more? Have you never heard of a characteristic mosaic? C’mon, that is one of the basics of any anthropology class ( which you certainly have no background credentials to present, so how can you claim that anything you say is true, sorry but a lack credentials is the first problem, no creds, no truth!) Get some REAL credentials from a university that is internationally accredited, Major in Paleoanthropology, examine the skulls, learn about dimorphisms, regional variation, and how it takes thousands of years for changes to be made, how if one trait works well, it survives, just as if a trait does not work, it is weeded out. It is not some supernatural magic “poof here’s Adam and Eve, populate the world with modern looking humans, with the right brain case size, the correct skeletal arrangement for upright bipedalism”. no it took time, some 35 MILLION years. I see proof in the fossil remains of evolutionary change, it is there if you just care to take the time to learn how and why. This would make you a little bit more credible. I have found nothing about your educational past, you say that you are trained as a philosopher, yet you see yourself as a mystic. WHERE ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS? Do you have any, or are you just publishing your hogwash for attention?

  11. Truthopia

    April 26, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    FOR NAN,

    My credentials? You anthro-apologists display all the indignance of a scorned wife or religious zealot, told the husband’s a cheater or the god imaginary. So if a person has a doctorate in paleoanthropology or anthropology (fictitious sciences, BTW), that person is correct? You think credentials is what makes an argument valid. Oh come now you MUST know about how peer review works, how you scratch my back I scratch yours, how all you sheep write about the “hot topic” of the day because you cannot get published any other way. How to succeed in your class or with your mentor you must be a good parrot.

    I have plenty of degrees, if that’s what you need, but what’s the difference, really? All great scientific discoveries came from NON-scientists. From engineers, from farmers, from botanists, from laymen. WHAT THE HELL of significance has any “paleoanthropologist” found for us? Other than a market for the Leakey (very Leaky) foundation, and a new mythology?

    Better yet, what is YOUR argument? Where exactly have I lied, or gone wrong, or led people astray? The mythology, no the RELIGION you follow, i.e. fictitious human sciences, particularly about human origin, is a SHAM, IT is what is brainwashing people. IT relies on authority and nothing more, certainly not evidence, for if it were evidence long ago you saps would be honest enough to say “we don’t know SHIT but are guessing because we hate religion and want to find another way.” Wake the hell up. Look at your stupid, retarded, monkey fossils. Tell me clearly why the scarce amount of skeletons are all found in lands where monkeys still outnumber people. Tell me why SOME monkeys (or, pseudo-monkeys) would evolve while others stayed behind. Tell me why not ALL species have evolved to the one, most fit species?

    Darwin himself, that spoiled plagiarist and brat, knew himself he was wrong, and said as much before he died (guess you didn’t get to that yet). He promised the origin of species and did not provide it. All he presented us with is evolved existing species. Not ONE new species can be evidenced, not one. This is not to say a truly unique species cannot come from another one, but different colored fruit flies just won’t do it. It is good enough for some types, however, because, well, because it’s not “God.” He’s full of horse crap. you are full of yourself, and you keep your specialized terms. I will coin a new one, called “retard mosaic,” in which you could fit very clearly, I can show you by a graph.

    Try to understand what I am doing here, which is specifically argue against your almighty creed. You hardly have to explain to me what the existing science is.

    BTW, at least half of the “practicing” anthropologists (LOL) have stricken Lucy. This is a fact.

    PS: I call names when I am insulted first. And frankly, I enjoy calling an (evolved) retard a retard. Now go take your babble somewhere else, or at least present valid arguments and points. Parroting what your professors taught you won’t cut it here, sorry, believe any fairy tale you like.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: