Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MANTI5" data-source="post: 7665577" data-attributes="member: 627711">&quot;For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: “With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines .*.*. are actual human ancestors.”&nbsp; The New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus .*.*. that eventually evolved into **** sapiens, or modern man.”&nbsp; And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” Emphatically she declared: “The evidence was overwhelming .*.*. the missing link had at long last been found.”But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.”&nbsp; Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”&nbsp;&nbsp; He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that .*.*. Australopithecus resembles not **** sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.”&nbsp; Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines .*.*. were not men.”&nbsp; Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MANTI5, post: 7665577, member: 627711"] "For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: “With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines .*.*. are actual human ancestors.” The New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus .*.*. that eventually evolved into **** sapiens, or modern man.” And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” Emphatically she declared: “The evidence was overwhelming .*.*. the missing link had at long last been found.” But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.” So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.” Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.” He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that .*.*. Australopithecus resembles not **** sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.” Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines .*.*. were not men.” Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.” [/QUOTE]

Verification