Cpurser, you have a very good set of arguments but let me discuss some possible counter- arguments. You are right that K/AR dating is based on assumptions. Just like any other type of argument is usually based on an assumption. There are very few facts. (Gravity is still an assumption, though it is fairly easy to prove) There are many other types of tests out there. I listed 3 and as I read in the article K/AR is reliable and has produced results that were backed up by other tests. As for the other tests, I am not as well rehearsed on them but I will try to find out more from my wife and her colleagues To be quite honest with you scientists probably have changed results at times and when this happens usually most scientists will go after that person and prove them wrong. One thing about the scientific community is (as seen on this forum) if someone doesn't think a theory or hypothesis is correct, then they will do many things to try to dispel or prove it false. Now there are many arguments against evolution however it has not been able to be proven completely false. Fossil records (I will explain later), DNA testing and even modern day stories of adaptation can all be used to prove evolution.
Now your argument for Homo erectus, it doesn't look human because it isn't Homo sapiens, place a Homo sapiens Neanderthal (or Homo Neanderthal) side by side and they don't look too similar either. However, you could also place two dog skulls or a female and male gorilla skull side by side and think that they are completely different species. Homo erectus had very strong jaws and teeth because of the food that they ate. Today scientists don't really know why the brow ridges existed. Some scientists today think that it was possibly for protection of the eyes as at that time no throwing weapons were around so erectus had to deal up front with it's prey or enemies. (Early home sapiens also had some form of brow ridges I even have brow ridges, small ones compared to Homo erectus or Neanderthal) But the argument also remains, that these fossils are still being found, how is that explained? They could possibly examples of mutations in the human gene pool I guess, but no modern humans have really looked like this and there are quite a few examples of erectus. I guess the main question is how do explain the ape like fossils that have many human like characteristics. As for Lucy walking like a chimp, look at the hip bones in the picture, a chimp's hips are very tall and skinny compared to Lucy's which is more similar (but not quite like Homo sapiens.) Yes I will admit that Lucy wasn't human. She was pretty much in all liklihood less intelligent than a chimp, but if you look at the skulls of other afrensus and the remains of Lucy one can see that the forum magnum (hole in the bottom of the skull)is at more towards the bottom of the skull instead of being at the back. This would suggest that Lucy walked upright as the head was not able to really handle looking straight ahead if it was walking on all fours. As for the degree of the legs and knee bones, modern evidence is suggesting that australophithecines were more abhoreal (tree dwelling) then terrestrial. (Modern day humans can still be abhoreal if we really chose to be who hasn't climbed a tree?) As for the mountains of evidence I already suggested the evidence found in DNA, along with modern day examples. Now as for fossil records There are many examples of Neanderthal (I believe at least 50 to 70 complete or almost complete, there are fewer examples of the older species, i.e. afarensis, africanus, boisie, etc. Since there are fewer of these in the record, the "family tree"; is changing. Just like when you look back at your relatives and find new links and branches, your tree changes also. Now I am just mentioning the hominid fossils, not all the thousands and possibly millions of animals that have been found fossilized (my wife helped sort out a huge find in northern Africa of various hippos, asses, and other animals. Most of which existed 10 to 20 thousand years ago.) For my final argument about evolution, (from the last post I did) I want to ask how one can explain the fact that all life on earth is similar genetically. Chimps (especially Bonobos) have approx. 96% of the same genes as humans do. (Remember that genetic material is not lost but simply varies and recombines itself.) Almost all animals on earth have similar body systems and even plants are somewhat similar in the basic building blocks. One can derive from this that over time, as changes occurred in the environment, new species developed, and as time goes on the rate went faster as the world environment began to change faster also. I think that is all I will talk about tonight. I'm a bit tired. However cpurser, I am still impressed with the amount of work you did to set up your argument. Tonight as I go to bed I will try to set up the new scanner that I got and will attempt to show some pictures to the forum that will support my argument more fully. I want to again thank everyone in this forum for keeping things orderly and civilized and hope to discuss this issue with all of you further. Jim
Edit:Looking at my data (finally found it) There are only about 20 - 30 complete skeltons of neanderthal and about 60 -70 partial skeletons, skull fragments, etc. Homo erectus/ergaster ther are three partial skeletons and 11 cranial and skull fragments. Today Homo habilus is being debated as being an australopithecus or homo. It woudl be considered a transitional species. As for the earlier hominid species there are no complete skeletons. Lucy is perhaps the most complete. However, the distances that are listed can be decieving as Lucy was found on a hill. Many things can explain the fact that the skeleton was scattered as well as the fact that Lucy may not be one individual. However most early hominids, afarensis, africanus, robustus, boisie, etc. have been found in various places throughout africa. One should be able to assume even though the complete skeletons haven't been found that individuals of Lucy's type existed.
