http://scibiopaleontology.wordpress.com/about/

http://scibiopaleontology.wordpress.com/about/

Advertisements

Refutation of CreationWiki’s “article” on australopithecines.

“Australopithecines include two closely related genera (Australopithecus and Paranthropus). Australopithecines are distinguished by their very ape-like skull (though the teeth are more human-like than chimpanzee-like), small brain size (between 375 and 550cc), and knuckle-walking stance.”

Bullshit! Australopthecines, walked upright.[1] There’s even evidence, that they, started to develop a more human like brain growth (i.e. longer childhoods), as seen in Selam.[1]

“The claim that australopithecines, like Lucy, walked upright was largely based on the appearance of her leg and hip bone. However, australopithecines have long forearms and short hind legs. They also have curved fingers and long curved toes. Curved fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognized as having no other purpose than full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. It should also be noted that bipedal walking is common among living gorillas and some chimpanzees. However, this mode is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walking. Living nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this regard, and therefore, neither can be considered any closer to humans than the other.”

Mostly, BS! They forget to mention the plenty of other fossils we found. They didn’t have long curved toes. That’s not true, gorillas don’t have the body form to walk upright. Lucy has the anatomical body parts, to walk upright![1,2]

Citations

1 Scientific American, What Makes Us Human, chapter 1.

Unreccomended links.

ID is not science!

I have heard claims by creationists that ID is science, and it follows the scientific method. That is not true. I’ll give a list of reasons why it is not science and and criticize it’s attacks against science.

1.) Unfalsifiable.

2.) Unverifiable.

3.) Not testable.

4.) Unreasonable.

5.) Can’t stand up to scientific rigor.

6.) Violates methodological naturalism.

It is metaphysical, not scientific.