/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9205168
>There is no phylogeny without genetic evidence.
is this niBBa serious

>>8995359
First off, your picture is pants-on-head retarded. The skeleton pictured (Lucy) contains enough of the pelvis to see that it is squat, low-crested. This is unambiguously an upright walker; the pelvis of a gorilla is much longer, given its quadrupedal gait.

>Yet other studies show completely different dates.
uncertainty over the timing of the split != they don't share an ancestor

>Actually, I think it was the latter for a time.
You thought wrong.

>hurr stratigraphic dating is unreliable because I said so and I don't like it
you know you've got nothing when you resort to simply throwing away evidence that contradicts you :^)

>Your comment came off as
not my fault you can't read and understand what is written.

>I was merely pointing out one trait (dexterous hands) and showing how poorly our "relatives" fit that.
except other apes' hands are very very similar to our own in structure. they have opposable thumbs just as we do, and they have a great deal of dexterity. nice damage control.

>if I act like it doesn't exist, I'll come pff as winning the argument
you're insisting, based on muh uhpinions, that the two are equivalent propositions. we can observe humans making artifacts by those same Stone Age methods; we cannot observe anything remotely similar to the special creation that you swear totally happened without leaving any evidence.

>Observational science is more reliable than historical science.
and invoking "common sense" is not actually observational science. appealing to common sense means drawing a pre-emptive conclusion based on hardly any observation, and declining to investigate further or test the validity of the conclusion.

>And haven't they also argued over habilis' very validity as a species? If they can't be certain on a species, what about several?
Paleoanthropologists have argued, yes. They came to a conclusion. And when people as argumentative as them can agree, it's generally because the evidence is, well, conclusive.