Wed, 05 Nov 1997 05:43:06 -0600 you noted:
>At 10:22 PM 11/4/97 -0600, Karen G. Jensen wrote:
>>I have heard that some people think it doesn't matter if it was an ape's
>>body that the "soul" was given to. But there is nothing like that in
>I don't know what you define as an ape, but the body of Australopithecus, H.
>habilis, H. erectus and Neanderthal are all quite modern in appearance.
>Australopithecus was fully bipedal and left footprints in an ash bed which
>are identical to modern footprints. This was 3+ million years ago at Laetoli.
Neanderthal and most H. erectus are quite human, but Australopithecus? I
don't think so. Australophicenes seem to have lived concurrently with
humans, tho. I don't know about H. habilis -- there is so much disagreement
on how to define it.
Do you really believe in the accuracy of the dates claimed for these
fossils? Even the KBS tuff -- after all we saw in Nature magazine in the
1970's on that (re: dating Skull 1470)?