>>b) Is the human evo. tree really as confused as some say? Does anyone have
>>a order of the known species that stands up? I saw a art. in Discover today
>>that seemed to even concede that the Australopithecine A.Afarensis sequence
>>is doubtful.The data on this subject is arranged to support or deny evol.
>>depending on the source. Either someone is misleading or the data is super
>Exactly how the different species connect up is debated (even if one
>disregards people who do not know what they are talking about). However,
>this does not take away from the fact that there are fossils that reflect a
>series of improvements in upright walking (and concurrently getting worse
>at climbing trees), increases in brain size, and decreasing sexual
>dimorphism. These changes correspond with the age of the fossils. How
>many groups were experiencing similar changes at the same time is still
>uncertain. Among paleontologists, the debate is essentially whether a
>particular fossil is a direct ancestor or a side branch. This confusion
>reflects a high level of similarity between more derived and earlier
>hominids, not a lack of similarity.
Thank you I suspected as much. Any one stand out book on human fossils?
By the way have you ever seen the book "Forbidden Archeology" by some
with impressive credentials. Scary conclusions to be sure but a lot of
anomalous evidence is laid out unemotionally that seemed hard to fit in to
any timescale I have ever seen. No doubt my limited background makes it
hard to discern good logic mixed with misleading data. Thanks again for the
education.This is much cheaper than school.Joking aside I am indebted to
the people on this list who are so free with their hard earned knowledge.