The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Paleoanthropology

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

I attempted to flesh out some of the information on the various hominid species. I'd actually like to fill in links showing the multitude of fossils for each, and also the evolutionist-believed timelines for each so as to allow the creationist view to be contrasted in much more detail. Ideally we would list all purported hominid fossils, their characteristics, and explain exactly why each one is not transitional and what properties a transitional fossil would have to have in order for us creationists to consider it a transitional.


The link to the discrepencies between which creationists believe which fossils to be ape and which man was included to more fully show the spectrum of creationist opinion on the matter, and allow us to develop a more specific guideline of how to tell ape fossils from human fossils with no ambiguity or in-betweens. The statement that australopithecines are full ape and genus homo are fully human won't suffice, because that relies on the evolutionists classification of them, which is based upon radiometric dates that we don't believe in, methods of classification that we don't beleive in (since they assume evolution), and is subject to change by them as more fossils are found or other evidence is evaluated.


Do not delete content from the CreationWiki. I will check into whether Java man is considered to be a fraud, but many creationists state that it was. If you disagree with an assertion, place such statements here on the talk page. Dont delete it from a page.

I'll keep the descriptions of each hominid short on this page. A full description should be placed on the individual pages.

--Chris Ashcraft 03:11, 16 Oct 2005 (GMT)

Homo rudolfensis reconstruction

Yesterday the s8int.com blogger posted a story [1] from the New York University/Science Daily concerning a new computer reconstruction of Homo rudolfensis. The reconstruction indicates that rudolfensis was far closer to apes than Leaky claimed. This places more modern humans 300,000 years later than previously held. However, I do not see any direct link to the source article or the date of the original publication.

--Zephyr Axiom 13:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The source for the Leaky skull article was placed in the news page. --Davelr 09:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Should rudolfensis's placement on the article's list be changed? --Zephyr Axiom 12:55, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

New Article?

I am proposing the creation of a new article, Homo sapien. The intent would be specifically to deal with the proposed Homo specimens put forth as evolutionary evidence. Homo specimens are a part, but not the whole, of the article Paleoanthropology.

Homo is redirected to humans, since it is the creationist position is that all homos are human - whereas australopithecines are apes. Homo sapiens refers only to modern humans. --Mr. Ashcraft 19:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)