Primates (Talk.Origins)

Response to Primates

CreationWiki response:

This starts off with a gap. What this means is that they do not have any evidence connecting primates to any other group.

'Palaechthon
 * Palaechthon is based on only an incomplete skull. Despite this, the evidence such as fully-enclosed orbits, forward-facing eyes and generalized dentition indcates that Palaechthon was a primate.

'Purgatorius
 * Purgatorius seems to be based only on a partial lower jaw and a single tooth.

Palaechthon, and Purgatorius are based only on fragmented remains. Palaechthon is definetly a primate and Purgatorius would seem to be one as well. It is clear that the reconstructions soffer some what from evolutionary assumptions particularly in the case of Purgatorius with nothing but beyoned the jaw having been found so this list starts with primates.

There seems to be nothing on Cantius outside Talk Origins and its clones. There is insufficient data on it for an analysis.

Pelycodus is clearly a type of monkey. So what? Probably a variety of lemur. Also, it is dated as the same age as its alleged ancestor Cantius. Amphipithecus
 * All they have of Amphipithecus, two jaw fragments.

Pondaungia 
 * Pondaungia is also based on framents.

Amphipithecus, and Pondaungia are based on so little evidence that it speaks for it self.

Goto: Primates II