(April 30, 2015 at 11:05 am)Tonus Wrote:Those article state theories as to why there was evolution to hominids. Two problems: 1) Starts with the 'fact' that primates evolved into hominids. 2) No supporting anatomical evidence. The scientific organizations like Smithsonian, Nature Journal, etc. are required to always give an interpretation that supports a naturalism point of view or it doesn't get published (nothing wrong with doing that, it's in their policy statements).(April 29, 2015 at 10:26 pm)snowtracks Wrote: Bipedalism appeared suddenly in the fossil record and was optimal soon as it appeared.Google "evolution of bipedalism in hominids" and you'll see that this isn't true. There are still questions about the evolution of bipedal hominids, but you seem content to shield yourself from even the stuff that has been learned in order to deny that it is known. If your worldview is dependent on ignorance to that degree, then it's time to broaden it or outright reject it.
These images are artist renditions to support naturalism. http://www.shutterstock.com/s/%22homo+sa...=188960081
"Bipedalism appeared suddenly in the fossil record" - None of the searches refute that statement.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
