Science isn’t always the answer.

[Crepitus]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.

Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.

LOL assuming is what all science does all the time. They make a guess then assume everything is what they guessed was it.

Wow babe you got that ass-backwards. (Not uncommon for you religious whack-jobs)

A hypothesis is not an assumption.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.

Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.

 

[miketx]

Many people believe that we evolved as the result of some huge cosmic accident,

I am not sure who these many people are, as scientists font think selection is random or an accident. Maybe the same imaginary people trying to take away your Jebus?

My remark you quoted was not complete ya trolling pos.

 

[miketx]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.

Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.

LOL assuming is what all science does all the time. They make a guess then assume everything is what they guessed was it.

Wow babe you got that ass-backwards. (Not uncommon for you religious whack-jobs)

A hypothesis is not an assumption.

Assuming your hypothesis is correct what is your point, other than trolling?

 

[Crepitus]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.

Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

They are not the same thing.

 

[BreezeWood]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

That science has yet to determine the origins of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’

However, science has determined much about the origin of the universe - here is another example of how the Bible and science go hand in hand:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

When Moses wrote the book of Job (c. 1513 BCE) no human even knew there were such laws. Thankfully, science has discovered many of those laws. One reason they have discovered those laws is that they do have authority on the earth so earthling scientists can study them.

For example, the law of conservation of matter and energy embodied in the formula E-Mc^2. This law puts to an end the mythical teachings about our universe coming from nothing - since that would violate E=Mc^2. In fact, we can calculate how much energy was involved in creating the mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) estimated by Eddington years ago.

Btw - some still have blind faith that the universe came from nothing! Believe it or not, some believe the laws of our universe did not come from a lawgiver!

Yet thread title is correct in that while science does tell us many details about the laws and properties of our universe, science does not tell who did this or how this was done. But science can tell us what was done!

Many people believe that we evolved as the result of some huge cosmic accident, and those same people would probably believe that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and leave a fully functional 767 in it's wake.

- and those same people would probably believe that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and leave a fully functional 767 in it's wake.

.
watches and planes do not have a spiritual content that is present in metaphysical physiology ... to construct themselves or present in a tornado to piece them together.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ya trolling pos.

Oh the irony...fat mikey calling someone a troll...

 

[miketx]

ya trolling pos.

Oh the irony...fat mikey calling someone a troll...

All you vermin scum are trolls.

 

[miketx]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

That science has yet to determine the origins of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’

However, science has determined much about the origin of the universe - here is another example of how the Bible and science go hand in hand:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

When Moses wrote the book of Job (c. 1513 BCE) no human even knew there were such laws. Thankfully, science has discovered many of those laws. One reason they have discovered those laws is that they do have authority on the earth so earthling scientists can study them.

For example, the law of conservation of matter and energy embodied in the formula E-Mc^2. This law puts to an end the mythical teachings about our universe coming from nothing - since that would violate E=Mc^2. In fact, we can calculate how much energy was involved in creating the mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) estimated by Eddington years ago.

Btw - some still have blind faith that the universe came from nothing! Believe it or not, some believe the laws of our universe did not come from a lawgiver!

Yet thread title is correct in that while science does tell us many details about the laws and properties of our universe, science does not tell who did this or how this was done. But science can tell us what was done!

Many people believe that we evolved as the result of some huge cosmic accident, and those same people would probably believe that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and leave a fully functional 767 in it's wake.

- and those same people would probably believe that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and leave a fully functional 767 in it's wake.

.
watches and planes do not have a spiritual content that is present in metaphysical physiology ... to construct themselves or present in a tornado to piece them together.

Some of you people are just plain simple minded idiots. I didn't say a thing about watches.

 

[BreezeWood]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

That science has yet to determine the origins of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’

However, science has determined much about the origin of the universe - here is another example of how the Bible and science go hand in hand:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

When Moses wrote the book of Job (c. 1513 BCE) no human even knew there were such laws. Thankfully, science has discovered many of those laws. One reason they have discovered those laws is that they do have authority on the earth so earthling scientists can study them.

For example, the law of conservation of matter and energy embodied in the formula E-Mc^2. This law puts to an end the mythical teachings about our universe coming from nothing - since that would violate E=Mc^2. In fact, we can calculate how much energy was involved in creating the mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) estimated by Eddington years ago.

Btw - some still have blind faith that the universe came from nothing! Believe it or not, some believe the laws of our universe did not come from a lawgiver!

Yet thread title is correct in that while science does tell us many details about the laws and properties of our universe, science does not tell who did this or how this was done. But science can tell us what was done!

Many people believe that we evolved as the result of some huge cosmic accident, and those same people would probably believe that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and leave a fully functional 767 in it's wake.

- and those same people would probably believe that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and leave a fully functional 767 in it's wake.

.
watches and planes do not have a spiritual content that is present in metaphysical physiology ... to construct themselves or present in a tornado to piece them together.

Some of you people are just plain simple minded idiots. I didn't say a thing about watches.

.
it's presumed for those people posting from an infirmary ...

 

[miketx]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

That science has yet to determine the origins of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’

However, science has determined much about the origin of the universe - here is another example of how the Bible and science go hand in hand:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

When Moses wrote the book of Job (c. 1513 BCE) no human even knew there were such laws. Thankfully, science has discovered many of those laws. One reason they have discovered those laws is that they do have authority on the earth so earthling scientists can study them.

For example, the law of conservation of matter and energy embodied in the formula E-Mc^2. This law puts to an end the mythical teachings about our universe coming from nothing - since that would violate E=Mc^2. In fact, we can calculate how much energy was involved in creating the mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) estimated by Eddington years ago.

Btw - some still have blind faith that the universe came from nothing! Believe it or not, some believe the laws of our universe did not come from a lawgiver!

Yet thread title is correct in that while science does tell us many details about the laws and properties of our universe, science does not tell who did this or how this was done. But science can tell us what was done!

Many people believe that we evolved as the result of some huge cosmic accident, and those same people would probably believe that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and leave a fully functional 767 in it's wake.

- and those same people would probably believe that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and leave a fully functional 767 in it's wake.

.
watches and planes do not have a spiritual content that is present in metaphysical physiology ... to construct themselves or present in a tornado to piece them together.

Some of you people are just plain simple minded idiots. I didn't say a thing about watches.

.
it's presumed for those people posting from an infirmary ...

Aha, now the demobabbling come forth...

 

[forkup]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.

Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

They are not the same thing.

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

An educated assumption is still an assumption, that's why you test.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.

Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

They are not the same thing.

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

An educated assumption is still an assumption, that's why you test.

To get nitpicky...that would be a "presumption".

 

[forkup]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.

Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

They are not the same thing.

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

An educated assumption is still an assumption, that's why you test.

To get nitpicky...that would be a "presumption".

Wich is in the synonyms list too lol.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.

Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.

LOL assuming is what all science does all the time. They make a guess then assume everything is what they guessed was it.

Wow babe you got that ass-backwards. (Not uncommon for you religious whack-jobs)

A hypothesis is not an assumption.

YES as a matter of fact it IS unless you don't believe in the dictionary the Thesaurus or the any definitions of the same.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.

Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.

It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.

I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.

 

[forkup]

I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.

Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.

It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.

I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.

Human evolution - The fossil evidence These describe fossils that are neither human nor ape but have characteristics of both.
Genetics This describes the genetic similarities between the species. Something by the way that helps in determining as to where fossils can be found. So they are supportive of one another.

Do you accept this as supporting evidence and if no why not?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.

Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.

It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.

I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.

Human evolution - The fossil evidence These describe fossils that are neither human nor ape but have characteristics of both.
Genetics This describes the genetic similarities between the species. Something by the way that helps in determining as to where fossils can be found. So they are supportive of one another.

Do you accept this as supporting evidence and if no why not?

Gotta check it out, the fact is even though I firmly believe in God I could accept evolution since Adam and Eve were not the only humans would just mean that is how God made them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.

 

[Newtonian]

I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.

Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.

It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.

I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.

Human evolution - The fossil evidence These describe fossils that are neither human nor ape but have characteristics of both.
Genetics This describes the genetic similarities between the species. Something by the way that helps in determining as to where fossils can be found. So they are supportive of one another.

Do you accept this as supporting evidence and if no why not?

Long link - thank you but it is hard to respond to so much, so I will zero in on one point from your link:

"Regrettably, development of foot structure in early Homo—i.e., between A. afarensis and Neanderthals—is virtually undocumented by skeletal evidence." The article goes on to discuss theories of bipedalism and admits weaknesses in those theories.

But a much simpler point is that australopithecines are extinct forms of apes, while Homo Erectus, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man are human. On the other hand, Orce man may have been a donkey or a horse - or perhaps an ape? (See my thread on this).

I have not researched all of the above fossils but the main point is that species that begin with homo are human while species that begin with australo are apes.

Many do not realize the variation in brain size of current races, btw.

For example, what is the smallest brain size of current races? Are any current races of similar brain size to Homo Erectus?

Here is another link for you to examine:

“Ape-Men”—What Were They? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

The relevant portion is long - but shorter than the Britannica article you linked to.

To make it easier, here is a shorter excerpt:

"30 But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”

31 So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.”⁠43 Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”⁠44 He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.”⁠45 Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines . . . were not men.”⁠46 Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”⁠47


32. If such creatures were still living today, how would they be regarded?


32 If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.”⁠48 Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.”⁠49"

References:

44. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, January 1966, p. 93.


45. Beyond the Ivory Tower, by Solly Zuckerman, 1970, p. 90.


46. Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 38.


47. Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 86.


48. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 114.


49. New Scientist, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” by Jeremy Cherfas, January 20, 1983, p. 172.