i want answer for this question because i have some problems with evolution and religion and i was looked for this question but i not found because some evolutionists says the (lucy) is considered in the hominid but have no evidens for these.
thanks
Why (lucy) is not homonid but is ape ?
- Posted:
- 3+ months ago by laween
- Topics:
- ape, evolution, lucy, religion, found, problem, question, answer
Details:
Answers (2)
Lucy is considered a hominid.
hominid
Any of various primates of the family Hominidae, whose only living members are modern humans. Hominids are characterized by an upright gait, increased brain size and intelligence compared with other primates, a flattened face, and reduction in the size of the teeth and jaw. Besides the modern species Homo sapiens, hominids also include extinct species of Homo (such as H. erectus) and the extinct genus Australopithecus. In some classifications, the family Hominidae also includes the anthropoid apes.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
The term “hominid” is used to describe what evolutionary researchers feel make up the human family and prehistoric humanlike species.
Darwin thought that all life might be traced to a common ancestor. He imagined that the history of life on earth resembled a grand tree. Later, others believed that this “tree of life” started as a single trunk with the first simple cells. New species branched from the trunk and continued to divide into limbs, or families of plants and animals, and then into twigs, all the species within the families of plants and animals alive today. Is that really what happened?
Genesis chapter 1 states that plants and animals would reproduce “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 25) However, the Biblical term “kind” is not a scientific term and should not be confused with the scientific designation “species.”
In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.
Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals.
Two of evolution’s fundamental ideas—that life has a common origin and that major new body types appear as a result of the slow accumulation of small changes—are being challenged by researchers who do not support the Bible account of creation.
Look up the topic of human evolution in many textbooks and encyclopedias and you will see a series of pictures—on one side a stooped, apelike creature followed by creatures that have progressively more upright posture and larger heads. At the end stands modern man. Such renderings along with sensational media reports of the discovery of so-called missing links give the impression that there is ample evidence that man evolved from apelike creatures.
The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.