[_ Old Earth _] Ramapithecus

[John]

Another supposedly important hominid fossil discovery in 1932 from India and Africa is know as ramapithecus, which was presented by evolutionists as the primary missing link between apes and humans for nearly fifty years. However, few people understood that the whole imaginary skeleton of Ramapithecus was based solely on a few fossilized teeth. Unfortunately for the evolutionary theory, scientists later closely examined the teeth and discovered that they were actually the teeth of a modern orangutan, not the teeth of an evolutionary ape-man. Ramapithecus is now totally rejected by evolutionists.

 

[jwu]

Another supposedly important hominid fossil discovery in 1932 from India and Africa is know as ramapithecus, which was presented by evolutionists as the primary missing link between apes and humans for nearly fifty years. However, few people understood that the whole imaginary skeleton of Ramapithecus was based solely on a few fossilized teeth.

Not just teeth, but also a part of the jawbone:

Unfortunately for the evolutionary theory, scientists later closely examined the teeth and discovered that they were actually the teeth of a modern orangutan, not the teeth of an evolutionary ape-man. Ramapithecus is now totally rejected by evolutionists.

While it is correct that Ramapithecus is not considered an ancestor of modern humans anymore, it has taken a different place within the nested hierarchy. This is a beautiful example of how science corrects itself. After all, if there were some conspiracy, why would they reclassify ramapithecus that way then?
And, as indicated, ramapithecus is not "rejected" by evolutionists at all. I'd like to see evidence for that assertion. The fossils are fully integrated in the nested hierarchy.

 

[John]

this does not count as any evidence for the transition from ape thing to man, you imagination is outstanding, time to reach back into the barny bag and see what other imaginary wonder evolutionists can come up with.

In other words, the theory of evolution required a series of missing-link ape-men, and the scientists interpreted the fossil evidence to support their theory.

 

[jwu]

this does not count as any evidence for the transition from ape thing to man, you imagination is outstanding, time to reach back into the barny bag and see what other imaginary wonder evolutionists can come up with.

Excuse me, where did i claim that ramapithecus is used as evidence for the transition of ape to man?

And i'd still like to see your source for the claim that "evolutionists totally reject" ramapithecus.

 

[John]

And, as indicated, ramapithecus is not "rejected" by evolutionists at all. I'd like to see evidence for that assertion. The fossils are fully integrated in the nested hierarchy.

then evolutionists still see it a s apart of the transition from ap thing to man ?

And i'd still like to see your source for the claim that "evolutionists totally reject" ramapithecus.

same source

Dr.Grant R. Jeffery and his book "Creation-remarkable evidance of gods design"

 

[jwu]

And, as indicated, ramapithecus is not "rejected" by evolutionists at all. I'd like to see evidence for that assertion. The fossils are fully integrated in the nested hierarchy.

then evolutionists still see it a s apart of the transition from ap thing to man ?

No...the nested hierarchy includes all known species, it is not restricted to humans and their precursors. Humans and their precursors only make up a miniscule part of it.

And i'd still like to see your source for the claim that "evolutionists totally reject" ramapithecus.

same source

Dr.Grant R. Jeffery and his book "Creation-remarkable evidance of gods design"

And where does Dr Jeffrey get his information from? I'm looking for actual scientific literature which rejects ramapithecus and argues that it should be removed from the framework of the ToE. That is what "evolutionists totally reject" means after all, isn't it?