So now you say that it was fat? How can you possibly know?
You have only two criteria for determining whether an animal is a chimpanzee or not? Just two? No taxonomist would rely on a measly two criteria to categorize an animal. They would look at all of the different aspects of its morphology (dentition, pelvis, cranium, joints, limb proportions and so on) and how they are similar and different from other existing animals. You and your sources have pointed out the similarities between Australopithecus and chimpanzees many times. Indeed there are many similarities between the two. Australopithecines are chimp-like. No doubt about it. However, you seem to ignore the
differences between them, This is where your classification argument messes up. You can't look at the similarities and ignore the differences: you have to look at
both of them at once. If you only paid attention to the similarities between gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees while ignoring their differences, you could just as easily argue that gorillas and orangutans are chimps as well. We know that they are not chimps, however, because there are also differences in addition to similarities. Let's do some comparing:
Similarities between genus Pan and genus Australopithecus
-Both have similar brain case sizes (up to 500 cc).
-Australopithecus was probably covered with fur like chimps are.
-Both have long arms and curved fingers good for grasping and climbing.
-Both have arms longer than their legs.
-Both were/are social animals.
-A. afarensis may have had some ability to knuckle-walk like chimps.
-Some Australopithecus were similar in size to chimps.
Differences between genus Pan and genus Australopithecus
-Australopithecus pelvises are wider than they are tall, chimp pelvises are taller than they are wide.
-Australopithecus had knees that could lock, chimps do not.
-Australopithecus does not have adductable toes, whereas chimps do.
-Australopithecus has smaller canines than chimps.
-Australopithecus had a less prognathic (protruding) jaw than chimps.
-Australopithecus had arched feet, chimps do not.
-Australopithecus had a foramen magnum closer to the base of the skull than chimps.
So I'm willing to acknowledge both the similarities and the differences. What about you? What, specifically, are your two criteria?
I don't think you know what a straw-man is. A straw-man is a misrepresentation of an argument such that it appears to be arguing something that it is not. You are indeed arguing that Australopithecines are chimpanzees. I can quote the many times you have said this if need be. If you think they are chimpanzees, then you must also think that their anatomy is consistent with genus "Pan" (which is the genus to which chimpanzees belong) and therefore that they should be reclassified as Pan africanus, Pan afarensis, etc. instead of Australopithecus. If you do not think this should be done, then you are admitting that the morphological differences are large enough to warrant inclusion in their own distinct genus separate from Pan.
Then I was correct in that you have no argument against it being a mutation which creates a new function (the ability to digest nylon polymers).
I don't recall
any of the your links or videos stating that Australopithecus was a chimpanzee. Plenty stated that it was an ape or chimp-like. Indeed, both of those statements are true. But none stated that it
was a chimp. If they did, please quote the exact sentence where they said it was.
I'm not sure what you think I missed in it. I'm well aware of the deformities you are talking about. If they do not interfere with survival and reproduction, then they are not disadvantageous. You never did provide any statements from medical professionals or from people who had the mutation that it was harder for them to eat.
He's right, it is a chimpanzee-like ape. That's not the same as saying it's a chimp.
Circular reasoning would be if an argument is used to support itself. The argument, however, is supported by physical evidence such as genetics (pseudogenes and ERVs being good ones), the fossil record and biogeography.
Here is one. It demonstrates that several different dating techniques yield consistent dates for the same event.
Here is another one showing radiometric dating to be consistent with stratigraphy.
I was a small child at the time and I took it literally.
No, I've changed my mind since I first read it. That was a very long time ago.
A bunch of floods happening all over the world is not the same as a flood that is so large that it covers every square inch of dry land, including mountaintops. Your link provides no evidence of such being the case. What about the dates being mentioned in the article? Do you believe those?
I've already told you the experiments: DNA studies, dating techniques, biogeographic studies.
