To the naked eye, would we perceive Australopithecus if he were alive today to be an "ape" and not a "common

Question

and not a "common ancestor".

Specifically, is "common ancestor" a non-religious term?

Answer 1

I think a common ancestor, if only because the evidence suggests that they walked erect like we do, and probably didn't knuckle walk like Apes and Chimps do.

Answer 2

'' Common ancestor " is a non -religious term.

It is a Darwinian term.

You make a very interesting observation about Australopithecus and unfortunately i do not have an answer for you.

However, it got me thinking; is it possible that homo erectus was a common ancestor and is there any proof that erectus once walked the earth?

Answer 3

It would look a lot like an ape, but it walked upright. See the referenced wikipedia article with a better picture than yours. Remember cave man lawyer on Saturday Night Live. Give it a shave, body wax, language lessons, 3 years of law school. who knows?

Answer 4

Well, it probably depends on your belief system, as our beliefs filter how we perceive the world. Theists would probably see an "ape". Non-theists would probably see a common ancestor.



I bet "Selam" was a cutie when she was alive though!

Answer 5

Sorry, Australopithecus isn't a planet anymore, it got demoted to being a Pluton!

Answer 6

Sure is...just like common denoominator and common cracker are non-religious terms. Good question! :)

Answer 7

This is a good one. Let's say that we found them on an remote island. I think that it would be 'one up' for science and yet another 'one down' for creationists. Testing their intelligence and their DNA would be very informative. How scientists would class them....depends on those tests. What creationists would class them as....probably abominations??

Answer 8

agree with point