How do creationists answer these questions: Are you an Ape? A Mammal? A Vertebrate?

[ThinkForYourself]

Can you list the proof for evolution. Don't just put your faith in the majority. Truth is not determined by a majority.

You are correct.

Here is what you need to know

 

[SkyWriting]

Would you hire a "mechanic" who refused to believe how an internal combustion engine functions, and instead relied on prayer to fix your car?

I'd handle the prayer myself. I can't guarantee you similar results, but it happens to those with faith.

Mobile Intensive Prayer Unit: Miracle Car Repair

 

[SkyWriting]

Can you list the proof for evolution. Don't just put your faith in the majority. Truth is not determined by a majority.

Science cannot see into the past very far.
It is much better at predicting tsunamis

 

[Ginger123]

Science cannot see into the past very far.
It is much better at predicting tsunamis

Isn't a Tsunami something they call 'an act of God'?
Sorry I forgot, God never gets the blame only the praise, how many did God not kill [save] in the last big Tsunami?

 

[Loudmouth]

May science teachers that believe teach evolution, they either believe it because it was taught as an undisputed fact, and it was made clear that if they want to have a career in science, they must accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact. If not, they will be blocked from being a teacher of science, or denied Tenure. This is the scientific method that evolution becomes a fact.

Do you care to debate me on the Evolution - Fact or fiction.

And Evolution is the bible of, and the religion of Secular Humanism.

If a teacher wants to teach that Geocentrism is true, should they be allowed to teach science?

If a history teacher wants to teach that the Holocaust was a hoax, should they be allowed to teach history?

What you never stop to consider is that the anti-evolutionists are just wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you list the proof for evolution. Don't just put your faith in the majority. Truth is not determined by a majority.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as being transitional?

What shared DNA markers would you accept as evidence for shared ancestry?

I would suspect that you are closed to all evidence. Prove me wrong.

 

[Doveaman]

Oh no? When needs must.........
check this out.
Jessica Cox – An armless Girl gets a Pilot License | SpeakBindas

Jessica does not have prehensile feet. Squeezing something between your toes is not the same as grasping something with your feet.

Can Jessica do this?

No, she cannot.

 

[Doveaman]

That isn't grasping. That is squeezing between two different body parts.

But that’s the whole point.

Just because I can squeeze or pick up something between the crook of my elbow does not mean my arm is prehensile.

 

[May the facts be with you]

The thing most curious is that reading this post the "sensible and well argued point" came from the Creationist responder, while the pro-evolutionist was left grasping at straws only to pretend they are the only ones to follow the facts.

 

[Shemjaza]

The thing most curious is that reading this post the "sensible and well argued point" came from the Creationist responder, while the pro-evolutionist was left grasping at straws only to pretend they are the only ones to follow the facts.

I haven't thoroughly gone over all of it, but that's not the impression I got. I don't see the details of modern apes feet being as relevant as their overall structure and genetic makeup as a definition of grouping.

 

[May the facts be with you]

The key aspect is "last common ancestor" between say the chimpanzee and human. If evolution were true, both would share a relatively recent LCA, some form of Ape, so we should have a creature with a proto-human foot as an offshoot which developed into humans. Such an animal would have had a foot that was 90% Ape and 10% human, with lots in between until we get to 10% Ape and 90% human. As the foot transitions it has to lose its ability to grasp 100,000's of years before it gains an ability to walk upright. Such a creature is unviable, so Natural Selection would have predicated against it, and this lineage would thus die out. This is exactly what the fossil record proves - no animal with proto-human feet has ever been found, much to the lament of academics in this field, which we know about because this has been published in the relevant specialty journals. This journal article was an excellent description of the differences between ape feet and human feet, but a list of differences and required changes is not proof such changes occurred. The authors seemed to believe otherwise and that a mere list of change was proof of change.

The scale of change required for bipedalism is massive, the skeletal structure needs wholesale redesign, the routing of and layout of tendons and muscles has to change .... this list just goes on and on. I was a design Engineer, and am now in Project Management and would suggest that the redesign of the Boeing 737 was trivial compared to the redesign proposed when moving from quadrupedalism to bipedalism.

 

[Shemjaza]

The key aspect is "last common ancestor" between say the chimpanzee and human. If evolution were true, both would share a relatively recent LCA, some form of Ape, so we should have a creature with a proto-human foot as an offshoot which developed into humans. Such an animal would have had a foot that was 90% Ape and 10% human, with lots in between until we get to 10% Ape and 90% human. As the foot transitions it has to lose its ability to grasp 100,000's of years before it gains an ability to walk upright. Such a creature is unviable, so Natural Selection would have predicated against it, and this lineage would thus die out. This is exactly what the fossil record proves - no animal with proto-human feet has ever been found, much to the lament of academics in this field, which we know about because this has been published in the relevant specialty journals. This journal article was an excellent description of the differences between ape feet and human feet, but a list of differences and required changes is not proof such changes occurred. The authors seemed to believe otherwise and that a mere list of change was proof of change.

The scale of change required for bipedalism is massive, the skeletal structure needs wholesale redesign, the routing of and layout of tendons and muscles has to change .... this list just goes on and on. I was a design Engineer, and am now in Project Management and would suggest that the redesign of the Boeing 737 was trivial compared to the redesign proposed when moving from quadrupedalism to bipedalism.

I think you misunderstand how capable non human apes are of moving bipedally.

We have fossils of Australopithecus who are much closer to the common ancestor:


However if you examine the hips of the Australopithecus you can see how much more like a Homo sapiens its hips were.

 

[May the facts be with you]

Although apes can move bipedally, and humans may move quadrapedally, that isn't relevant; its the fundamentally different structures between an ape's foot and human's foot, and not just the bones, but ligament and muscle layout and design. The Australopithecus foot in your diagram is that of an ape, which is fine and there is nothing wrong with that, but its an ape, it would be able to swing from a tree by its feet.

 

[Shemjaza]

Although apes can move bipedally, and humans may move quadrapedally, that isn't relevant; its the fundamentally different structures between an ape's foot and human's foot, and not just the bones, but ligament and muscle layout and design. The Australopithecus foot in your diagram is that of an ape, which is fine and there is nothing wrong with that, but its an ape, it would be able to swing from a tree by its feet.

Given the hips it is totally a biped, so you are clearly wrong about the ape foot structure being a problem for bipedalism.

 

[Gene2memE]

Holy necro thread Batman!

The key aspect is "last common ancestor" between say the chimpanzee and human. If evolution were true, both would share a relatively recent LCA, some form of Ape, so we should have a creature with a proto-human foot as an offshoot which developed into humans. Such an animal would have had a foot that was 90% Ape and 10% human, with lots in between until we get to 10% Ape and 90% human.

That's not how evolution works. There's no such thing as a major biological structure that is "X% thing A and Y% thing B". The human foot is still 100% an ape foot, because we are in fact apes.

Nor is this an accurate depiction of how we see evolution occurring through the fossil record.

As the foot transitions it has to lose its ability to grasp 100,000's of years before it gains an ability to walk upright.

Nonsense.

A foot that is capable of being used as an arboreal grasper can still be used for upright bipedal locomotion. It just wont be optimised for either task.

That's perfectly fine within the Theory of Evolution. "Good enough" works within the confines of selection pressure.

Such a creature is unviable, so Natural Selection would have predicated against it, and this lineage would thus die out.

Nope, it's just not optimised for either environment. Which may be mitigated against by other factors.

This is exactly what the fossil record proves - no animal with proto-human feet has ever been found, much to the lament of academics in this field, which we know about because this has been published in the relevant specialty journals.

Well, unless you're arguing that Australopithecus afarensis or Homo erectus are human, or that humans have been around for ~3.7 million years, or that Homo floresiensis and Homo naledi didn't exist I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.

https://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/221/17/jeb174425.full.pdf

See the bottom of page 8 through to the end of page 10 of this paper for a discussion on human ancestor species and how their feet were different from ours but still used for bipedal locomotion and not arboreal grasping.

The scale of change required for bipedalism is massive, the skeletal structure needs wholesale redesign, the routing of and layout of tendons and muscles has to change .... this list just goes on and on. I was a design Engineer, and am now in Project Management and would suggest that the redesign of the Boeing 737 was trivial compared to the redesign proposed when moving from quadrupedalism to bipedalism.

You're way off on this one chief.

Here's a journal article from 2006:

"...experimental studies of locomotion inhumans and nonhuman primates have shown that the evolution of bipedalism involved a much more complex series of transitions, originating with a relatively compliant form of quadrupedalism.​

These studies show that relatively compliant walking gaits allow primates to achieve fast walking speeds using long strides, low stride frequencies, relatively low peak vertical forces, and relatively high impact shock attenuation ratios.​

A relatively compliant, ape-like bipedal walking style is consistent with the anatomy of early hominids and may have been an effective gait for a small biped with relatively small and less stabilized joints, which had not yet completely forsaken arboreal locomotion. ​

Laboratory-based studies of primates also suggest that humanbipedalism arose not from a terrestrial ancestor but rather from a climbing, arboreal forerunner.​

Experimental data, in conjunction with anatomical data on early human ancestors, show clearly that a relatively stiff modern human gait and associated physiological and anatomical adaptations are not primitive retentions from a primate ancestor, but are instead recently acquired characters of our genus."​

Source: https://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/206/9/1437.full.pdf

The evolution of bipedalism is EXTENSIVELY studied.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I have no response to this resurrected 8 year old thread, so here's a flayed man and a flayed panther dancing together as Darwin intended.

 

[lasthero]

Jessica does not have prehensile feet. Squeezing something between your toes is not the same as grasping something with your feet.

Can Jessica do this?

No, she cannot.

I know this is well past the point, but I might as well address this while I have a moment.

The definition of prehensile just says ‘capable of grasping’. It doesn’t have to be a strong or effective grasp.

Humans can grasp things with their toes. Not well, mind you, not heavy things, not as well as their fingers - but they can grasp them. By definition, humans have prehensile feet.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Humans can grasp things with their toes. Not well, mind you, not heavy things, not as well as their fingers - but they can grasp them. By definition, humans have prehensile feet.

For those without arms, the feet can become incredibly dextrous.

Foot-painter's toes.