Australopithecines aren't "just" apes

[Skaloop]

Except the fossil record doesn't show a clear line from these mythological ape-like creature to human

Yes it does. Minus the word "mythological".

 

[Papias]

Smidlee, faced with the clear transition shown by Mallon, many creationists often claim that some are "obviously ape", and the rest "obviously human". Would you like to tell us where you put the dividing line? I'm sure it is so obvious that it'll be where all other creationists have unanimously put it.

So, are A through C clearly ape, the rest human? Or A to the K (my boy) clearly Ape, the rest human?

What does Smidlee say?

Papias

 

[praisejahupeople]

BTW, it's an easy thing to show why this "biblical" explanation is wrong. It follows from what you've said that animals sharing similar ecologies should look more like one another than any other animal.

No ,you missed my point.I simply said that creatures breathe air and eat food,so therefore theres common characteristics.Its a simple explanation for why we share common genes.God made us to share in an intergrated biosphere.

Let's look at baleen whales and basking sharks. They both live in the deep ocean and filter feed on invertebrates. And superficially, they do look similar: they're both large animals, have a hydrodynamic body shape with fins, and filter food through their gaping mouths.

So you are saying that superficial similarities DONT support common ancestry?Dude ,thank you for making my point.

 

[praisejahupeople]

Yet some things are more similar than others. We are more like dogs than fish. Fish are more like insects than sponges. Why, if not successive ancestry? You haven't explained the nested hierarchy yet. Do you know what I'm referring to?

I have explained it.And you have to forgive me,im starting to tire of repeating myself.This is why i never stick around.These debates usually end with you guys putting your fingers in your ears.

I didn't infer that Lucy was more intelligent. Where did I say that?

see below.Plus the mere fact you are attempting to link her to us,of course you are inferring it.

Regardless, I would infer that Lucy was more intelligent

lol.

because she has a large cranial capacity, which correlates strongly with intelligence.

Not true and you have no idea whether lucy had the makings of a prefrontal cortex which is what seperates man from the animal kingdom.If large cranial capacity was an indication of superior intelligence,im afraid man would be down the list.

 

[Mallon]

No ,you missed my point.I simply said that creatures breathe air and eat food,so therefore theres common characteristics.Its a simple explanation for why we share common genes.God made us to share in an intergrated biosphere.

That explanation still doesn't account for why life is patterned hierarchically the way it is. In fact, it doesn't explain or predict anything. It doesn't explain why dogs are more like cats than crocs, even though they all breathe the same air. With respect, I don't think you understand the evidence for evolution.

So you are saying that superficial similarities DONT support common ancestry?Dude ,thank you for making my point.

Right, superficial similarities aren't used to infer common ancestry because they are subject to convergent evolution. That's why we look to the details of skeletal anatomy and chromosomes. That's why we know baleen whales and basking sharks aren't closely related. That's why we know wolves and marsupial wolves aren't closely related. That's why we know snakes and cecaelians aren't closely related.

 

[praisejahupeople]

That explanation still doesn't account for why life is patterned hierarchically the way it is. In fact, it doesn't explain or predict anything. It doesn't explain why dogs are more like cats than crocs, even though they all breathe the same air. With respect, I don't think you understand the evidence for evolution.

Dude a croc is a reptile,A dog is a mammal so therefore its going to share more characteristics.God made different kinds.Its your prejudice that keeps attempting to tie all the animal kingdom together.

Right, superficial similarities aren't used to infer common ancestry because they are subject to convergent evolution. That's why we look to the details of skeletal anatomy and chromosomes. That's why we know baleen whales and basking sharks aren't closely related. That's why we know wolves and marsupial wolves aren't closely related. That's why we know snakes and cecaelians aren't closely related.

Wow you keep missing my point.How about removing the words "closely related".Sorry man im tired of correcting you.Bye.

 

[Mallon]

Dude a croc is a reptile,A dog is a mammal so therefore its going to share more characteristics.God made different kinds.Its your prejudice that keeps attempting to tie all the animal kingdom together.

All the animal kingdom is tied together. Cats, dogs, and crocs are more like one another than they are to insects, for example. And insects are more like cats, dogs, and crocs than sponges. Why? That's the question. Why this hierarchy of similarity? You haven't explained it.

Wow you keep missing my point.How about removing the words "closely related".Sorry man im tired of correcting you.Bye.

I'm a PhD student in biology. I don't suspect you understand much more than I about animal life.

 

[praisejahupeople]

All the animal kingdom is tied together. Cats, dogs, and crocs are more like one another than they are to insects, for example. And insects are more like cats, dogs, and crocs than sponges. Why? That's the question. Why this hierarchy of similarity? You haven't explained it.

ive explained it,youve ignored it.Its pretty simple.Theres nothing more that i can say.

I'm a PhD student in biology. I don't suspect you understand much more than I about animal life.

Yes you a student, outdoes my whole life dealing with animals,but thats not the point.
If you wont listen to me try richard leakey in the book origins page 86 when he says that its unlikely that Australopithicus was an evolutionary ancestor..Good luck.

 

[troodon]

marsupial wolves

A moment of silence please for the Thylacines, taken from this earth before their time.

 

[Mallon]

ive explained it,youve ignored it.Its pretty simple.Theres nothing more that i can say.

No, you haven't. You've only said that animals are similar because they breathe the same air and eat food. What about that accounts for why vertebrates are more like insects than sponges? Or why placentals are more like marsupials than monotremes? Your explanation does not account for these patterns in nature. I'm trying to coax an honest answer out of you, but you just keep saying that you've already provided an answer and then accuse me of having a closed mind. That and calling me "dude".

Yes you a student, outdoes my whole life dealing with animals,but thats not the point.

What is your experience dealing with animals? Are you a vet? A park ranger? A zoo keeper? Did you have a dog once?

If you wont listen to me try richard leakey in the book origins page 86 when he says that its unlikely that Australopithicus was an evolutionary ancestor..Good luck.

I'm not arguing that Australopithecus was a direct ancestor of humans. I'm arguing that we share a common ancestor exclusive of all other animals. We're biological cousins, if you will. This explains why humans and australopithecines are more like one another than either group is to other mammals.

 

[Assyrian]

A moment of silence please for the Thylacines, taken from this earth before their time.

.

 

[brinny]

Except the fossil record doesn't show a clear line from these mythological ape-like creature to human. Thus it is not a very good hypothesis. The evidence points more the sudden appearances of both apes and modern man (as well as other species). Even some paleontologist have admitted this before even though they are still evolution believers.
The one area science can try to reproduce is abiogenesis which is why Darwinist wants evolution to be separate. They don't want to take any risk of evolution being falsified.

imagine having that hangin' over yer head.

 

[Mallon]

For what it's worth, showing that the first life could not have evolved from non-life would in no way disprove the theory of common ancestry. How could it??? Abiogenesis and evolution are inferred using very different kinds of evidence.
Honestly, folks. Use the brains God gave you.

 

[brinny]

For what it's worth, showing that the first life could not have evolved from non-life would in no way disprove the theory of common ancestry. How could it??? Abiogenesis and evolution are inferred using very different kinds of evidence.
Honestly, folks. Use the brains God gave you.

Inferred? Is that the same as wishful thinking?

 

[Chesterton]

I believe in abiogenesis:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature...

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,...

 

[brinny]

I believe in abiogenesis:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature...

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,...

could you kindly explain what biogenesis is?

 

[Chesterton]

could you kindly explain what biogenesis is?

Biogenesis is when "God said" and "God breathed". So yeah, it's really not "a-bio". I only partially believe in it.

 

[brinny]

Biogenesis is when "God said" and "God breathed". So yeah, it's really not "a-bio". I only partially believe in it.

Well i believe that.

 

[Smidlee]

I believe in abiogenesis:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature...

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,...

That's call Genesis. Abiogenesis is about how life came about without a mind/intelligent.

 

[brinny]

That's call Genesis. Abiogenesis is about how life came about without a mind/intelligent.

Geez, thanks for the clarification...i agree with Genesis. Abiogenesis is the antithesis to God being the Source of life, then?

Shame on you Chesterton, to mis-lead a sister in Christ.