What proof would you need?

[AV1611VET]

Nope, but associating academia to Judas does.

Some think Judas had the highest IQ of all of Jesus' disciples, since he was placed in charge of the money.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust, but verify."

Keep your powder dry

 

[CabVet]

Some think Judas had the highest IQ of all of Jesus' disciples, since he was placed in charge of the money.

I'm sure you don't use it as a compliment.

 

[Astridhere]

An open, but sceptical mind. In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust, but verify." Paul specifically approved of just this kind of attitude, even with regard to his words (and, presumably, his letters, since they were not yet canonized into the Bible.)

What I like best about the Bible is it is the only religious book where the writers do not take glory for themselves. Although the bible is written by many writers and there is all this intelligencia that debates the original authors it is the only spiritual text where none of the writers take glory for themselves.

The one time Moses attributed a miracle from himself he was punished and harshly by being denied entry into the Promised Land.

In comparison to other spiritual texts and doctrines the bible stands alone on this point. How truly marvelous that of all these writers of both the old and new Testament that not one writer made himself out to be anything special nor made themselves rich. It is truly a miracle. It is the hand of God.

Trust but verify...absolutely.

 

[Psudopod]

What I like best about the Bible is it is the only religious book where the writers do not take glory for themselves. Although the bible is written by many writers and there is all this intelligencia that debates the original authors it is the only spiritual text where none of the writers take glory for themselves.

The one time Moses attributed a miracle from himself he was punished and harshly by being denied entry into the Promised Land.

In comparison to other spiritual texts and doctrines the bible stands alone on this point. How truly marvelous that of all these writers of both the old and new Testament that not one writer made himself out to be anything special nor made themselves rich. It is truly a miracle. It is the hand of God.

Trust but verify...absolutely.

None of that makes it a suitable alternative to scientific study.

 

[Astridhere]

There really isn't anything more to discuss at this point. When you reject one fossil becuase it is more like other apes than modern humans, and then reject another fossil because it is more like modern humans than other apes, it is very apparent that no evidence will convince you.[/quote]


There is alot more to discuss about this point, actually. Turkana Boy changed many creationists thinking about Erectus. This is about the only major change in the basic thinking of the various creationist camps.

What everyone needs to remember is that Turkana Boy's Boys pelvis was reconstructed from fragments. Reconstuctions are based on evolutionary thinking at the time and the representations can change with a change in thinking just like that.

A new erectus female pelvis has been discovered. This specimen was more intaact and complete than the misaligned pelvis of Turkana Boy.

....and Guess what? There will will soon be a change in the reconstruction of Turkana Boys pelvis based on this new find.

Clearly, something is amiss. The body size dimorphism seems reasonable, but the pelvic shape suggests extreme behavioral dimorphism as well (males were out running long distances while the females waddled around bearing children at home). This may be reasonable, but it may not be. Other Homo erectus specimens, like the ones from Dmanisi provide evidence that small body size in erectus was not unusual. Perhaps our reconstruction of the Turkana pelvis requires modification, as it seems to be an outlier.
The New Homo erectus pelvis from Gona « A Primate of Modern Aspect


So far Erectus has shrunk by 20cm and now Turkana Boys pelvis will require modification.

In this article below we see Simpson suggest that Turkana Boys pelvis was damaged.

But Simpson says Turkana boy's pelvis was damaged and the restoration of a near-complete female pelvis from Gona, Ethiopia, changes this picture.
Human ancestors had big-brained babies › News in Science (ABC Science)


I would now like to point you to this article. The reason why I use this article is because I am able to speak through the words of very well credentialed researchers that are evolutionists to add weigh to the credibility of what I am saying.


Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis : Discovery News

Wood and Harrison, Hawks and Kivell in this article suggest...

"Others welcome Wood and Harrison's warning. An upright stance and other features once considered hominid signatures evolved independently in many ancient primates, remarks anthropologist Tracy Kivell of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany."

This is what White has to say in refute to them..

"With no new data, no new ideas, no new methods, no new hypothesis, no new experiments, no new fossils, not even a new classification, this paper will leave everybody wondering what's happened to the peer review process at Nature," White says.

Here we see White wanting the complete bamboozing story, that none of you even have at present anyway, and new classifications as a basis to undermine what Wood and Harrison OBSERVE.

Let's not also forget that the article passed through Nature's peer review process to be published and therefore was supported in majority by the reviewers.

This was similar to what some evos put to me with my skull demonstration in wanting some psuedo scientific woffle as the basis of my claims and denying simple and robust observation. Hence my posting signature is supported.

So evolutionists had Ramapithecus and Oreopithecus, that also had some so called 'human traits; that were really either orangs or apes and not human at all. The of course there is this recant of the Dikika fossil, 3.3myo, that was human and is now just an ape.
A new look at the hominoid skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia - a knol by Bill#

Dawkins thinks Ardi is a gorilla ancestor. Harrison and Wood also suggests that Ardi branched out into many homonids

Ardi's remains show many similarities to ensuing hominids in East Africa, White adds. He lumps all proposed early hominids into an Ardipithecus genus that evolved into the Ardipithecus genus by 4.1 million years ago. In contrast, Wood and Harrison suspect that early hominids -- whatever their identities -- branched out in many different evolutionary directions.


If the common ancestor looked Ardi-like then chimpanzees went from the sketch of an almost human like ape to a chimpanzee with curved fingers.

You have a partially complete fossil of Afarensis, Lucy and Lucy's child Salem. These demonstrate curved fingers. Suspiciously these again had no feet. You have the Laetoli footprints and a human metatarsel as the reason for putting human feet on Lucy and this was not expected until these finds. Lucy at that time had a presumed mix of human and ape feet.

Perhaps Ardi and Lucy were apes 'evolving' into chimps.


The African primate known as Ardi and a couple of other fossil creatures widely regarded as early members of the human evolutionary family -- or hominids, for short -- may really be apes hiding in plain sight, two anthropologists say.
Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis : Discovery News

So here we have well credentialled evo researchers agreeing with one of my statements.

Then you have Turkana Boy, a crushed and non colocated fossil that has been reconstructed to appear as human as it needs to be to align with current thinking. Turkana Boy was reconstructed by the Leakeys that also grossly misrepresented Rudlofensis.

John Hawks speaks to the digital imaging and all the convolutions used to base a reconstruction on.

The Ardipithecus pelvis | john hawks weblog


This is what Hawks reckons

Lovejoy and colleagues 2009a argue that the proximal ulna morphology is consistent with this form of locomotion also, like earlier Miocene apes and monkeys. Ardi’s long apelike ischia retain the long hamstrings lever arm necessary for powerful hindlimb extension in a flexed, quadrupedal position. And although apes do not have anteriorly-flaring ilia, monkeys do.


I assert that Turkana Boy's pelvis could just as easily be reconstructed to reflect an apes pelvis or any other pelvis as required and does not prove anything. Rather evolutionists have put an ape head on a reconstructed body in line with flavour of the month and that demonstrates the non credibility of the reconstruction.

Turkana Boys pelvis is a fraud. Researchers now have a supposed female erectus pelvis that was found on its own and more complete but has also been reconstructed.

Also I cannot find an indexing of the other fossils found along side Turkana Boy, only vague mentions. I'd say Turkana Boy is a reconstruction of many species, possibly fully ape and fully human thrown together and reconstructed to produce an ape head on an body becoming human in line with current thinking but not necessarily a credible reflection of reality.

So what you have evidence of in Erectus is a mess on the back of this new find. Evos have found huge sexual dimorphism, an extra verterbra like an ape, long arms not much shorter than Ardi's huge pragnathism and could be a mix of species rather than one individual.

Mankind is defined by higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated speech not a pelvis about to be reconstructed to align with flavour of the month. Turkana Boy demonstrates none of these clearly human traits and is therefore an ape like the rest.[/quote]


_____________________________________________________________________________


Psudopod says
"None of that makes it a suitable alternative to scientific study."


Well then you will have no problem speaking to the assertions I make above.

I am very disappointed because finally after weeks Loudmouth actually had a go and now it seems he has disappeared. Loudmouth is not sure what evidence really looks like because there is no fossil evidence for common ancestry. Making up your own in knee jerk fashion in reponse to flavour of the month is not evidence of anything other than an overactive imagination and desperately seeking evidence of a false assumption.

You are welcome to have a go.

While you are at it you can explain why the human pelvis appears to have more in common in comparative shape to Ardi than either Lucy's or a female Erectus. Lucy and Erectus have a shorter pelvis than Humans. I suppose it takes a convoluted algorithm and computations to turn what is observed into an evolutionary conundrum.

New Human Pelvis Found in Africa; Ancestors Smarter Than We Thought?

Ardi's Pelvis
Questioning 'Ardi,' Man's 4.4-Million-Year-Old Ancestor | Fox News

I believe researchers can reconstruct crushed fossils into just about any shape that reflects flavour of the month, just like what's going to have to happen to Turkana Boys pelvis and just like the reconstruction of Rudolfensis.

Lovejoy suggests as flavour of the month that the ilia have flattened and extended in length independently in at least the three lineages of chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans (and we may add gibbons) as a consequence of sacralizing the lower lumbar vertebrae and reducing the flexibility of the lower back, thereby creating a short, stiff trunk.
The Ardipithecus pelvis | john hawks weblog

You can also speak to this

Mainstream views on Australopithecines evolution can be found in the "human evolution" page, but similar conclusions, suggesting Paranthropus as ancestors of gorilla, have been reached by at least two other biologists, independently: the author of the "Paranthropus aethiopicus" page of the "Online Biology Dictionary" and Richard Dawkins in his book "The Ancestor's Tale". According to this theory, chimps and bonobos are descended from Australopithecus gracile type species while gorillas are descended from Paranthropus robustus P. boisei or P. aethiopicus. These apes may have once been bipedal, but then lost this ability when they were forced back into an arboreal habitat, presumably by those australopithecines who eventually became us. In short, the ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas are A. afarensis and Paranthropus, respectively.
Homininae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You can also explain why the thumb was short in Ardi, long in Sediba and then shrunk again to become human......

Direct ancestor of Homo genus? Fossils show human-like hand, brain and pelvis in early hominin


So now it appears more and more that apes that lead to many apes here today were in fact bipedal, if these claims have any credibility at all. No wonder Adam did not find a helper for himself. These apes did not have higher reasoning ability, nor abstract thought nor sophisticated speech, the hallmarks of humanity that separates mankind from any other beast.

One cannot trust any reconstructions evolutionists put together as they are based purely on flavour of the month.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What proof would I need?

This:

Tron Legacy Soundtrack - End Titles (Track 21) - YouTube

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has had a clean up. There is too much flaming. Please direct your comments to the content of a post and the topic and not about other members.

As a reminder, the site rules contain this:

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
● Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.
● Those who do not adhere to the Statement of Faith are welcome as members and participants in discussions, but you are required to respect these beliefs, even if you do not share them.
● Do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes, making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
● Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.

Keep it civil!
​

 

[Jazer]

Some think Judas had the highest IQ of all of Jesus' disciples, since he was placed in charge of the money.

Matthew was a tax collector if your going by that standard.

 

[Loudmouth]

Humans are apes only because you have made yourself into one by a classification with common ancestry at its base.

Linnaeus grouped humans with other apes, and he did so without assuming common ancestry and well before Darwin was ever born. Humans are grouped with apes because of shared characteristics.

A human and a horse a different kinds.

They are both in the mammal kind in the same way that a wolf and a chihuahua are in the dog kind.

The fact that evos propose a placenta poofed into existence on its own is nothing more than laughable

That is what creationists are proposing, not evolutionists.

Then you should be able to show me the intermediates between chihuahuas and this supposed progenitor. Where are they?

Wolf, which is not an intermediate anything..just a dog.

Please reread the question.

Derived traits are not chimp traits, I am not a knucklewalker. Are you? Indeed the info below demonstrates all evo assertions are no more than woffly flavour of the month. Indeed evos have stuffed 'traits' up with finding of early humans being apes and orangs. See below

Again, Ardi has a mixture of primitive and derived features. If this is not transitional then please tell us what a real transitional should look like.

You lot have no idea what transitional means. Fraudulent reconstructions are not the basis for anything other than desperation.

Then why did you agree with my definition?

Since you have rejected my definition of transitional then it is time that you supply the definition you are using and describe what a real transitional should look like.

There is alot more to discuss about this point, actually.

Once you define what a transitional should look like we will discuss further. Until then, you have no basis for your rejection of these fossils.

I would now like to point you to this article. The reason why I use this article is because I am able to speak through the words of very well credentialed researchers that are evolutionists to add weigh to the credibility of what I am saying.

Those credentialed researchers state that H. erectus is transitional. You disagree. Please tell us what definition you are using and what features a real transitional would have.

So evolutionists had Ramapithecus and Oreopithecus, that also had some so called 'human traits; that were really either orangs or apes and not human at all. The of course there is this recant of the Dikika fossil, 3.3myo, that was human and is now just an ape.

Why can't a transitional be an ape?

Dawkins thinks Ardi is a gorilla ancestor. Harrison and Wood also suggests that Ardi branched out into many homonids

So what features would a real transitional have?

If the common ancestor looked Ardi-like then chimpanzees went from the sketch of an almost human like ape to a chimpanzee with curved fingers.

So Ardi is human-like? If so, why can't Ardi, or something like Ardi, be a transitional?

You have a partially complete fossil of Afarensis, Lucy and Lucy's child Salem. These demonstrate curved fingers.

Why can't a transitional have curved fingers?

You have the Laetoli footprints and a human metatarsel as the reason for putting human feet on Lucy and this was not expected until these finds. Lucy at that time had a presumed mix of human and ape feet.

Then the Laetoli footprints did not come from an Australopithecine. Why does this rule out Australopithecines as transitionals?

Perhaps Ardi and Lucy were apes 'evolving' into chimps.

So what would a transitional in our lineage look like?

Then you have Turkana Boy, a crushed and non colocated fossil that has been reconstructed to appear as human as it needs to be to align with current thinking. Turkana Boy was reconstructed by the Leakeys that also grossly misrepresented Rudlofensis.

So you agree that Turkana Boy looks human? If so, then would Turkana Boy, as it stands now, qualify as a transitional?

Lovejoy and colleagues

2009a argue that the proximal ulna morphology is consistent with this form of locomotion also, like earlier Miocene apes and monkeys. Ardi’s long apelike ischia retain the long hamstrings lever arm necessary for powerful hindlimb extension in a flexed, quadrupedal position. And although apes do not have anteriorly-flaring ilia, monkeys do.

So why does this rule out Ardi as a transitional?

I assert that Turkana Boy's pelvis could just as easily be reconstructed to reflect an apes pelvis or any other pelvis as required and does not prove anything.

Evidence please.

Rather evolutionists have put an ape head on a reconstructed body in line with flavour of the month and that demonstrates the non credibility of the reconstruction.

So what would a real transitional look like?

Turkana Boys pelvis is a fraud.

You need to show that the reconstruction is seriously off before making such claims. Even the female H. erectus pelvis is much more human-like than any other living ape species.

I'd say Turkana Boy is a reconstruction of many species, possibly fully ape and fully human thrown together and reconstructed to produce an ape head on an body becoming human in line with current thinking but not necessarily a credible reflection of reality.

So what would a real transitional look like in reality?

Evos have found huge sexual dimorphism, an extra verterbra like an ape, long arms not much shorter than Ardi's huge pragnathism and could be a mix of species rather than one individual.

So you are saying that a transitional should look exactly like modern humans?

Mankind is defined by higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated speech not a pelvis about to be reconstructed to align with flavour of the month. Turkana Boy demonstrates none of these clearly human traits and is therefore an ape like the rest.

So you are saying that a transitional has to be exactly like modern humans?

 

[Astridhere]

[/color]

Linnaeus grouped humans with other apes, and he did so without assuming common ancestry and well before Darwin was ever born. Humans are grouped with apes because of shared characteristics.


It does not matter whom invented the system. The point being you lot make up the classification yourselves, classify species according to it, and then call this evidence. Your classifications are only evidence of an over active imagination.
They are both in the mammal kind in the same way that a wolf and a chihuahua are in the dog kind.


..and so what. This isn't going to be another horse saga is it?
That is what creationists are proposing, not evolutionists.
Then you will provide the latest flavour of the month re the poofing of the placenta. I do not believe you have a flavour of the month for this one. It belongs in the too hard basket.


Please reread the question.
Why should I bother?


Again, Ardi has a mixture of primitive and derived features. If this is not transitional then please tell us what a real transitional should look like.

What is Ardi transitional too given it is no longer in the human line. Dawkins thinks its a gorilla. Seriously, you lot have a bunch of apes walking around 4mya. What a laugh.

http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/08/ardi-about-face/

Richard Dawkins in his book "The Ancestor's Tale". According to this theory, chimps and bonobos are descended from Australopithecus gracile type species while gorillas are descended from Paranthropus robustus P. boisei or P. aethiopicus. These apes may have once been bipedal, but then lost this ability when they were forced back into an arboreal habitat, presumably by those australopithecines who eventually became us. In short, the ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas are A. afarensis and Paranthropus, respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae


Then why did you agree with my definition?
Because it is about the best evolutionists can come up with (except real scientists do not use the term chimp-like) and still they do not know how to describe an intermediate human/ape becuase they are not sure what the common ancestor looked like. Maybe it was a squirrel!

Since you have rejected my definition of transitional then it is time that you supply the definition you are using and describe what a real transitional should look like.
There is too much evolutionary homoplasy, convergent evolution, parallel evolution, hence the revolving door of human ancestors, so even evolutionsists cannot hazard a guess. The times they have..they have falen flat on their faces. Why? Becaue there are no transitional ape/humans



Once you define what a transitional should look like we will discuss further. Until then, you have no basis for your rejection of these fossils.
Yes I do. Turkana Boy being a good example and just about to undergo a pelvic reconstruction to suit flavour of the month...as usual, just like rudolfensis.. This is not evidence. It is called straw grabbing.



Those credentialed researchers state that H. erectus is transitional. You disagree. Please tell us what definition you are using and what features a real transitional would have.

Apes do not have sophisticated language. Mankind does. There are no transitionals only apes dressed in myth.

Why can't a transitional be an ape?

If it is an ape it is not transitional. It is a variety of ape.

So what features would a real transitional have?

I like the days of the hilarious knuckle walking ancestry that you lot went on about for decades and shoved down creationists throats with all the sketches of the reducing knucklewalking arms. An intermediate should be a knucklewalker becoming human because this is what you lot maintained up untill Ardi was dicovered. Who am I to go against 150 years of comic strips.

So Ardi is human-like? If so, why can't Ardi, or something like Ardi, be a transitional?

Because it is a misrepresentation and is just about to undergo a pelvic reconstruction.. You know the pelvis that you lot have ranted and raved about that was so athletic...pure garbage.....

Why can't a transitional have curved fingers?

If you are an educated evolutionist you should know. Ardi's hands look more human than Sediba. Ardi was not a tree swinger and Lucy had curved fingers like a tree swinger. Woops, Lucy is not longer in the human line either. Woops.. evolutionists got it wrong..again!

Then the Laetoli footprints did not come from an Australopithecine. Why does this rule out Australopithecines as transitionals?

Lucy was not found with feet and neither was any erectus. In fact only Ardi was found with feet. How bizarre. I reckon they were thrown away because they were ape feet.


So what would a transitional in our lineage look like?

Try a new line. You are sounding desperate

So you agree that Turkana Boy looks human? If so, then would Turkana Boy, as it stands now, qualify as a transitional?

No, even I could make a human mosaic out of non human bones

So why does this rule out Ardi as a transitional?

This appears to be all you have to say. Are you unable to defend youself appropriately?

Evidence please.

I have already provided it. Creationists please note the continual requests to provide the same thing over and over and over.

Perhaps our reconstruction of the Turkana pelvis requires modification, as it seems to be an outlier.
The New Homo erectus pelvis from Gona « A Primate of Modern Aspect

So what would a real transitional look like?

You should think up something smart to say in your defence of the flavour of the month instead of requesting a description of a myth from a creationist.

You need to show that the reconstruction is seriously off before making such claims. Even the female H. erectus pelvis is much more human-like than any other living ape species.

Female erectus supposedly waddled...not human at all. Yet Lucy was a biped not a waddler.

So now you remember the info do you. Well done!


So what would a real transitional look like in reality?


There are no transistional ape/humans. Perhaps they should look like the initial fraudulent misrepresentation of the Neanderthal. Who owns that picture now that it does not belong to the Neanderthal. Did it slip up the line..??

So you are saying that a transitional should look exactly like modern humans?
You do not know what a transitional looks like and neither do your researchers. PROOF....The revolving door of human ancestors the constant reconstuctions to suit flavour of the month after falsifying the previous irrefuteable evidence.


So you are saying that a transitional has to be exactly like modern humans?
I am saying that Turkana Boy is a fraudulent misrepresentation, humanised as far as possible to the point of being a tall slender running athlete. That is heading for the great garbabe bin of evolutionary delusions with an erectus drop in size and a waddle. On what basis should anyone believe that this sack of bones, found over a wide area with other species, has any features that actually reflect its reality.

These scallywags, the Leakeys, have not even documented the other finds in any more than vaguary, let alone put them up for peer review. I know why. They do not want the truth to get out.

If you can find any research or documentation of the other finds colocated with the Turkana Boy I would be very interested to read them. I could find nothing anywhere on them. It is top secret.

So you have your famous Turkana Boy about to have a pelvic reconstruction to align with the waddling flavour of the month. Yet we are to believe that Lucy, whom also had numerous pelvic reconstructions, was proper biped. Rubbish. Flavour of the month is only regarded as evidence by the deperate.

 

[Astridhere]

Here we go Loudmouth.......

Schwartz and Grehan scrutinized the hundreds of physical characteristics often cited as evidence of evolutionary relationships among humans and other great apes—chimps, gorillas, and orangutans—and selected 63 that could be verified as unique within this group (i.e., they do not appear in other primates). Of these features, the analysis found that humans shared 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans, compared to only two features with chimpanzees, seven with gorillas, and seven with all three apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Gorillas and chimpanzees shared 11 unique characteristics.
Humans related to orangutans, not chimps

A transitional human/chimp should have 14 unique orangutan features. Hence chimp-like attributed to ALL your fossils according to you, means they are all chimp ancestor and explains the missing chimp ancestry ...because half of your ape to human tale is missing. Not convincing.

Lucy dethroned
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=76

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871826/?tool=pmcentrez

BTW Afarensis undertook some pelvic reconstructions also to suit flavour of the month. Now you may have 2 chimp ancestors found.

There is no use hitting on chimp similarities as there are only 2 unique features to the group. There is no use evoking derived similarities because evos have no idea what or whom they are derived from. Given you lot have taken and misrepresented a poor old squirrel like creature as the common ancestor of all apes maybe the derived traits should align with a squirrel. Maybe the squirrel was also a biped..why stop at apes. It is all woffle.

Evolutionists do not let science or observation get in the way of a great story.

 

[USincognito]

So you have your famous Turkana Boy about to have a pelvic reconstruction to align with the waddling flavour of the month.

Do you have a citation for this?

 

[Loudmouth]

It does not matter whom invented the system. The point being you lot make up the classification yourselves, classify species according to it, and then call this evidence. Your classifications are only evidence of an over active imagination.

Your entire argument is based on classifications. You are arguing that if you can place fossils in the ape bin that this disqualifies them from being transitionals. You think that by saying "it's just an ape" that this somehow disqualifies the fossil from being a transitional fossil. Every time you say "it's just an ape" you are only demonstrating how two-faced you really are.

This isn't going to be another horse saga is it?

This isn't going to be another "it's just an ape" saga, is it?

Why should I bother?

I have answered your questions. Why can't you answer mine? In fact, you asked me to define what a transitional fossil should look like. I did so. You promised to give us your own definition of what a transitional fossil would look like. You have failed to do so at every turn. Why is that?

What is Ardi transitional too given it is no longer in the human line. Dawkins thinks its a gorilla. Seriously, you lot have a bunch of apes walking around 4mya. What a laugh.

A fossil can be transitional without being ancestral. Remember the definition you supposedly agreed to? It did not include the requirement of being a direct ancestor.

Because it is about the best evolutionists can come up with (except real scientists do not use the term chimp-like) and still they do not know how to describe an intermediate human/ape becuase they are not sure what the common ancestor looked like.

Are you saying that before you can judge whether a fossil is transitional or not you need to know what the common ancestor looked like? If so, how can you claim that there are no transitional fossils? You have shot yourself in the foot.

There is too much evolutionary homoplasy, convergent evolution, parallel evolution, hence the revolving door of human ancestors, so even evolutionsists cannot hazard a guess. The times they have..they have falen flat on their faces. Why? Becaue there are no transitional ape/humans

Can you find the instability in the paragraph above? It isn't hard to find.

First, you claim that there is too many similarities and homoplasies between humans, living apes, and fossil species to determine if these fossils are transitional or not. Then you turn around and claim that they are not transitional. Two-faced much?

Yes I do. Turkana Boy being a good example and just about to undergo a pelvic reconstruction to suit flavour of the month...as usual, just like rudolfensis.. This is not evidence. It is called straw grabbing.

I am not seeing your definition of transitional fossil in that paragraph anywhere. Where is it?

An intermediate should be a knucklewalker becoming human because this is what you lot maintained up untill Ardi was dicovered. Who am I to go against 150 years of comic strips.

So you are saying that the transitional species H. erectus was portrayed as a knucklewalker? You really have your facts mixed up.

If you are an educated evolutionist you should know. Ardi's hands look more human than Sediba. Ardi was not a tree swinger and Lucy had curved fingers like a tree swinger. Woops, Lucy is not longer in the human line either. Woops.. evolutionists got it wrong..again!

So why can't transitionals alternate between these traits during evolution? Are you saying that there is something in evolution that prevents a bipedal species from adapting to an arboreal environment before adapting back to a bipedal lifestyle? If so, I would really like to see where this limitation is.

Lucy was not found with feet and neither was any erectus. In fact only Ardi was found with feet. How bizarre. I reckon they were thrown away because they were ape feet.

So your rejection of these fossils as transitional boils down to your fantasies of scientists throwing out fossil feet? How pathetic.

Try a new line. You are sounding desperate

Keep evading the question. Every time you do so you prove my point.

Female erectus supposedly waddled...not human at all. Yet Lucy was a biped not a waddler.

Here is the pelvis:

That is a human-like pelvis. It is not the narrow pelvis of other apes. It is transitional.

There are no transistional ape/humans. Perhaps they should look like the initial fraudulent misrepresentation of the Neanderthal. Who owns that picture now that it does not belong to the Neanderthal. Did it slip up the line..??

You can not claim that transitionals do not exist until you define what a transitional should look like.

If it is an ape it is not transitional. It is a variety of ape.

Why are you making up classifications to exclude transitionals? Isn't this the very thing you accuse us of?

So you are saying that a transitional has to be exactly like modern humans?
I am saying that Turkana Boy is a fraudulent misrepresentation, humanised as far as possible to the point of being a tall slender running athlete. That is heading for the great garbabe bin of evolutionary delusions with an erectus drop in size and a waddle. On what basis should anyone believe that this sack of bones, found over a wide area with other species, has any features that actually reflect its reality.

Notice that you once again evaded the question. You keep proving my point.

Are you saying that a transitional has to be identical to modern humans? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Astridhere]

Your entire argument is based on classifications. You are arguing that if you can place fossils in the ape bin that this disqualifies them from being transitionals. You think that by saying "it's just an ape" that this somehow disqualifies the fossil from being a transitional fossil. Every time you say "it's just an ape" you are only demonstrating how two-faced you really are.

My argument is most certainly not based on YOUR classification system that is biased towards common ancestry. I am stuck with having to use it for comparison. Mankind should be taken out of the genus Homo and placed in a separate clad. Our intelligence and reasoning ability alone is sufficient to excise sapiens from the genus Homo. The genus homo is the ONLY genus where its species are so obviously different eg Wolf to other dogs.

This isn't going to be another "it's just an ape" saga, is it?

Yep..because you lot are very good at misrepresentation

I have answered your questions. Why can't you answer mine? In fact, you asked me to define what a transitional fossil should look like. I did so. You promised to give us your own definition of what a transitional fossil would look like. You have failed to do so at every turn. Why is that?

I have.... it is 14 orangutan specific traits out of 28

A fossil can be transitional without being ancestral. Remember the definition you supposedly agreed to? It did not include the requirement of being a direct ancestor.

Yeah...that is why you lot are changing the story from a knuckle walking ancestor to bipeds that took back to the trees. Grreat story just like the past 150 years of them

Are you saying that before you can judge whether a fossil is transitional or not you need to know what the common ancestor looked like? If so, how can you claim that there are no transitional fossils? You have shot yourself in the foot.

What has the hallmarks of an ape is an ape and not a human one. Flat faces have been around for 12 million years in Lluc. Do you lot consider this ...no. You straw grab at any variation calling it a new species and totally ignore the variety in any race or breed.

Can you find the instability in the paragraph above? It isn't hard to find.
These are the butt covering terms evos have invented to explain a plethora of annomolies in humanizing apes. Shared plans are the proof of a common designer not ancestry. Homoplasy & convergent evolution prove it as butt covering terms to assist in your never ending and changing stories.
First, you claim that there is too many similarities and homoplasies between humans, living apes, and fossil species to determine if these fossils are transitional or not. Then you turn around and claim that they are not transitional. Two-faced much?
Convergence & homoplasy are evolutionist excuses to conver their butts and address annomolies, not mine. I do not need such invented butt covering terms.

The fact that body plans are shared amongst different species, not least of which is a homoplasic leg design in a frog and human, demonstrates design not a butt covering term to get me out of trouble as you lot use the terms.


I am not seeing your definition of transitional fossil in that paragraph anywhere. Where is it?

Then look again. It is all about the orang that shares more morphology than a chimp with mankind.

So you are saying that the transitional species H. erectus was portrayed as a knucklewalker? You really have your facts mixed up.

I am saying you have 150 years of proving we came from knucklewalkers then 10 years that say we did not. 150 years of change is no testimony for credibility.


So why can't transitionals alternate between these traits during evolution? Are you saying that there is something in evolution that prevents a bipedal species from adapting to an arboreal environment before adapting back to a bipedal lifestyle? If so, I would really like to see where this limitation is.

Actually I am saying your researchers have no idea what they are grabbing for as a straw to build a straw man on any day

So your rejection of these fossils as transitional boils down to your fantasies of scientists throwing out fossil feet? How pathetic.

My rejection is based on misrepresentations that you lot love to waste time playing with, like jig saw puzzles for adults.


Keep evading the question. Every time you do so you prove my point.

I have given you a definition now. Go use it....Show me how the orang morphology 'evolved' in mankind.

[/color]

Here is the pelvis:

That is a human-like pelvis. It is not the narrow pelvis of other apes. It is transitional. However Turkana Boys was also very human like and that is crap. He is undergoing a reconsrruction any day soon. Look at the flaring...missing on this female. The little piece put in as a wish list. See how these jerks misaligned the piece put in on the flaring. Now use your imagination and bring it down to realign where it should be. There is no flaring at all. It is a wish list. Even I can see the fraudulent misrepresentation.

Human pelvis

The female erectus pelvis is reconstructed, just more complete. These things can be reconstructed on flavour of the month and changed as needed just like Turkana Boys is about to be. As you see the human pelvis is actually longer and more derived that the female erectus. Perhaps erectus was more human than sapiens. Is that what you are saying. The flaring is obviously misrepresented and even I can see it.

It is a fraudulent reconstruction based on flavour of the month just like Turkana Boys was

You can not claim that transitionals do not exist until you define what a transitional should look like.

I have. You require 14 orang specific traits out of 28 because orangs have more in common morphologically with humans than chimps.

Why are you making up classifications to exclude transitionals? Isn't this the very thing you accuse us of?

However I have proof that your supposed transitionals are not transitional at all....just humanized misrepresentations. You on the other hand have no more than a wish list.



Notice that you once again evaded the question. You keep proving my point.
Again I'll repeat 14 specific orang traits which are more similar to mankind than chimps morphologically as is stated in the research I posted previously. Don't display arrogance and ignorance..it is not a good look. Ihave given you a definition based on morphology which is what the fossil record is based on, not DNA.
Are you saying that a transitional has to be identical to modern humans? A simple yes or no will suffice.

No I am saying that if ornags share more morphology with mankind than chimps you lot are lost in the dark.

So where is the other half of this human/chimp story you are so proud of.....disguised and humanized in the human line like Ardi & Lucy, the gorilla and chimp.

"By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.html

Now go use my definition and demonstrate the transistion. How did all these orang features turn up in the human if we shared a common ancestor with a chimp?

 

[Loudmouth]

My argument is most certainly not based on YOUR classification system that is biased towards common ancestry.

Doesn't change the fact that you have erected an entire argument based on your arbitrary classifications, the very thing you are trying to accuse other people of. Talk about instability.

Mankind should be taken out of the genus Homo and placed in a separate clad. Our intelligence and reasoning ability alone is sufficient to excise sapiens from the genus Homo. The genus homo is the ONLY genus where its species are so obviously different eg Wolf to other dogs.

I guess you are unaware that clades are based on shared characteristics? Humans are part of the ape clade because we share features with other apes. Having differences does not make the similarities go away. Alse, Genus is not part of cladistics. That is part of Linnaean taxonomy. They are different things. Perhaps you should learn how classifications are done before criticizing them.

Also, you have chimps and Ardi in the same clade, and yet you claim they are nothing alike. Double standard much?

Yep..because you lot are very good at misrepresentation

Says the person who misrepresents the entire field of cladistics.

I have.... it is 14 orangutan specific traits out of 28

That is your definition of "transitional"? Is this what you are going with?

Yeah...that is why you lot are changing the story from a knuckle walking ancestor to bipeds that took back to the trees. Grreat story just like the past 150 years of them

So you are saying that you would accept these fossils as transitionals if scientists stayed with a knuckle-walking ancestor even with fossils that demonstrated differently? Really? Be honest here, if it is possible.

Are you saying that before you can judge whether a fossil is transitional or not you need to know what the common ancestor looked like? If so, how can you claim that there are no transitional fossils? You have shot yourself in the foot.

What has the hallmarks of an ape is an ape and not a human one. Flat faces have been around for 12 million years in Lluc. Do you lot consider this ...no. You straw grab at any variation calling it a new species and totally ignore the variety in any race or breed.

Notice again how you did not address anything I said.

These are the butt covering terms evos have invented to explain a plethora of annomolies in humanizing apes. Shared plans are the proof of a common designer not ancestry. Homoplasy & convergent evolution prove it as butt covering terms to assist in your never ending and changing stories.

So you are saying that these apes have human-like characteristics? Or are you going to waffle again and ignore them?

It also seems that you are now going to cite similarities between humans and transitional fossils to reject the fossils as transitionals. You are waffling once again.

Then look again. It is all about the orang that shares more morphology than a chimp with mankind.

All you can cite is a single study that the scientific community has roundly rejected. Sorry, but this is simply not true. Your entire argument is based on a fringe theory that no one takes seriously.

So you are saying that the transitional species H. erectus was portrayed as a knucklewalker? You really have your facts mixed up.

I am saying you have 150 years of proving we came from knucklewalkers then 10 years that say we did not. 150 years of change is no testimony for credibility.

H. erectus was never portrayed as a knucklewalker. Never. You are wrong again.

So why can't transitionals alternate between these traits during evolution? Are you saying that there is something in evolution that prevents a bipedal species from adapting to an arboreal environment before adapting back to a bipedal lifestyle? If so, I would really like to see where this limitation is.

Actually I am saying your researchers have no idea what they are grabbing for as a straw to build a straw man on any day

Notice again how you did not address anything I said.

So your rejection of these fossils as transitional boils down to your fantasies of scientists throwing out fossil feet? How pathetic.

My rejection is based on misrepresentations that you lot love to waste time playing with, like jig saw puzzles for adults.

And now you are trying to cover your tracks. You stated that you rejected Lucy because scientists secretly threw out Lucy's feet because they were inconvenient. You said this. Now you are trying to act like you never said it. This is not what an honest person does.

However Turkana Boys was also very human like and that is crap. He is undergoing a reconsrruction any day soon. Look at the flaring...missing on this female. The little piece put in as a wish list. See how these jerks misaligned the piece put in on the flaring. Now use your imagination and bring it down to realign where it should be. There is no flaring at all. It is a wish list. Even I can see the fraudulent misrepresentation.

That pelvis is still more human-like than the pelvis of any living ape. H. erectus has a mixture of basal ape (like those seen in chimps) and modern human features. It is transitional by the very definition of transitional. No reconstruction is going to make that pelvis look more like other apes than it does human. None. And you know it. All you can do is desperately flail around and hope that no one notices this fact.

The female erectus pelvis is reconstructed, just more complete. These things can be reconstructed on flavour of the month and changed as needed just like Turkana Boys is about to be. As you see the human pelvis is actually longer and more derived that the female erectus. Perhaps erectus was more human than sapiens. Is that what you are saying. The flaring is obviously misrepresented and even I can see it.

When the evidence is against you just deny the evidence exists. Is this your new tactic?

I have. You require 14 orang specific traits out of 28 because orangs have more in common morphologically with humans than chimps.

Wouldn't 14 orang specific traits make the fossil discontinuous with modern humans and disqualify it from being transitional? One of those orang features is a smaller brain, and you have already disqualified H. erectus as transitional because it has a smaller brain. You have already disagreed with your own definition.

No I am saying that if ornags share more morphology with mankind than chimps you lot are lost in the dark.

Then you had better back up that "if" with something better than a paper that the scientific community has rejected, and for good reason.

So where is the other half of this human/chimp story you are so proud of

We will move to that side once you agree that the hominid fossils are transitional.

"By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say

."

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

And no one in the scientific community agrees. Your point?

Now go use my definition and demonstrate the transistion. How did all these orang features turn up in the human if we shared a common ancestor with a chimp?

Do you also forget that we share a common ancestor with orangs as well?

 

[Astridhere]

[/color]

Doesn't change the fact that you have erected an entire argument based on your arbitrary classifications, the very thing you are trying to accuse other people of. Talk about instability.

My concerns are based on observation

I guess you are unaware that clades are based on shared characteristics? Humans are part of the ape clade because we share features with other apes. Having differences does not make the similarities go away. Alse, Genus is not part of cladistics. That is part of Linnaean taxonomy. They are different things. Perhaps you should learn how classifications are done before criticizing them.

Also, you have chimps and Ardi in the same clade, and yet you claim they are nothing alike. Double standard much?



Says the person who misrepresents the entire field of cladistics.



That is your definition of "transitional"? Is this what you are going with?



So you are saying that you would accept these fossils as transitionals if scientists stayed with a knuckle-walking ancestor even with fossils that demonstrated differently? Really? Be honest here, if it is possible.



Notice again how you did not address anything I said.



So you are saying that these apes have human-like characteristics? Or are you going to waffle again and ignore them?

It also seems that you are now going to cite similarities between humans and transitional fossils to reject the fossils as transitionals. You are waffling once again.



All you can cite is a single study that the scientific community has roundly rejected. Sorry, but this is simply not true. Your entire argument is based on a fringe theory that no one takes seriously.



H. erectus was never portrayed as a knucklewalker. Never. You are wrong again.



Notice again how you did not address anything I said.



And now you are trying to cover your tracks. You stated that you rejected Lucy because scientists secretly threw out Lucy's feet because they were inconvenient. You said this. Now you are trying to act like you never said it. This is not what an honest person does.



That pelvis is still more human-like than the pelvis of any living ape. H. erectus has a mixture of basal ape (like those seen in chimps) and modern human features. It is transitional by the very definition of transitional. No reconstruction is going to make that pelvis look more like other apes than it does human. None. And you know it. All you can do is desperately flail around and hope that no one notices this fact.



When the evidence is against you just deny the evidence exists. Is this your new tactic?



Wouldn't 14 orang specific traits make the fossil discontinuous with modern humans and disqualify it from being transitional? One of those orang features is a smaller brain, and you have already disqualified H. erectus as transitional because it has a smaller brain. You have already disagreed with your own definition.



Then you had better back up that "if" with something better than a paper that the scientific community has rejected, and for good reason.



We will move to that side once you agree that the hominid fossils are transitional.




And no one in the scientific community agrees. Your point?




Do you also forget that we share a common ancestor with orangs as well?

Instead of responding to a lot of blarney, let me take you to another point. This may prove testing for you Loudmouth because observation is not an evolutionists strong point.

Turkana Boy
The Lake Turkana boy

As you see the pelvis is misaligned. It is very clear. This specimen is a fraud and is not one individual at all.

Above we see the humanized Lucy. What a star performer she WAS. Your majesty Richard Dawkins now provides evidence that Lucy is a chimp or bonobo relative.

So according to evolutionists Lucy the chimp was basically human from the waist down. So human was she that the Laetoli footprints were attributed to her and she was given human feet. Now you have presented Turkana Boy that has been reconstructed to appear human from the waist down. So in other words Turkana Boy is no more human than a chimp ancestor from the waist down.

Turkana Boy was meant to grow to 6"1' and was an athlete. Some researchs suggest mankind gave up this trait in favour of a larger brain. There are pages of woffle supporting this claim. This is of course based on twoddly science. Now new research suggests he is 5"4'.

ScienceDirect - Journal of Human Evolution : Just how strapping was KNM-WT 15000?

Now you have a female erectus pelvis, reconstructed on flavour of the month as usual. This pelvis demonstrates a waddler. You lot also have more human footprints dated to around 1.5mya. There is all the woffle about the perfectly human gait that was meant to demonstrate Turkana Boys long legged athletic stride. Now he is going to morph back to a waddler. Your own researchers say something is amiss.


The rib cage can also be reconstructed according to flavour of the month. In other words if they found an erectus/ergaster with a more ape like ribcage IN TACT, these researchers would scurry off and reconstruct Turkana Boys rib cage to look a little more ape like. Indeed the ribs themselves are very different to mankind.

Then there is tale of the skulls.

But, there's just one more interesting thought to consider. Remember that another famous skull was found in this Lake Turkana region. That's right KNM-ER 1470 was found in this same region. Notice the striking similarities when the reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 is put side-to-side with the Turkana Boy skull. Now isn't that just most interesting? - or is it just me?

Now, we must not forget about the human-like femur that was associated with KNM-ER 1470, even though located several kilometers away from the skull fragments. Although this femur and leg bones "did not differ from those of modern humans in any feature related to movement or posture", they were associated with 1470 simply because they were found in the same layer.66,67 Obviously it is impossible to have modern humans living with H. habilis creatures since modern humans had not evolved yet - right? And yet we know now, through the discovery of more reliable indicators of general posture, that many creatures designated as H. habilis, to include KNM-ER 1470, were not even close to the modern-human bipedal posture. So, what is a modern-human-looking femur and leg bone fragments doing in the same layer as a creature that we know did not habitually walk in an upright manner?
The Evolution of Early Man

So Turkana Boys skull is no different to the reconstructed Habilis. Habilis is not a human ancestor according to you lot. Habilis is now known to NOT have a human posture.

So Turkana Boy has the skull of creature, Habilis, that does not have modern-human bipedal posture and whose brain size was revised down from the misrepresentation the Leakeys presented, the lower body akin to a chimp ancestor and is 5"4', with a female waddler as a companion that supposedly left perfecty human footprints.

All that I can say is we can talk forever about these fossils. If evolutionists are going to put up what is tantamount to fraud and misrepresentation, if you are going to take any of this nonsense as evidence, then the shame is on evolutionists.

What you have is a mess of contradiction that supports a science that is totally based on straw grabbing, misrepresentation and reconstuctions that are about as credible as the Tellitubbies as far as supporting evidence for human ancestry goes.

Evolutionary scientists will never let real science and observation get in the way of a great story.

 

[Loudmouth]

As you see the pelvis is misaligned. It is very clear. This specimen is a fraud and is not one individual at all.

How do you go from "misaligned" to "from two individuals". Please explain.

Also, you are ignoring that possibility that the pelvis is from two transitional hominids. The skull alone is transitional. Other pelvises from other H. erectus individuals have been found, and they are transitional as well.

Above we see the humanized Lucy. What a star performer she WAS. Your majesty Richard Dawkins now provides evidence that Lucy is a chimp or bonobo relative.

Modern humans are a chimp/bonobo relative. Have you not been paying attention?

So according to evolutionists Lucy the chimp was basically human from the waist down.

Lucy is more like modern humans from the waist down than other living apes. Do you agree or disagree?

So human was she that the Laetoli footprints were attributed to her and she was given human feet.

No feet were given to Lucy. Other feet were attributed to Australopithecines, and it is speculated that these feet were capable of producing those footprints. This is still hotly debated within scientific circles. The fact remains that the pieces of Lucy that we do have are transitional because they have a mixture of primitive and derived features, exactly what a transitional should have.

Now you have presented Turkana Boy that has been reconstructed to appear human from the waist down.

H. erectus appears human? Can I quote you on that?

So in other words Turkana Boy is no more human than a chimp ancestor from the waist down.

I guess you missed the other parts of the skeleton? Or do you think that H. erectus had nothing from the waist up?

Now you have a female erectus pelvis, reconstructed on flavour of

the month as usual.

It doesn't matter what scientists do. You will call it a "flavour of the month" and ignore it. Such is the denial rife within the creationist community.

This pelvis demonstrates a waddler.

It demonstrates a pelvis more like that of modern humans than other apes. That is what makes it transitional.

You lot also have more human footprints dated to around 1.5mya. There is all the woffle about the perfectly human gait that was meant to demonstrate Turkana Boys long legged athletic stride. Now he is going to morph back to a waddler. Your own researchers say something is amiss.

I guess you missed the part about sexual dimorphism in H. erectus?

The rib cage can also be reconstructed according to flavour of the month.

Again, ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.

But, there's just one more interesting thought to consider. Remember that another famous skull was found in this Lake Turkana region. That's right KNM-ER 1470 was found in this same region. Notice the striking similarities when the reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 is put side-to-side with the Turkana Boy skull. Now isn't that just most interesting? - or is it just me?

What about it?

Now, we must not forget about the human-like femur that was associated with KNM-ER 1470, even though located several kilometers away from the skull fragments.[/quote]

You mean the femur that was associate with the same species? Given that they came from the same time period I don't see why this is unjustified. Besides, we have human-like femurs associated with Turkana boy, and those bones were found within 7 meters of each other.

Obviously it is impossible to have modern humans living with H. habilis creatures since modern humans had not evolved yet - right?

It would appear that it is impossible for you to present any evidence to back up your empty assertions.

So Turkana Boy has the skull of creature, Habilis, that does not have modern-human bipedal posture and whose brain size was revised down from the misrepresentation the Leakeys presented, the lower body akin to a chimp ancestor and is 5"4', with a female waddler as a companion that supposedly left perfecty human footprints.

Both H. erectus and H. habilis are transitional.

All that I can say is we can talk forever about these fossils. If evolutionists are going to put up what is tantamount to fraud and misrepresentation, if you are going to take any of this nonsense as evidence, then the shame is on evolutionists.

Sorry, but your made up stories do not amount to evidence of fraud. If all you have is made up stories of fraud then you have no valid reason to reject these fossils as transitional.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Even though Astridhere is on ignore, he/she is still somehow able to post massive walls of text. The Force is strong with this one.

 

[Red Tornado]

I accept evolution, the overwhelming evidence has shown me that it is true.
For creation -
1. Scientific/Historical proof
2. Identifying a god