What proof would you need? (2)

[Astridhere]

Alright, you keep insisting on "crazy algorithms", so let's talk about them now. What algorithms are those, specifically, and how are they flawed?

If you do not know then I am not going to educate you. Just for starters you lot have absolutely no idea what population size was and go with whatever makes your genetic bottlenecks work. That is just for starters with genomics, dating and comparisons. Insertion values are ties to the fossil record, hence your dates are changes with many new finds. Your comparisons ignore the differences and rely on similarities that are not similar at all but are hand waved away by sprooking insertions and deletions, meaning they are not 'the same' at all. Then of course there is the other excuse of genetic homoplasy. The there is hte fact that an ornag is more similar morphologically to mankind and does not align with genetic comparisons.

Then of course there is this.....The science behind reconstructions that are nothing more than flavour of the month...You can throw the strapping athlete, Turk, in as well.

Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed

Fraud and misrepresenation. Rudolf has had many face lifts over the years. Lluc was more flat faced than Rudolfensis and is just a non human ape.......Surprise!

Erectus looked like Lluc and that assertion is unfalsifiable

Nothing evolutionists produce is credible.

 

[Phred]

If you do not know then I am not going to educate you.

In other words, take my word for it because if you don't you'll find out I'm lying.

Just for starter you lot have absolutely no idea what population size was and go with whatever makes your genetic bottlenecks work. That is just for starters with genomics, dating and comparisons.

No... they discovered the bottlenecks from the data they had. They didn't, for some reason, need the bottlenecks and produce them. See, you're thinking like a creationist.

Then of course there is this.....The science behind reconstructions that are nothing more than flavour of the month...

Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed

Fraud and misrepresenation. Rudolf has had many face lifts over the years. Lluc was more flat faced than Rudolfensis and is just a non human ape.......Surprise!

Not fraud. Not misrepresentation. Making the pieces of the bones fit together the best they could. Sigh... You so desperately want these fossils to be of something not human. So you can hold onto your myth of being specially created.

If, as you believe, all these creatures we've found through fossils are extinct... why were they created if only to be wiped out in a flood that there's no evidence for?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

And now for some shameless self-promotion.

Astridhere: I know you've written about it already, but would you mind repeating your thoughts on homo erectus on my thread?

 

[Keachian]

Yes for the hundreth time I say my fellow creationists have been bamboozled by the Turkana Boy reconstruction that was misrepresented to the public and is likely a fraud. He is not a strapping athlete. His long femoral head that you lot woffled on about being an adaptation for long distance running is crap. He is a short waddler, less able to leave fully human footprints that even Australopithicus.

On footprints, well we have these volcano preserved australopithicine footprints

and these by erectus

 

[Astridhere]

In other words, take my word for it because if you don't you'll find out I'm lying.


No... they discovered the bottlenecks from the data they had. They didn't, for some reason, need the bottlenecks and produce them. See, you're thinking like a creationist.


Not fraud. Not misrepresentation. Making the pieces of the bones fit together the best they could. Sigh... You so desperately want these fossils to be of something not human. So you can hold onto your myth of being specially created.
To bad every great evolutionary thought is proven to be rubbish eg knuckling walking ancestry, Turk the athlete, and the fact that evos have no idea what a human trait is after 150 years of rubbish

If, as you believe, all these creatures we've found through fossils are extinct... why were they created if only to be wiped out in a flood that there's no evidence for?
The bible suggests that chance and unforseen occurence befall us all, that included animals

A comical reply to a comical post.

 

[Astridhere]

On footprints, well we have these volcano preserved australopithicine footprints

and these by erectus

Darls I can find 'irrefuteable evidence' of the Laetolli footprints being evidence of fully human gait and I can find irrefuteable evidence of the very same footprints showing a splayed toe. Evolutionary research is a real 'anything goes science'.

 

[CabVet]

Evolutionary research is a real 'anything goes science'.

I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are, and perhaps you should think about stopping with the false statements. At the same time that Darwin proposed evolution, he also proposed Pangenesis to explain heredity. Your logic indicates that everything that Darwin (or any other evolutionary scientist) proposed is undeniably true and will forever be accepted by scientists. Here is a quick run down on Pangenesis:

Pangenesis was Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for heredity. He presented this 'provisional hypothesis' in his 1868 work The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication and felt that it brought 'together a multitude of facts which are at present left disconnected by any efficient cause'. His pangenesis theory involved the Lamarckian premise that parents could pass on traits acquired in their lifetime.

The reason why you don't hear about Pangenesis today is because it was completely refuted by evidence.

 

[Astridhere]

I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are, and perhaps you should think about stopping with the false statements.
You have not refuted one single statement I have made, all of which are backed up buy more than woffle from your own woffly researchers.
At the same time that Darwin proposed evolution, he also proposed Pangenesis to explain heredity. Your logic indicates that everything that Darwin (or any other evolutionary scientist) proposed is undeniably true and will forever be accepted by scientists. Here is a quick run down on Pangenesis:

Pangenesis was Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for heredity. He presented this 'provisional hypothesis' in his 1868 work The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication and felt that it brought 'together a multitude of facts which are at present left disconnected by any efficient cause'. His pangenesis theory involved the Lamarckian premise that parents could pass on traits acquired in their lifetime.

It just so happens that epigentic, Lamarkian style, inheritance is proved as is HGT, poofing mankind into a walking virus. If you weren't so silly you could see that all life is made to suit a food chain as God would have intended. If naturalism had anything to with it there would be multiple life forms not connected, that arose independently and evolved. That may be convincing. Instead you come up with more miracles than the bible with life only arising once falsified by HGT now multiple 'primitive cells' that were so much alike they could transfer DNA. There is one plan for life and God knows it and that is why all life is similar, some more similar to one than another that is straw grabbed as evidence for ancestry regardless of DNA not aligning with morphology. Your science is a contradictory mess

The reason why you don't hear about Pangenesis today is because it was completely refuted by evidence.

The sum of your replies is Astridhere is wrong with stuff all behind it.

My dear I have posted evidence from your own researchers suggesting evos are egotistical and want glory and have a mess. There are more contradictions that one can speak to in a single post

I have posted work from researchers that suggest many of your hominids are likely apes hidden in the human line and musch to verify what I assert.

It does not matter what you lot say these days it is noithing more than flavour of the month. This is what you are prepared to ridicule creationists on....Rubbish that ends up in the garbage bin of evo delusions past.

You lot have a hide and expect that creationists need to produce more robust and credible supports than you are able to. 150 years of mistakes is nothing to sprooke to.

The point of the discussion was to demonstrate beyond doubt that evolution is knee jerk science that evolves with new finds. TOE has no predictive ability. Your researchers did not predict the huge difference in the human/chimp Y chromosome, just for starters. Did this falsify TOE? No..you lot just went ahead and invented another non plausible scenario.


Not surprisingly, there is much disagreement among paleoanthropologists with respect to reconstructing phylogenetic relationships for the australoptihecines. Furthermore, the discovery of new fossil specimens that are unexpected often cause dramatic re-organizations of hominid phylogenies. In addition to this, some new fossils are so out of line with current phylogenies that they cannot be positioned anywhere sensibly on phylogenetic trees and are often left aside with question marks accompanying them (for example: Orrorin tugenensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Kenyanthropus platyops). Finally, paleoanthropologists are people with egos (often large ones) and, not surprisingly, often place their recently discovered fossil specimens at points on the trees which are thought to be the most crucial in the grand scheme of human evolution (being ancestral to the genus Homo for example). For all of these reasons, reconstructing hominid phylogenies is extremely problematic, but still a very necessary task if one wishes to comprehend the evolution of the australopithecines.
Australopithecine Evolution



"Researchers have to stop publishing papers that say, essentially, 'This fossil is an early hominid, so suck it up and accept it,'" Wood says. "Nature and Science could change this practice overnight if they wanted to."
Anthropologist Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, responds that, at least for Ardi, comparative studies published in 2009 ruled out the possibility that she was an ape. White led the team that excavated and analyzed Ardi's 4.4-million-year-old partial skeleton.
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.

Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis : Discovery News

It does not matter whom is right or wrong because another possiblity is that they are wrong about everything

These evos sprook 'it all evolved' and have zilch to support how, when, where, or why apart from 150 years of falsifications


TOE is the realm of great story telling, not science.

 

[Fastener]

TOE is the realm of great story telling, not science.

Just like everything else you believe you think that just by saying something that something somehow becomes true,
well it doesn't, you live in a dream world full of myths where truth is not required.

You have nothing but you think you have something so you attack evolution in an attempt to divert the attention from the fact that you have nothing, why not tell us about the nothing that you think is something? or are you like most creationists in that you hate to talk about creationism? you never know we might also think you have something,
but you know we won't don't you? because deep down you don't really believe it, do you?

Creationism is an embarrassment even to creationists that's why they rarely talk about it.

 

[Astridhere]

And now for some shameless self-promotion.

Astridhere: I know you've written about it already, but would you mind repeating your thoughts on homo erectus on my thread?

Sure.when I get come back I'll subscribe to your thread. I was thinking of starting such a thread myself.

Thankyou for your respectfull invitation.

 

[Astridhere]

Just like everything else you believe you think that just by saying something that something somehow becomes true,
well it doesn't, you live in a dream world full of myths where truth is not required.

You have nothing but you think you have something so you attack evolution in an attempt to divert the attention from the fact that you have nothing, why not tell us about the nothing that you think is something? or are you like most creationists in that you hate to talk about creationism? you never know we might also think you have something,
but you know we won't don't you? because deep down you don't really believe it, do you?

Creationism is an embarrassment even to creationists that's why they rarely talk about it.

Listen pal, I don't know what langauge you speak, but I have answered every challenge put to me.

You lot need to pull your heads in. It may be fun for evos to ridicule creationists but in actual fact you lot can produce no better substantiated support for evolution than creationists produce for the various creationist camps.

I think evolutionists need to suck this up and deal with it.

Biblical Young Earth Creationism

There you go. Above is link re creationist support. Knock yourself out refuting it with your maybe's, possibly's, perhapses, observed data poofed into myth and flavour of the month.

In particular atheists here need to go get themselves a life and aim for better jollies than debating about a God or creation, neither of which they accept nor believe. This ongoing behaviour seriously borders onto a mental health issue. If you were my client I would have concerns for you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Listen pal, I don't know what langauge you speak, but I have answered every challenge put to me.

Really?

So what features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between humans and a common ancestor with other apes?

 

[CabVet]

Really?

So what features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between humans and a common ancestor with other apes?

$100 says she will answer that by deflecting and changing the subject.

 

[Astridhere]

Really?

So what features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between humans and a common ancestor with other apes?

The broken record plays again

 

[MoonLancer]

The broken record plays again

If you were only listening the first time it wouldn't need to "play again"

 

[Astridhere]

$100 says she will answer that by deflecting and changing the subject.
You believe in miracles more than creationists if you think an evolutionist can provide a definition of a human/ape intermediate. The best so far has been falsified with Ardi demonstrating the common ancestor, whatever it looked like, was not like a chimp eg knucklewalking biped.

Creationists do not have to define a myth. I gave a definition for fun that was not aligning with Loudmouths game and now he is stuck in repeat. I love it as it demonstrates Loudmouth, as well as you apparently, have nothing to say.

Evolution is your story. You define transitional.

I have given a definition, 14 orang traits out of 28. You do not have to like it nor do I have to comply with any requests for further clarification to demonstrate evolutionists have no idea what they are talking about. You lot consider yourselves so clever go look them up for yourself if you have any research skills at all.

You lot will go on and on and on about it untill you get the reply you seek to use as a creationist flogging whip, despite the fact that evos have no idea themselves proffering flavour of the month that has recently been falsified..meaning evolution is falsified and another story ensues.


Loudmouths definition of shared chimp and human traits is incorrect and really quite ridiculous coming from an evolutionist these days, no matter what their credentials or lack thereof.

Of course the point being if mankind is morphologically more similar to an orang than a chimpanzee then effectively any definition an evolutionist provides can only be ridiculous wishfull thinking and straw grabbing.

You lot have no idea what the common ancestor looked like, what so ever. Again any definition an evolutionist provides can be no more than wishfull thinking at best and delusional most likely.

Demanding more from a creationist is typical. Trying to pass this strategy off as anything more than foolery is a new low in desperation and hypocricy.

So Loudmouths broken record is really quite nonsensical and desperate given that evolutionists have no idea themselves eg Gorilla ancestors with bipedal, human feet and reduced pelvis. You are right behind him in awards for the most desperate response.

Ask an evolutionist what a human ancestor is intermediate to? Answer: They have no idea. This is hilarious.

 

[mathclub]

Listen pal, I don't know what langauge you speak, but I have answered every challenge put to me.

You lot need to pull your heads in. It may be fun for evos to ridicule creationists but in actual fact you lot can produce no better substantiated support for evolution than creationists produce for the various creationist camps.

I think evolutionists need to suck this up and deal with it.

Biblical Young Earth Creationism

There you go. Above is link re creationist support. Knock yourself out refuting it with your maybe's, possibly's, perhapses, observed data poofed into myth and flavour of the month.

In particular atheists here need to go get themselves a life and aim for better jollies than debating about a God or creation, neither of which they accept nor believe. This ongoing behaviour seriously borders onto a mental health issue. If you were my client I would have concerns for you.

that website is absolutely horrendous. No wonder there are so many people with no idea what they are talking about if that's the type of rubbish you read.

after reading one page where it tried to claim that evolution attempts to explain the origin of life, atheism is a religion and that evolution and atheism are the same thing (they actually have nothing to do with each other) I gave up on it.

I feel sorry for you if you actually believe anything a site like that says.

 

[Psudopod]

Listen pal, I don't know what langauge you speak, but I have answered every challenge put to me.

Then I must have missed where you stated what feature of apes humans were lacking which meant they could not be classed as apes. Perhaps you could remind me.

 

[Psudopod]

I have given a definition, 14 orang traits out of 28. You do not have to like it nor do I have to comply with any requests for further clarification to demonstrate evolutionists have no idea what they are talking about. You lot consider yourselves so clever go look them up for yourself if you have any research skills at all.

Why 14 out of 28 features? Is this for all transitional ancestors?

 

[Fastener]

debating about a God or creation,

That's a laugh, debating a God or creation?? who ever said there was a God to debate? that's like saying,
'debating Santa and Christmas', it's meaningless, it's talking for the sake of talking.