What proof would you need? (2)

[Psudopod]

Now let's look at this flavour of the month invented of course after you lot realized that chimp-like is falsified and not the way to go. Evos had to invent a brand new story recently that falsified 150 years of evolutionary history to yet again invent another myth to save the day...

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a lifeform that exhibits characteristics of two distinct taxonomic groups. A transitional fossil is the fossil of an organism near the branching point where major individual lineages (clades) diverge. It will have characteristics typical of organisms on both sides of the split, but because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close it is to the actual point of divergence."

This isn't new. This is the definition of transitional and hasn't been amended. It's also been presented several times.

You know that bipedalism was first displayed in non human apes eg Lucy. Reduced facial features were demonstated in Lluc 12mya, and most importantly mankind has much more in common with an orang than a chimp.

Yes, bipedalism was demonstrated earlier in the line of ancestory than previously thought, but there is still a transition from non-bipedal to bipedal apes. You'll have to give more information on what you mean by reduced facial features, which features, are they present in all apes down the line? And you haven't demonstrated that humans share more features with orangs than chimps, you've asserted it. Genetically, they certainly do not.

Then of course there is brain size and I have already spoken to with Turkana Boy having no bigger cranial capacity than an ape like Rudolfensis that has a brain capacity of 525cc and does not observe nor address the variation between species.

Again, you have asserted this, not demonstrated it.

Then of course there is my point that erectus and Turk were too stupid to light and control fire and is a short waddler anyway about to undergo a pelvic reconstruction. Erectus is also too stupid to raise large brained dependent babies.

Again, you have asserted this, not demonstrated it.

Then let's not forget the 'human' fossils that turned out to be an ornagutan and a pig. The fact is that evolutionists would not know what a human trait looks like anymore yet they base a definition on a mix of human traits.

Which human fossils are these? And of course we know what a human trait is, we have mirrors.

The overarching theme I am presenting is that all evidence for human ancestry is based on myth, inconsistency and non plausibility.

Based on your assertions.

 

[Astridhere]

When you not only post your ineptitute, but bold it, I wonder not only how you can expect others to take you seriously, but how you even take yourself seriously.



Wow. Just wow. First off, you can't even keep track of who you're replying to (hint - I'm not Loudmouth). Second, your hubris again makes a fool of you. For all your talk about the reading comprehension of others, you made a severe error yourself. Here's the link to the page in question.
Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index, Millions of Years, Compromise

Here's the quote:
Argument:

Belief in a creation event lasting millions of years compromises the Gospel message

And here's the important part Astrid:
"Source: Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise"

That means, since you clearly don't understand how citations and sourcing works, that the quote in the arument is from Sarfati's "Refuting Compromise" not the response!

Finally, if you'd clicked on the link below the response, it would have taken you to the actual sources of the response (an entire page of linked essays).
Death Before Sin

This link talks about sin and death. Are you seriously trying to engage me in a scientific debate or have you run out of mainstream science refutes to any of my assertions.

How would you know? There is zero evidence you've read any of his work, much less The Ancestor's Tale - though you did quote that lying Wiki entry 5 times. And you have shown nothing demonstrating Au. afarensis to be a gorilla, save your own ignorance of the subject.

Why don't you contact Wiki. It is easy. They will change content. You reckon you have the book. It will be easy for you and I would in your situation. I wonder why you have not done so if you are so angry with me. .

Can you see how you have gone on and on about sin and death. Are you seriously expecting me to waste my time on this. This has nothing to do with science and I am not going to play old earther against YECs


In relation to Lucy you are another one that likes to cherry pick the research that you prefer.


Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.
From the Cover: Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths


Is it just me or does this research say..The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

So here you have afarensis out of the human loop and Ardi in.

Now wait there is more.....

But now Ardi has found herself in a spot of controversy. Two new articles being published by Science question some of the major conclusions of Ardi's researchers, including whether this small, strange-looking creature is even a human ancestor at all.​

The biggest mistake White made, according to the paper, was to use outdated characters and concepts to classify Ardi and to fail to identify anatomical clues that would rule her out as a human ancestor. As an example, Sarmiento says that on the base of Ardi's skull, the inside of the jaw joint surface is open as it is in orangutans and gibbons, and not fused to the rest of the skull as it is in humans and African apes — suggesting that Ardi diverged before this character developed in the common ancestor of humans and apes.

Ardi: Scientists Challenge Human Ancestor Connection - TIME​

Now I am not throwing my hat behind any of these researchers. What the above re Lucy and Ardi demonstrates mainly is that researchers have no clue who is who in the zoo in relation to fossils older than 2 million years old. Additionally there is stuff all fossils to demonstrate chimp or gorilla ancestry, particularly recent. Does that not strike evos as perculiar?​

Where are they? They are hidden in the human line. All the previous evidence prior to Ardi spoke to chimp like traits. The common ancestor was not chimp like. Hence your fossils should be classified as chimp ancestors now. But Oh not, not you guys. You look for God only knows what else so as not to falsify your theory.​

Re Dawkins I stumbled on this..
​

If you walked up the line like an inspecting general-past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis -and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity.​

Meet my cousin,the chimpanzee​

This is Dawkins work above from Meet my Cousin the Chimp. Many researchers think Habilis is out now. The 'perhaps' in bold suggests to me that Dawkins at least questions Lucy's validity in the human line. I now think you have misrepresented Dawkins and possibly your relationship with him.

So in a nutshell these researchers truly have no idea and can present a plethora of words that amount to nothing more than speculation.

Really I do not care whom is right or wrong in relation to all this conflicting research. However to suggest that you have good evidence is misrepresentative to say the least. I do not care if these are chimp or gorilla ancestors. The point is this rubbish is not evidence of anything other than a mess.


The evidence that creationists present cannot be worse than this.

 

[USincognito]

Unless there's something in that giant wall of text that says, "US, again, you were right and I was wrong. That link you provided does not say what I thought it did. I'm sorry.", I can safely ignore all the rest and let your hubris continue to make you out to be a big joke.

 

[USincognito]

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

Actually, since this is the 3rd or 4th time you posted this link.
Afarensis: Rak and Australopithecus afarensis: A Second Look

"Wolpoff and Frayer go on to demonstrate that Neanderthal display a wide variety of mandibular morphologies that frequently overlap that of modern humans. Modern humans and non-Neanderthal hominins also display a wide variety of overlapping mandibular morphologies. Consequently, they argue that the three traits (and a fourth not used in the australopithecine paper) do not give a valid phylogenetic signal. The same critique can be made with the australopithecine paper. Does it sample the range of variation in the australopithecines (including Paranthropus)? Probably not..."

Wooops. (You might want to check out the whole entry, it's got pretty pictures* showing why Rek, etc. are, at least, misguided.)

-eta. Here's another entry with even more pretty pictures* and citations
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/04/18/is_australopithecus_afarensis/

* Of course given your past errors with Salem/Lucy, Lucy/modern human skeleton, Turkana boy and Orangutans, we know you're not very good with pictures, but at least your can look at them instead of reading something and misunderstanding it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually all you evos, Loudmouth was silly enough to mention chimp characteristics in his intial reply. This was a very silly thing to do. Loudmouth also woffled on for weeks about the chimp-like connection to his embarassment, because even I know better than that.

No woffling. The statement still stands. A transitional will have a mixture of chimp and human features just as H. erectus has.

If you do not accept this definition of transitional then please show us the definition you are using.

Now what are these traits that are relating to humanity?

Look in a mirror.

You know that bipedalism was first displayed in non human apes eg Lucy. Reduced facial features were demonstated in Lluc 12mya, and most importantly mankind has much more in common with an orang than a chimp.

We also have much more in common with H. erectus than any of the other species you list. This makes H. erectus transitional between us and our common ancestor with those other species.

Then of course there is brain size and I have already spoken to with Turkana Boy having no bigger cranial capacity than an ape like Rudolfensis that has a brain capacity of 525cc and does not observe nor address the variation between species.

The brain capacity of H. erectus is intermediate between us and other ape species. That is a fact. That is what makes H. erectus transitional.

Then of course there is my point that erectus and Turk were too stupid to light and control fire and is a short waddler anyway about to undergo a pelvic reconstruction. Erectus is also too stupid to raise large brained dependent babies.

You have never explained why this excludes H. erectus from being transitional. Are you saying that a transitional has to be identical to modern humans? If not, then why do you continue to point to differences as a problem?

Of course using your own psuedo science against you is necessary to demonstrate that evolutionists have lost the science of observation and replaced it with story telling and algorithmic magic.

Another false claim made by Astrid. She doesn't like the evidence so she has to tell porkies to make it go away.

Additionally Loudmouth can finally give his ideas on Turks whackey pelvis and defend it as a single individual.

There is nothing to defend. The pelvis is transitional. You have never been able to show that it is not.

Additionally researchers can reconstruct shattered fragments to reflect anything they want eg Turks pelvis,

Another false accusation.

and Rudolfensis' initial Leakey flat face, morphing into an ape head after Leakey was shown to have produced a biased reconstruction.

Is either reconstruction transitional? If not, then why do you make a big stink about it? Obviously, one of those reconstructions has to be transitional otherwise you wouldn't harp on it so much.

Then let's not forget the 'human' fossils that turned out to be an ornagutan and a pig.

You mean the frauds that real scientists exposed? It wasn't creationists who exposed these frauds, it was evolutionists.

The fact is that evolutionists would not know what a human trait looks like anymore yet they base a definition on a mix of human traits.

So what features would a real transitional have? Why can't you answer this question.

The overarching theme I am presenting is that all evidence for human ancestry is based on myth, inconsistency and non plausibility.

Go!........

So what is the correct criteria to use when determining if a fossil is transitional or not? You can not claim that these are not transitional without having these criteria.

 

[Loudmouth]

The mathematician link to an earth centred universe is speaking to published research and not from a creationist.

What substantiating evidence did he present that favors his model over others?

This theory does not require the mystic dark energy and matter.

Then his theory is wrong because dark matter has been observed as has dark energy.

 

[Loudmouth]

..The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.

Where in our definition of transitional does it require a transitional to be a direct ancestor?

 

[Loudmouth]

If you want me to be civil stop being a S.A.

Answer the question. Do you think babies come about through abiogenesis? You claim that evolution and abiogenesis should not be separated. This means that you see no difference between biological reproduction (the mechanism of evolution) and abiogenesis.

Atheism is a philosophy.

Disbelief is not a philosophy.

Atheism is an excuse to do as you wish with no more than secular authority to answer to.

That is not atheism. Atheism is just a disbelief in supernatural deities. That's it. No more, no less. Is not believing in Thor a philosophy? Of course not, and neither is disbelieving in your god.

I am thinking of presenting a thesis on why atheists haunt Christian threads.

I can tell you right here. I am here to stop the destruction of our education system at the hands of theists who see knowledge as a threat to religious indoctrination. It is that simple.

You are old enough to have worshiped the evo researchers . . .

You are projecting again.

The irreduceable complexity of a living cell . . .

How is this evidence?

And of course already presented research on earth centred universe.

But you did not present evidence that substantiated the theory, and on top of that we have observed both dark matter and dark energy.

No I can provide plausible scenarios to back my position rather than human feet on gorillas and make believe primitive cells.

Then do so. Still waiting for this substantiating evidence. What evidence do you have that these feet came from modern humans?

Evolutionists believe dead elements created themselves into a living factory of complexity.

That is not a part of the theory of evolution, so how could evolutionists even believe that?

I believe an almighty creator created the various kinds fully formed and functioning.

Where is your substantiating evidence?

Your theory is implausibe at its inception.

Substantiating evidence please.

My theory is plausible . . .

Name one observation of a supernatural deity forming a fully functioning species. You need to supply your substantiating evidence for this. You also need to explain why your theory would produce a nested hierarchy.

These being charged with the force of life the one thing that mankind is incapable of recreating and replicating.

200 years ago man could not fly, so I guess that 200 years ago flying was magical poofing as well.

Another way of looking at plausibility is the ridiculousness of expecting amino acids to form a fully functioning and complex organism capable of entropy and reproduction of some kind.

No one is claiming that complex organisms came about through this process. Or do you really think that babies come about through abiogenesis? You have been taught about reproduction, haven't you?

Yet if there is a God it is very plausible . . .

Substantiating evidence please.

I give power to an almighty God.

What god? Evidence please.

 

[Astridhere]

Actually, since this is the 3rd or 4th time you posted this link.
Afarensis: Rak and Australopithecus afarensis: A Second Look

"Wolpoff and Frayer go on to demonstrate that Neanderthal display a wide variety of mandibular morphologies that frequently overlap that of modern humans. Modern humans and non-Neanderthal hominins also display a wide variety of overlapping mandibular morphologies. Consequently, they argue that the three traits (and a fourth not used in the australopithecine paper) do not give a valid phylogenetic signal. The same critique can be made with the australopithecine paper. Does it sample the range of variation in the australopithecines (including Paranthropus)? Probably not..."

Wooops. (You might want to check out the whole entry, it's got pretty pictures* showing why Rek, etc. are, at least, misguided.)

-eta. Here's another entry with even more pretty pictures* and citations
Afarensis: Is Australopithecus afarensis Too Derived to be a Human Ancestor

* Of course given your past errors with Salem/Lucy, Lucy/modern human skeleton, Turkana boy and Orangutans, we know you're not very good with pictures, but at least your can look at them instead of reading something and misunderstanding it.
I made no errors. In fact your researchers would not know what they are looking at for you to make any such claim

This above does nothing to refute the fact that your evolutionary researchers have no idea what they are talking about. The link you provided is not even published research. However, that does not matter as I know these researchers have no clue and disagree with each other, and I love it.

The very fact that various researchers disagree with each other only adds weight to my argument and does not refute it at all.

Here is another paper where researchers do not agree on Lucy's tree climbing ability and also speaks to Lucy's curved foot bones.

Australopithecus afarensis bone could change story of human evolution - CSMonitor.com

Then despite the fact that bipedalism goes back 20my a metarsel is attributed to Lucy alone and suddenly she is a perfect biped despite having curved foot bones and curved fingers.

Bipedalism: Orangutan to Human - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

I have said many times that it does not matter whom is right or wrong. The point is that these researchers are desperately looking for human intermediates but in the end they have no idea what they are talking about.

Further to that I believe you have misrepresented your mate Dawkins who appears to question Afarensis in the human line. Many researchers have also kicked Habilis out of the human line. If Dawkins thought Lucy was in the human line he would not have used the word 'possibly'. Why is Dawkins not convinced by the shortened pelvis and all of Lucys supposed humanity?

I do not believe you are the guy in that photo. I think you are big noting yourself and using the power of a lie to misrepresent Dawkins.

You have stuff all fossil evidence for chimps and gorillas and some researchers believe they are hiding in the human line, so I am not alone on this.

Just because you have apes that are not exactly like todays apes does not mean any of them are on their way to becoming human.

You lot like to ridicule creationists. However anything a creationist supplies as evidence could not be any worse than the mess and controversy evolutionists like to call evidence.

 

[Astridhere]

Answer the question. Do you think babies come about through abiogenesis? You claim that evolution and abiogenesis should not be separated. This means that you see no difference between biological reproduction (the mechanism of evolution) and abiogenesis.

[/color]

Disbelief is not a philosophy.

[/color]

That is not atheism. Atheism is just a disbelief in supernatural deities. That's it. No more, no less. Is not believing in Thor a philosophy? Of course not, and neither is disbelieving in your god.



I can tell you right here. I am here to stop the destruction of our education system at the hands of theists who see knowledge as a threat to religious indoctrination. It is that simple.



You are projecting again.

[/color]

How is this evidence?



But you did not present evidence that substantiated the theory, and on top of that we have observed both dark matter and dark energy.



Then do so. Still waiting for this substantiating evidence. What evidence do you have that these feet came from modern humans?



That is not a part of the theory of evolution, so how could evolutionists even believe that?



Where is your substantiating evidence?



Substantiating evidence please.



Name one observation of a supernatural deity forming a fully functioning species. You need to supply your substantiating evidence for this. You also need to explain why your theory would produce a nested hierarchy.



200 years ago man could not fly, so I guess that 200 years ago flying was magical poofing as well.



No one is claiming that complex organisms came about through this process. Or do you really think that babies come about through abiogenesis? You have been taught about reproduction, haven't you?



Substantiating evidence please.



What god? Evidence please.

You are skirting around a single point which is

Nothing any creationist offers as evidence for their view could possibly be worse that the convoluted nonsense, contradiction and controversy evolutionists offer up.

You can sprooke about this or that. You can cherry pick which researcher you like to back. You can strain any point you like, and still creationist evidence can be no worse than this mess you lot present and a bunch of researchers that cannot agree on anything except "it all evolved".

 

[CabVet]

Nothing any creationist offers as evidence for their view could possibly be worse that the convoluted nonsense, contradiction and controversy evolutionists offer up.

Creationists offer no evidence of anything. All they do is try to (through misinformation) cast doubt in evolution.

 

[Astridhere]

This isn't new. This is the definition of transitional and hasn't been amended. It's also been presented several times.



Yes, bipedalism was demonstrated earlier in the line of ancestory than previously thought, but there is still a transition from non-bipedal to bipedal apes. You'll have to give more information on what you mean by reduced facial features, which features, are they present in all apes down the line? And you haven't demonstrated that humans share more features with orangs than chimps, you've asserted it. Genetically, they certainly do not.



Again, you have asserted this, not demonstrated it.



Again, you have asserted this, not demonstrated it.



Which human fossils are these? And of course we know what a human trait is, we have mirrors.

I am glad I see in my reflection a reasoning human capable of sophisticated speech and abstract thought, without a fur coat. I am sorry for you if you see in your reflection a hairy ape.

Based on your assertions.

And still nothing you say will take away the fact that anything a creationist offers as evidence for creation could not possibly be worse than the mess you evolutionists have to offer.

That includes the 150 years of continual falsifications of previous evidence that you lot would have shoved down creationists throats now residing in the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past.

 

[Astridhere]

Creationists offer no evidence of anything. All they do is try to (through misinformation) cast doubt in evolution.

I have research to back an earth centred universe, 30% different Y chromosome, 10% larger chimp genome, different hot spots, different expressions of proteins NOT from creationist sites as well as flood geology, young earth, as well as a plethora of other work on creationists sites. If you cannot read or understand them or even bother to look at them, nor discern what is creationist and not, that is not my problem.

Nothing you produce is any better.

Nothing I produce could be worse than anything you produce including 150 years of falsifications.

 

[Loudmouth]

And still nothing you say will take away the fact that anything a creationist offers as evidence for creation could not possibly be worse than the mess you evolutionists have to offer.

What evidence?

That includes the 150 years of continual falsifications of previous evidence that you lot would have shoved down creationists throats now residing in the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past.

You don't falsify evidence. You falsify hypotheses. Do you even understand how science works?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have research to back an earth centred universe,

Present the evidence then.

10% larger chimp genome,

You don't have that.

different hot spots,

Hot spots of what?

different expressions of proteins

Why is this a problem?

flood geology,

Substantiating evidence please.

young earth,

Substantiating evidence please.

If you cannot read or understand them or even bother to look at them, nor discern what is creationist and not, that is not my problem.

We understand that those sites peddle lies. What more need be said? Have you read my thread on 14C in diamonds?

Nothing you produce is any better.

Yeah, it is. What we present is peer reviewed, not from a 3rd party source that distorts and lies.

Nothing I produce could be worse than anything you produce including 150 years of falsifications.

And yet it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are skirting around a single point which is

Nothing any creationist offers as evidence for their view could possibly be worse that the convoluted nonsense,

Then offer up some evidence and let's see how it stacks up.

For example, why don't you explain how IC systems are evidence of creationism. Explain it to us. Let's see if you can defend it at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

This above does nothing to refute the fact that your evolutionary researchers have no idea what they are talking about.

Another bald assertion from Astrid.

However, that does not matter as I know these researchers have no clue and disagree with each other, and I love it.

So you are saying that you do not accept evolution because it is not dogmatic?

The very fact that various researchers disagree with each other only adds weight to my argument and does not refute it at all.

That's a whopper of a porky there. Just because scientists have too little evidence to determine which of the transitional fossils are in our direct line of descent it does not indicate that humans were magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity. Do you understand how ridiculous your position is? Do you understand what a false dichotomy is?

Here is another paper where researchers do not agree on Lucy's tree climbing ability and also speaks to Lucy's curved foot bones.

How does this indicate that humans were magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity? Please explain.

The point is that these researchers are desperately looking for human intermediates but in the end they have no idea what they are talking about.

Another bald assertion from Astrid. How can you make this claim when you can't even define what a transitional fossil should look like? The only one without a clue is you.

 

[Fastener]

When new facts come to light what would you have scientists do ignore those facts? if you came up with a brand new type of microscope that magnified a hundred times better than the microscopes we have now what should we do with the new evidence we get from it? ignore that evidence?

When the calculator was invented people were doing math just because they were curious about the answers,
the calculator could do in ten button presses what would have taken ten people working for a week to accomplish.

What do you suggest we do with all of the new information we are getting from the Hubble telescope ignore it?
as time moves on so does the amount of information we accumulate our knowledge base increases ten fold with every generation.
The more we know the more we are able to know, would you have us stop finding things out?

Astridhere... could you please tell me where you stand on new information?

 

[CabVet]

I have research to back an earth centred universe, 30% different Y chromosome, 10% larger chimp genome, different hot spots, different expressions of proteins NOT from creationist sites as well as flood geology, young earth, as well as a plethora of other work on creationists sites. If you cannot read or understand them or even bother to look at them, nor discern what is creationist and not, that is not my problem.

Nothing you produce is any better.

Nothing I produce could be worse than anything you produce including 150 years of falsifications.

None of this is evidence of a six day creation by your God.

 

[USincognito]

I do not believe you are the guy in that photo. I think you are big noting yourself and using the power of a lie to misrepresent Dawkins.

Welcome to Facebook - Log In, Sign Up or Learn More