Looking for all the missing links

[USincognito]

Can I please be told the story behind the photo?

And can I have a photo of you with a loaf of bread on your head like they do on the 419 baiting forums?

I don't know what 419 baiting forums are, but you can have a photo of me doing a reversed V for victory if you'd like.

Here's what really happened... and I see she's still posting the bogus Wikipedia content.
Original claim about the content of The Ancestor's Tale.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-93/#post59400259
Me parsing out the claim and showing the Wiki content is bogus.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-93/#post59405391
She repeats the claim and I again show her that such a claim doesn't exist in the book.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-94/#post59405643
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-94/#post59405874
Since she's clearly having trouble understanding, I decide to explain it again, this time with visual aids - 3 screen caps of pages from the book and a photo of myself, holding my copy of The Ancestor's Tale, standing next to Richard Dawkins.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-94/#post59405936
So, at that point she should understand that I know what I'm talking about (she should have done so in my first response where I mentioned Rendezvous 0 and Rendezvous 1, but since she knew nothing about the content of the book or how it was presented, she continued to bluster) right? Sigh...
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-94/#post59407883

So, compare her "version" of what happened with what I've documented and her responses to my showing that she was spreading misinformation and add in the fact that she just quoted the bogus Wiki content again, months later, and you'll have some idea of who you're dealing with.

 

[Tiberius]

I love a good pwning.

 

[RickG]

So, compare her "version" of what happened with what I've documented and her responses to my showing that she was spreading misinformation and add in the fact that she just quoted the bogus Wiki content again, months later, and you'll have some idea of who you're dealing with.

I generally don't pay much attention to her posts, but once in a while there are some I just can't ignore. In particular, ones where she makes an argument against evolution and cites a reference in the scientific literature that supports the opposite of what she claims. I call it the Kent Hovind technique. Merely make up a story, cite some scientific literature, and no one who hearing what they 'want to hear' is going to do any fact checking. That's why there so much pseudo-science in creationist literature. The same thing is happening in pseudo-climate science through the charismatic oratory of Lord Christopher Monckton. Myrmidons are never going to check facts.

 

[USincognito]

I generally don't pay much attention to her posts, but once in a while there are some I just can't ignore. In particular, ones where she makes an argument against evolution and cites a reference in the scientific literature that supports the opposite of what she claims. I call it the Kent Hovind technique. Merely make up a story, cite some scientific literature, and no one who hearing what they 'want to hear' is going to do any fact checking. That's why there so much pseudo-science in creationist literature. The same thing is happening in pseudo-climate science through the charismatic oratory of Lord Christopher Monckton. Myrmidons are never going to check facts.

The most maddening thing about dealing with Creationists is they have a tabula rosa approach to debate.

Take the above example of the 212 mya "modern bird footprints". After being shown that's not what the original paper's author claimed, it just get's regurgitated as "modern bird footprints" again and again. Same the the mouse deer meme. Same as the "there are no transitionals meme". Same as the human vs. chimp Y specific chromosome meme. Same as the "if orthologous ERVs demonstrate common ancestry, why don't non-orthologous ERVs falsify it" from Mark Kennedy. Same as the stuff SDA Bob kept posting about tree-dwelling hyraxes evolving into horses or whatever.

No matter how many times we take showing that the poppycock professional Creationists have been feeding them and how many times we take the time to explain to them the errors in their conclusions, they just keep posting the same stuff and making the same claims over and over. Even when you go so far as to photographically demonstrate that you know more about the subject being discussed, they deny it.

It's quite frustrating and if it weren't for the lurkers, I'd have given up long ago.

ETA - last night I heard a local/regional talk radio host saying that over the last 5 years CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions had gone up, but temperatures hadn't and I wanted to punch the radio. He went on to reiterate the usual denier biolerplate, my favorite being "the earth is huge, how can us puny humans effect global climate". Denialist memes, be they deep time, evolution or AGW are powerful for those who accept whatever lie or misrepresentation confirms their bias, be it religiously or politically based.

 

[createdtoworship]

I generally don't pay much attention to her posts, but once in a while there are some I just can't ignore. In particular, ones where she makes an argument against evolution and cites a reference in the scientific literature that supports the opposite of what she claims. I call it the Kent Hovind technique. Merely make up a story, cite some scientific literature, and no one who hearing what they 'want to hear' is going to do any fact checking. That's why there so much pseudo-science in creationist literature. The same thing is happening in pseudo-climate science through the charismatic oratory of Lord Christopher Monckton. Myrmidons are never going to check facts.

remember quote mining is when people say not smart things and get quoted on it.

 

[createdtoworship]

How ironic!

Ask Astrid the story behind this photo:

actually lucy is an ape like creature and not a transition at all.

She has an absent nose ridge

EVERY human has a nose ridge.

 

[USincognito]

actually lucy is an ape like creature and not a transition at all.

She has an absent nose ridge

Really? How do you know? I'm guessing, since you make this claim, that not only is your bogus "nose ridge" claim false - since I'm not even sure what that really means. I've taken A&P and done the Crevo thing for many years and read about "brow ridges" but I'm not sure what you mean by "nose bridge" - that you have no idea what bones were found with Lucy's unearthing.

Actually, I'm not guessing that. The fact that you claim anything about her face when the majority of those bones weren't fossilized/recovered tells me you don't know what you're talking about with regard to Lucy, the above context not withstanding.

 

[Split Rock]

actually lucy is an ape like creature and not a transition at all.

She has an absent nose ridge

EVERY human has a nose ridge.

So, would a transitional between an ape without a nose ridge and a human with a nose ridge have a nose ridge or not? Why or why not?

 

[createdtoworship]

So, would a transitional between an ape without a nose ridge and a human with a nose ridge have a nose ridge or not? Why or why not?

a smaller nose ridge

 

[createdtoworship]

Really? How do you know? I'm guessing, since you make this claim, that not only is your bogus "nose ridge" claim false - since I'm not even sure what that really means. I've taken A&P and done the Crevo thing for many years and read about "brow ridges" but I'm not sure what you mean by "nose bridge" - that you have no idea what bones were found with Lucy's unearthing.

Actually, I'm not guessing that. The fact that you claim anything about her face when the majority of those bones weren't fossilized/recovered tells me you don't know what you're talking about with regard to Lucy, the above context not withstanding.

see no nose ridge:

nose ridge:

 

[RickG]

remember quote mining is when people say not smart things and get quoted on it.

She didn't quote mine, she misrepresented what the article was about. That is not a quote mine.

A quote mine is quoting what someone said or wrote out of context to change the original meaning. It has nothing to do with people not saying smart things.

 

[Split Rock]

a smaller nose ridge

Why are you concentrating on nose rigdes? Why not the size of the teeth or jaws, or size of the cranium, or shape of the pelvis, or angle of the legs, or position of the foramen magnum, or dozens of other features that differentiate modern humans from other modern apes? If I showed you an ape with a smaller nose ridge, would that convince you, or would you just shift the goal posts (as usual) and demand something else for the "transitional?"

 

[Astridhere]

I don't know what 419 baiting forums are, but you can have a photo of me doing a reversed V for victory if you'd like.

Here's what really happened... and I see she's still posting the bogus Wikipedia content.
Original claim about the content of The Ancestor's Tale.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-93/#post59400259
Me parsing out the claim and showing the Wiki content is bogus.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-93/#post59405391
She repeats the claim and I again show her that such a claim doesn't exist in the book.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-94/#post59405643
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-94/#post59405874
Since she's clearly having trouble understanding, I decide to explain it again, this time with visual aids - 3 screen caps of pages from the book and a photo of myself, holding my copy of The Ancestor's Tale, standing next to Richard Dawkins.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-94/#post59405936
So, at that point she should understand that I know what I'm talking about (she should have done so in my first response where I mentioned Rendezvous 0 and Rendezvous 1, but since she knew nothing about the content of the book or how it was presented, she continued to bluster) right? Sigh...
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-94/#post59407883

So, compare her "version" of what happened with what I've documented and her responses to my showing that she was spreading misinformation and add in the fact that she just quoted the bogus Wiki content again, months later, and you'll have some idea of who you're dealing with.

Oh great, you saved me having to do it...Thanks...

1st link me talking
My dear you lot of evolutonists are the ones that attributed all this humanity to Lucy the chimp. You lot are the ones that stand embaraased by years of woffle about Lucy's humanity and how she was becoming human. Now many researchers, including the famous Dawkins, say she is a chimp/bonobo ancestor, meaning an ape to ape variation with no humanity within her.

USincognitos reply at post 930
Anyone familiar with the book would realize that someone claiming Dawkins considers robust Australopithecines are the ancestors of gorillas or that gracile Australopithecines (guess what sport, Lucy is in the Rendezvous 0 section under the Ape Men chapter - Whoooops!) are the ancestors of chimpanzees not only is unfamiliar with him or the book, but doesn't know what the heck they're talking abuot.

From An Ancestors Tale, around page 87.

The Blind Cave Fish's Tale, which is about Dollo's Law, will reassure us that this last is not the case. There is nothing in principle wrong with Theory 4. Chimpanzees really could have passed through a more humanoid, bipedal stage before reverting to quadrupedal apehood. As it happens, this very suggestion has been revived by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas, in their two books, The Monkey Puzzle and The First Chimpanzee. They go so far as to suggest that chimpanzees are descended from gracile australopithecines (like Lucy), and gorillas from robust australopithecines (like ‘Dear Boy’). For such an in-your-face radical suggestion, they make a surprisingly good case. It centres on an interpretation of human evolution which has long been widely accepted, although not without controversy: people are juvenile apes who have become sexually mature.

Even if we accept Orrorin and Tournai as bipedal, I would not choose with confidence between Theories 2, 3 and 4. And we mustn't forget Theory 1, that they walked on all fours and the problem goes away, which many people think is the most plausible. But of course these different theories make predictions about Concestor 1, our next stopping point. Theories 1,2, and 3 agree in assuming a chimpanzee-like Concestor 1, walking on all fours, but occasionally rising on the hind legs. Theory 4 by contrast differs in assuming a more humanoid Concestor 1. In narrating Rendezvous 1, I have been forced to make a decision between the theories. Somewhat reluctantly, I'll go with the majority, and assume a chimpanzee-like concestor. On to meet it!

Ancestor's Tale, The - Dawkins R.A.

Hence, Wiki cites Dawkins as supporting Lucy being a chimpanzee ancestor. Dawkins indeed supports Gribbin and Cherfas's work. As you see Dawkins states he will 'go with the majority - RELUCTANTLY', which further backs his initial support for Lucy being a chimp ancestor.

The rest of the links USincognito supplied are him having a tanty.

There I rest my case on the photo.

Poor USincognito, being a big scientist and all, is prepared to misrepresent his mate Dawkins to save face on CF locking horns with little old me.

So for fun let me restate this because I love it. Lucy, and all her humanity, is likely no more than a chimpanzee ancestor and this is supported by several well credentialed evolutionary scientists.

That is what the photo was about and I am not the one telling huge porkies...

 

[Split Rock]

remember quote mining is when people say not smart things and get quoted on it.

Please see my thread on Creationists and Quote Mines: http://www.christianforums.com/t7658348/

 

[Astridhere]

Why are you concentrating on nose rigdes? Why not the size of the teeth or jaws, or size of the cranium, or shape of the pelvis, or angle of the legs, or position of the foramen magnum, or dozens of other features that differentiate modern humans from other modern apes? If I showed you an ape with a smaller nose ridge, would that convince you, or would you just shift the goal posts (as usual) and demand something else for the "transitional?"

Gee gradyll, an evolutionist concerned about changing goal posts. What a shocker!!!

 

[Astridhere]

Oh great, you saved me having to do it...Thanks...

1st link me talking
My dear you lot of evolutonists are the ones that attributed all this humanity to Lucy the chimp. You lot are the ones that stand embaraased by years of woffle about Lucy's humanity and how she was becoming human. Now many researchers, including the famous Dawkins, say she is a chimp/bonobo ancestor, meaning an ape to ape variation with no humanity within her.

USincognitos reply at post 930
Anyone familiar with the book would realize that someone claiming Dawkins considers robust Australopithecines are the ancestors of gorillas or that gracile Australopithecines (guess what sport, Lucy is in the Rendezvous 0 section under the Ape Men chapter - Whoooops!) are the ancestors of chimpanzees not only is unfamiliar with him or the book, but doesn't know what the heck they're talking abuot.

From An Ancestors Tale, around page 87.

The Blind Cave Fish's Tale, which is about Dollo's Law, will reassure us that this last is not the case. There is nothing in principle wrong with Theory 4. Chimpanzees really could have passed through a more humanoid, bipedal stage before reverting to quadrupedal apehood. As it happens, this very suggestion has been revived by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas, in their two books, The Monkey Puzzle and The First Chimpanzee. They go so far as to suggest that chimpanzees are descended from gracile australopithecines (like Lucy), and gorillas from robust australopithecines (like ‘Dear Boy’). For such an in-your-face radical suggestion, they make a surprisingly good case. It centres on an interpretation of human evolution which has long been widely accepted, although not without controversy: people are juvenile apes who have become sexually mature.

Even if we accept Orrorin and Tournai as bipedal, I would not choose with confidence between Theories 2, 3 and 4. And we mustn't forget Theory 1, that they walked on all fours and the problem goes away, which many people think is the most plausible. But of course these different theories make predictions about Concestor 1, our next stopping point. Theories 1,2, and 3 agree in assuming a chimpanzee-like Concestor 1, walking on all fours, but occasionally rising on the hind legs. Theory 4 by contrast differs in assuming a more humanoid Concestor 1. In narrating Rendezvous 1, I have been forced to make a decision between the theories. Somewhat reluctantly, I'll go with the majority, and assume a chimpanzee-like concestor. On to meet it!

Ancestor's Tale, The - Dawkins R.A.

Hence, Wiki cites Dawkins as supporting Lucy being a chimpanzee ancestor. Dawkins indeed supports Gribbin and Cherfas's work. As you see Dawkins states he will 'go with the majority - RELUCTANTLY', which further backs his initial support for Lucy being a chimp ancestor.

The rest of the links USincognito supplied are him having a tanty.

There I rest my case on the photo.

Poor USincognito, being a big scientist and all, is prepared to misrepresent his mate Dawkins to save face on CF locking horns with little old me.

So for fun let me restate this because I love it. Lucy, and all her humanity, is likely no more than a chimpanzee ancestor and this is supported by several well credentialed evolutionary scientists.

That is what the photo was about and I am not the one telling huge porkies...

You see gradyll some of these evolutionists are prepared to go to any lengths to defend their theory, even lying and bold faced misrepresentation.

USincognito thinks he is a big deal. However, he simply cannot accept any challenge that is uncomfortable. He will go into evodenial and run around in circles as per Dawkins and An Ancestors Tale, as will Split Rock.

They will ridicule creationists without substantiated responses to a multitude of questions although they have no substantiated answers to the how, when, where or why of evolution. They will go around in circles ad nauseum in an effort to ignore uncomfortable findings. They will speak to mountains of outdated and falsified scenarios and try to take a stroll down the garden path of evasion. What they won't do is fess up to the obvious.

Split Rock sees herself as some kind of authority also and believes she has the credentials to clarify what quote mining is.

Well let me say that often what evos call quote mining is nothing more than presenting a relevant snip from a paper and while it is in correct context it is called presenting evidence and saves the reader having to troll through papers to find one aspect spoken to.

That is different to quoting someones remark out of context.

Dawkins said what he said. Now watch these evos chase their tales in a game of denial over this for the next 30 pages or more. I love it!!

 

[Mr Strawberry]

.

 

[Tiberius]

Astrid, I've missed all this stuff about "The Ancestor's Tale", but apparently you have said that it makes a particular claim (I'm not going to go trawling through your many - and long - posts to find the particular claim though).

So could you, for my benefit, please sum up your claim in one sentence, and also indicate where in the book such a claim is made?

 

[Astridhere]

Astrid, I've missed all this stuff about "The Ancestor's Tale", but apparently you have said that it makes a particular claim (I'm not going to go trawling through your many - and long - posts to find the particular claim though).

So could you, for my benefit, please sum up your claim in one sentence, and also indicate where in the book such a claim is made?

All you have to do is look back a few posts to 733. My stance cannot be clearer and neither can Dawkins. I have not misrepresented Dawkins. I have quoted a link to the book, An Ancestors Tale, and page number and now you need to put in some effort and go look for your self and confirm it. USincognito put his credibility on this and he is still trying to get it back.

The claim I will make is that once again evolutionists have misrepresented a fossil reconstruction to support their paradigm. Lucy, australopithecus afarensis, is not a human ancestor, nor on her way to becoming human.

That is my statement and it is backed up by several researchers as I have spoken to. Of course these researchers and others believe in evolution but they suggest Lucy could be anything from a chimp to a gorilla ancestor. I don't care which it is. The point being Lucy, all the mountains of papers and books that speak to all Lucy's humanity, is more than likely nonsense, regardless of what the 'common thinking' today is.

There is the work quoted in the book, Gribbin and Cherfas's work, and Dawkins supporting it, there is this work...

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

There is also the fact that Afarensis was not found with feet and the feet have been assumed based on the Laetolli footprints. Here is some research from evo researchers that suggest australopithecus afarensis did not make the Laetolli footprints. Lucy is a patchwork of bones.

To get a toehold on the Laetoli problem, the researchers first compared the gaits of modern humans walking on sand with two sets of the fossil tracks. This analysis confirmed that the ancient footprints were left by individuals who had a striding bipedal gait very much like that of people today. The team then scrutinized naviculars of A. afarensis, H. habilis, chimpanzees and gorillas. The dimensions of the H. habilis navicular fell within the modern human range. In contrast, the A. afarensis bone resembled that of the flat-footed apes, making it improbable that its foot had an arch like our own. As such, the researchers report, A. afarensis almost certainly did not walk like us or, by extension, like the hominids at Laetoli.
Footprints to Fill: Scientific American

So now you have supposed human footprints dated to Lucy's time that did not belong to Lucys' species but to some other missing and speculated species. So what? All you have is an ape to ape adaptation, at best.

What does this mean for me? NO INTERMEDIATES=NO EVOLUTION. I expect to find mankind and non-human ape in the fossil record and that is what we find.

Here is another statement....

I am saying Lucy is just another misrepresentation that evos use, and an example of the mountains of non credible supports evos provide as evidence for evolution.

 

[Tiberius]

Thanks, I'll check that out...

But for the moment, have you got a source that is accepted among the relevant scientific community as true that states that Lucy's species is not on the branch that Humans are on? Because the quote from the book you provided said that there was a small group of scientists who had proposed that chimpanzees are descended from Lucy's species. This does not mean that all scientists in the field share this opinion.