Is Erectus an anatomically modern human?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Meanwhile - the data is doctored and posed.

No it isn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

No it isn't.

That blue plaster just grow there on its own, did it?

And did all those skulls just happen to get together to pose for one picture?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That blue plaster just grow there on its own, did it?

And did all those skulls just happen to get together to pose for one picture?

You're tilting a windmill, mate.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're tilting a windmill, mate.

Do you know what God can do with those bobbleheads of evolution?

Dry Bones

Of course, with there being 206 bones in an adult human, and assuming those bobbleheads are adults, I'd say your bobblehead display is missing about 2870 bones.

Par for the course for evolution, which runs on just segments of incomplete evidence, and more missing links than a chain link fence surrounding a Swiss cheese factory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you know what God can do with those bobbleheads of evolution?

Dry Bones

Of course, with there being 206 bones in an adult human, and assuming those bobbleheads are adults, I'd say your bobblehead display is missing about 2870 bones.

Par for the course for evolution, which runs on just segments of incomplete evidence, and more missing links than a chain link fence surrounding a Swiss cheese factory.

What you just said has absolutely no bearing on the OP topic.

 

[AV1611VET]

What you just said has absolutely no bearing on the OP topic.

Ohhhhh ... the OP!

Sorry!

I thought we were dealing with your bobblehead display.

My bad!



You go ahead and go back to the OP.

I'll hang around and see if anyone else wants to address this fake display of evolution garbage that grave robbers dug up out of the ground and monkeyed with.

 

[Jimmy D]

Ohhhhh ... the OP!

Sorry!

I thought we were dealing with your bobblehead display.

My bad!



You go ahead and go back to the OP.

I'll hang around and see if anyone else wants to address this fake display of evolution garbage that grave robbers dug up out of the ground and monkeyed with.

Don't get too vexed AV, I suggest a nice sit down with a cup of tea.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you know what God can do with those bobbleheads of evolution?

Dry Bones

Of course, with there being 206 bones in an adult human, and assuming those bobbleheads are adults, I'd say your bobblehead display is missing about 2870 bones.

Par for the course for evolution, which runs on just segments of incomplete evidence, and more missing links than a chain link fence surrounding a Swiss cheese factory.

Such is why every "common ancestor" is missing in every evolutionary tree.

 

[AV1611VET]

Such is why every "common ancestor" is missing in every evolutionary tree.

But ... but they're right there on paper!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Good grief, you're like a broken record. I have never identified any 'infraspecific taxa' in the fossil record nor have I ever classified any species.

Then you disagree with their classifications? If you don't disagree you support them, but go ahead and obfuscate.

And I know you have never identified any infraspecific taxa in the fossil record, because they have them listed incorrectly as separate species. This is the entire root of the problem which you keep trying to avoid.

I notice you all want to use the data they identify to back your claims, then when challenged on it it's suddenly not your data or your classifications. Lol, you people are something else, obfuscation after obfuscation.

My first post to you was...

"Is there anything that might convince you that you're mistaken or will you cling to these weird ideas no matter what?"

Which was in response to my assertion the entire fossil record has been incorrectly classified. Which since you have not validated that it is correct, because you can't show me the infraspecific taxa we know exist in every species, I will indeed cling to my correct assertion.

And you will of course ignore all the infraspecific taxa we see in every species where none exist in the fossil record because they've were incorrectly classified as separate species.

You care nothing about how life is actually seen to propagate, nor do you care that the fossil record does not match reality. All you care about is upholding your false belief in evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But ... but they're right there on paper!

As my signature says: if one closes their eyes.... but until one opens their eyes.....

If you will look at every tree it just splits with every common ancestor at every split missing. So they make up these common ancestors in their minds to tie what can't in reality be tied together because that is what they want to believe.

I could understand if only one or two were missing, but every single one is missing and they still can't see the truth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sure it does. It easily shows the gradual change of several chimp-like features gradually to human features, over dozens of fossils, in chronological order. You could do the same with with many wolf to mastiff fossils, if you had them and had the correct dates from 50,000 years ago until now. If you'd like to do that as well, feel free.

Here's the data again:

Also, Radook - I haven't seen a response to my posts to you, #s 40 and 47. Did you see them? Does that make sense now?

In Christ-

Papias

But why do you keep classifying the infraspecific taxa within a species as separate species.

This is why the ToE fails miserably, because the classification of the fossil record does not match the real world, in which many infraspecific taxa exists within every species.

Asian, African, Latino. Husky, Mastiff, Poodle. Red tailed deer, white tailed deer, mule deer. Brown bear, black bear, grizzly. And on and on for every species in existence.

But do you really expect me to believe that in the fossil record none exist and they are suddenly separate species?

So I will ask again, show me the separate infraspecific taxa within the species in the fossil record that we know must exist by observation of the real world versus fantasy.

That you confuse infraspecific taxa as species, leads you to your incorrect belief in gradual change.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ohhhhh ... the OP!

Sorry!

I thought we were dealing with your bobblehead display.

My bad!



You go ahead and go back to the OP.

I'll hang around and see if anyone else wants to address this fake display of evolution garbage that grave robbers dug up out of the ground and monkeyed with.

You know, going outside every once and a while does wonders for your mental health.

 

[Jimmy D]

Then you disagree with their classifications? If you don't disagree you support them, but go ahead and obfuscate.

And I know you have never identified any infraspecific taxa in the fossil record, because they have them listed incorrectly as separate species. This is the entire root of the problem which you keep trying to avoid.

I notice you all want to use the data they identify to back your claims, then when challenged on it it's suddenly not your data or your classifications. Lol, you people are something else, obfuscation after obfuscation.

Maybe I'm not so arrogant as to think that, with little education on the subject, I know better than the general scientific consensus? Does it never occur to you that you objections might be unfounded?

As for obfuscations, as I've said again and again, however "we" decide to classify species has little bearing on the evidence we see for common descent. I appreciate though that it must be difficult for you to come to terms with the fact that you've been barking up the wrong tree for years.

Which was in response to my assertion the entire fossil record has been incorrectly classified. Which since you have not validated that it is correct, because you can't show me the infraspecific taxa we know exist in every species, I will indeed cling to my correct assertion.

You've yet to demonstrate your assertions are correct with actual evidence, which particular fossils are you talking about anyway? I'll stick with the paleontolgists rather than you thanks.

And you will of course ignore all the infraspecific taxa we see in every species where none exist in the fossil record because they've were incorrectly classified as separate species.

You care nothing about how life is actually seen to propagate, nor do you care that the fossil record does not match reality. All you care about is upholding your false belief in evolution.

The fossil record doesn't match reality? What does it match then?

 

[Jimmy D]

But why do you keep classifying the infraspecific taxa within a species as separate species.

This is why the ToE fails miserably, because the classification of the fossil record does not match the real world, in which many infraspecific taxa exists within every species.

Have you only got one response? That in no way answers Papius' post. Which has no mention of different species -

" It easily shows the gradual change of several chimp-like features gradually to human features, over dozens of fossils, in chronological order. You could do the same with with many wolf to mastiff fossils, if you had them and had the correct dates from 50,000 years ago until now. If you'd like to do that as well, feel free."

No mention of species there, just to humour you let's say that they're the same species, how do you explain the gradual change of chimp-like features to human features over a period of time?

 

[AV1611VET]

You know, going outside every once and a while does wonders for your mental health.

66

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Maybe I'm not so arrogant as to think that, with little education on the subject, I know better than the general scientific consensus? Does it never occur to you that you objections might be unfounded?

Then show me the infraspecific taxa we know must exist in the fossil record by observation of the world around us?

Did you ever think maybe that their claims might be unfounded?

So let me see if I have this correct. You want me to forget that there exists no infraspecific taxa in the fossil record because they classified them all incorrectly as separate species, even if in real life this infraspecific taxa abound within the species? So you want me to ignore reality just so they can keep their incorrect classification?

As for obfuscations, as I've said again and again, however "we" decide to classify species has little bearing on the evidence we see for common descent. I appreciate though that it must be difficult for you to come to terms with the fact that you've been barking up the wrong tree for years.

Is this the story you tell yourself to make you feel better? It is exactly those classifications in which you claim shows your common descent. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

You've yet to demonstrate your assertions are correct with actual evidence, which particular fossils are you talking about anyway? I'll stick with the paleontolgists rather than you thanks.

Are you kidding me? Name one species living today which has no infraspecific taxa within it? Go ahead, let's see who is correct.

The fossil record doesn't match reality? What does it match then?

Fantasies. I'll ask again which you keep avoiding. Show me the infraspecific taxa in the fossil record that must exist based upon observation of the world around us?

If you can't then why are you trying to uphold classification you know must be incorrect?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then show me the infraspecific taxa we know must exist in the fossil record by observation of the world around us?

How do you determine what species a fossil belongs to? What are the criteria you use?

How do you determine if individuals separated by millions of years belong to the same species? What are the criteria that you use?

 

[Papias]

Fantasies. I'll ask again which you keep avoiding. Show me the infraspecific taxa in the fossil record that must exist based upon observation of the world around us?

You do know that practically all geologists state that the fossil record clearly supports evolution, right?

 

[Papias]

How do you determine what species a fossil belongs to? What are the criteria you use?

How do you determine if individuals separated by millions of years belong to the same species? What are the criteria that you use?

Waiting for his criteria......