The Demise of Evolution

[roman2819]

@roman2819 , I notice you have not replied to my post 1217 regarding how life might have started.

I have been busy with work.
I should at least read through the "evidence" links you provided in one of the posts before answering. If the links contain some deep stuff, then I am going to ask whether you really understand the details of those stuff. If you read both my posts #1418 and #1419, you will know what I mean.

 

[pitabread]

Because he research evolution so much, he was able to narrow it to 5 key questions and answer them. He wrote a book to that effect, explaining evidences for evolution is not strong. Dr Weber spend 30 years to dig out evolution. Surely he know what he is saying.

Who is Dr Weber? Do you have a source for this claim?

By contrast. most people here only read about evolution.

I don't think this is actually true. I know I've read more creationist and ID literature than your average creationist has.

 

[MIDutch]

By contrast. most people here only read about evolution. If you are not in that field, you really won't know if what you are reading is correct or twisted and slant. Do you understand what you are reading? Or do you believe just because you want to, because it sound good.

Do you?

You are as guilty of "only read about evolution" as those whom you are accusing of ignorance.

Are you "in that field" where you can definitively state that everyone else's understanding of evolution is in error?

 

[roman2819]

Odd (not really) that you can't give us the name of this "ex-evolutionist". Just because you don't understand the physics behind radiometric dating doesn't mean it isn't valid.

The ex-evolutionist's name: i will try to see if the material I read is still there.

The ex-evolutionist also believe that creation did NOT happen in 6x24 hours. Day refer to a stage of time. That is my view too, in religious manuscript they use the word Day figuratively.

Dating fossils: Do you really understand the depth of it? Or you are just reading and gathering head knowledge?

 

[roman2819]

Who is Dr Weber? Do you have a source for this claim?

I don't think this is actually true. I know I've read more creationist and ID literature than your average creationist has.

I wrote about post about him about 6 years ago on this forum. I forgot if his name is spelled Weber or Webner. I will find out.

 

[MIDutch]

Dating fossils: Do you really understand the depth of it? Or you are just reading and gathering head knowledge?

Irrelevant.

That's like saying "just because YOU don't know anything about brain surgery, then brain surgery is just some guy opening up your skull and poking around in it with a shovel and pickax".

I have a layman's understanding of radiometric dating. Radiometric dating does not become invalid because I am not a working physicist.

 

[Job 33:6]

The ex-evolutionist's name: i will try to see if the material I read is still there.

The ex-evolutionist also believe that creation did NOT happen in 6x24 hours. Day refer to a stage of time. That is my view too, in religious manuscript they use the word Day figuratively.

Dating fossils: Do you really understand the depth of it? Or you are just reading and gathering head knowledge?

If say I have a decent understanding of radiometric dating. I studied it in college and used it a bit in my career as well. In a general sense, we are confident that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old, without question.

I would recommend checking out my old earth geology series:
Old Earth Geology
Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon)
Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)

 

[Job 33:6]

Fossils do not mean evolution is true. Fossils just mean those creatures used to exisT.

And, on this statement, if you find fossils in the order of fish, then fish with legs, then tetrapods like axolotls....

While it is true that they are simply fossils and we don't see fossils themselves living, breathing and mutating, it does tell us the order at which life came about. Which is actually very important in the theory of evolution, as in studies of genetics, the theory of evolution can also determine the sequence in which life evolves. And if genetics matches the fossil record, then you have a stronger case for why the fossil reflect common decent of amphibians from fish.

 

[Paul James]

It’s a valid question.

Fair enough. Just testing...
Since I have been considering the debate between creation and evolution, I have done a lot of reading and research to learn as much as I can about both side of the story. Of course, being a Christian for 53 years and made Bible study and background reading my "hobby", plus getting two postgraduate degrees, one in Literature and the other in Divinity teaches one how to do scholarship and the difference between speculation and comment based on research and available evidence. Of course, two people on opposite sides of the fence can view the same evidence and interpret it two different ways.

Just to let you know that I am not some 16 year old computer nerd thrown down here from an alien spaceship.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fair enough. Just testing...
Since I have been considering the debate between creation and evolution, I have done a lot of reading and research to learn as much as I can about both side of the story. Of course, being a Christian for 53 years and made Bible study and background reading my "hobby", plus getting two postgraduate degrees, one in Literature and the other in Divinity teaches one how to do scholarship and the difference between speculation and comment based on research and available evidence. Of course, two people on opposite sides of the fence can view the same evidence and interpret it two different ways.

Just to let you know that I am not some 16 year old computer nerd thrown down here from an alien spaceship.

Then you should be willing to learn what is and what is not evidence in the sciences.

 

[Paul James]

Bipedalism is a trait of humans. So if we find an ape that has a similar bone structure to a human, such as an ape that is bipedal, then that ape would be morphologically between human and ape.

Another example is sahelanthropus.

Sahelanthropus has a brain capacity a quarter the size of modern man and muscle attachments suggesting potential quadrapedalism. It also had an elongated skull. All of these suggesting it was not human but ape.

However;

It also had more human like teeth and a more human like C shaped lower jaw (rather than U shaped). It's foramen magnum is also more forward than in apes, drawing division over quadrapedalism vs bipedalism. It also had a flatter face and pronounced brow ridges, which are human features.

There are many fossils that share both human and basal ape features. These are called transitional fossils.

The difficulty is that we don't have any complete skeletons of these animals so there is still much speculation and guesswork as to what these fossils might be, but no one is certain - until someone finds a complete skeleton of an ape-man as definite proof. What we have are very few bones, some human and some ape, and an attempt to try and merge them into a skeleton, with sculpted additions to try and compete it.

 

[Ophiolite]

The difficulty is that we don't have any complete skeletons of these animals so there is still much speculation and guesswork as to what these fossils might be, but no one is certain - until someone finds a complete skeleton of an ape-man as definite proof. What we have are very few bones, some human and some ape, and an attempt to try and merge them into a skeleton, with sculpted additions to try and compete it.

Would you quantify what you mean by "a few bones" please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The difficulty is that we don't have any complete skeletons of these animals so there is still much speculation and guesswork as to what these fossils might be, but no one is certain - until someone finds a complete skeleton of an ape-man as definite proof. What we have are very few bones, some human and some ape, and an attempt to try and merge them into a skeleton, with sculpted additions to try and compete it.

This is a very poor demand. Experts in anatomy can often identify a species by one single bone. There is no need for complete skeletons.

And if you want to claim that there is speculation and guesswork the burden of proof is upon you to support that claim. Frankly it looks like a violation of the Ninth Commandment to me. Creationists constantly make this claim but never seem to be able to support it. At best they refer to scientific language that they do not understand.

And please, what do you mean by "ape-man"? Technically you are an ape-man since you are an ape.

By the way, there is far stronger evidence than just fossils. DNA "proves" evolution. As Morey Pauvich would say "You ARE an ape!!"

 

[Paul James]

Others have shown the errors of your argument and the mistaken claims you find convincing. You can believe what you like, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong.


Lots of words, several mistakes but no attempt to answer my question. Please explain why anyone would forget everything they know if they spoke different language.

I don't respond in the face of accusation.

 

[Paul James]

It's okay if you if you can't answer.

It is that I choose not to because I know that it will just end up in a pointless diatribe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is that I choose not to because I know that it will just end up in a pointless diatribe.

It really appears that you make up false claims and then run away when they are challenged or shown to be wrong. Admitting that one is wrong is a positive thing to do. It is advocated for in the Bible. I think that many of our claims are merely errors caused by a lack of education in this particular topic. They are not due to dishonesty or a lack of intelligence.

There is a reason that I offer to go over the scientific method and the concept of evidence (which I can honestly state that you do not understand) with deniers of the theory of evolution. One cannot understand the sciences fully or how they are done without an understanding of the basics. This alone would end a good 90% of claims by creationists. It would allow a quicker understanding of the topic. And one cannot refute that which one does not understand.

 

[Paul James]

Would you quantify what you mean by "a few bones" please.

This was all that was discovered of "Lucy", and the missing bits had to be sculpted as a guess of what the complete skeleton may have looked like. And it was discovered on closer examination that some of the bones were ape and would not have matched with a humaniod skeleton. Now, if the leg was attached to a human or ape foot, then the results might have gone either way - man or ape, but not a combination.

 

[Ophiolite]

This was all that was discovered of "Lucy", and the missing bits had to be sculpted as a guess of what the complete skeleton may have looked like. And it was discovered on closer examination that some of the bones were ape and would not have matched with a humaniod skeleton. Now, if the leg was attached to a human or ape foot, then the results might have gone either way - man or ape, but not a combination.

May I ask why you are ignoring all the other finds, excluding them from the count? We could strike all knowledge of Lucy from our repertoire and it would not alter the general sense of human evolution. Why do you think it would?

 

[Paul James]

May I ask why you are ignoring all the other finds, excluding them from the count? We could strike all knowledge of Lucy from our repertoire and it would not alter the general sense of human evolution. Why do you think it would?

Evolutionists maintain that Lucy provides the best evidence to date that ape-humans existed. But close examination of the only bone that could have been human (the leg bone), close examination shows that the particular grove that contained the unique tendon that enabled the human foot to do its job was missing, and so even though the bone looked like a human one, it could not have had a human foot joined to it. Also, the scientist who tried to put the rib cage together, found that humans ribcages were barrel shapes, and he said there was no way that he could shape the ribs he had into that shape, so he concluded that the ribs were not human at all. And the skill was a small and very similar to a chimpanzee skull.

So, given the structure of the only leg bone discovered and the lack of evidence of the particular tendon that would enable a human foot to be attached to it, there is a reasonable doubt that Lucy was actually a biped.

So, if Lucy is the best evidence of the evolution of apes to humans, then it falls short of being conclusive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This was all that was discovered of "Lucy", and the missing bits had to be sculpted as a guess of what the complete skeleton may have looked like. And it was discovered on closer examination that some of the bones were ape and would not have matched with a humaniod skeleton. Now, if the leg was attached to a human or ape foot, then the results might have gone either way - man or ape, but not a combination.

That is quite a few bones. Mammals are bilaterally symmetrical so that is more bones than you realize. Each unique bone on one side can be mirrored on the other side of Lucy. Nor was she the only Australopithecus afrarensis ever found. She was not even the first. Foot bones have been found since Lucy was discovered. More complete skulls were found after Lucy. Footprints have been found after she was discovered. There is very little "speculation" left when one makes images of those beasties.