The Demise of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No, they don't. The DNA evidence is far stronger today. And you are speaking on a topic that you have no knowledge of. It is best to ask the experts. They will correct you.

And no one has claimed that Lucy was "human". You have far too many strawman arguments and false claims in your post. It is best to make one claim at a time. Long rambling posts that are wrong in almost every claim only tell others you are unable to argue against evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Perhaps you would provide me with the citation for one of the instances where "evolutionists maintain that Lucy provides the best evidence to date that ape-humans existed". Such an assertion does not accord with my understanding of how the experts read the evidence, but I stand ready to be corrected. I look forward to the forthcoming details from you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps you would provide me with the citation for one of the instances where "evolutionists maintain that Lucy provides the best evidence to date that ape-humans existed". Such an assertion does not accord with my understanding of how the experts read the evidence, but I stand ready to be corrected. I look forward to the forthcoming details from you.

Creationists hate Australopithecus afaransis since it is almost exactly what they have demanded as evidence. It was not the evidence needed by those that understood the theory and the evidence already in existence.

 

[Paul James]

Perhaps you would provide me with the citation for one of the instances where "evolutionists maintain that Lucy provides the best evidence to date that ape-humans existed". Such an assertion does not accord with my understanding of how the experts read the evidence, but I stand ready to be corrected. I look forward to the forthcoming details from you.

The 'Lucy' fossil rewrote the story of humanity

 

[Subduction Zone]

The 'Lucy' fossil rewrote the story of humanity

Two problems. That is a lay article. It really does not reflect the thoughts of scientists. Second you should read the first few words of the first sentence:

"Forty years ago"

That was forty years ago. Even then the massive evidence had already confirmed evolution. That only clarified one small part of evolution. And that was forty years ago. Do you really think that there have not been any advances in the theory since then.

Today the ability to sequence the genome of man and other animals is evidence ten times as strong. Evidence that creationists were sure would refute evolution. That turned out not to be the case. And then there is even evidence within that. ERV's are part of the genome that creationists have no explanation for at all. So much so that they quite often openly lie about them.

Too many creationists only look at the evidence for the evolution of man. It exists and shows that without a doubt that we are apes. But the evidence for the evolution of all life is even stronger and to make a special exception for man would place a huge burden of proof on creationists. Even if we do not look at the evidence for man's descent the evidence that other life evolved implies extremely strongly that man evolved. All life, including man is the product of evolution.

 

[roman2819]

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.

You believe evolution includes evolving from fish to amphibians, one lifeform to another higher one... Do you mean that species cross over to another?

There is no fossils tbat are found intact to demonstrate that one lifeform evolve to another higher ones. No one found a fish-toad, so to speak. There are only postulations and theories.

 

[HitchSlap]

You believe evolution includes evolving from fish to amphibians, one lifeform to another higher one... Do i mean that species cross over to another?

There is no fossils tbat are found intact to demonstrate that one lifeform evolve to another higher ones. No one found a fish-toad, so to speak. There are only postulations and theories.

T. roseae

 

[Subduction Zone]

You believe evolution includes evolving from fish to amphibians, one lifeform to another higher one... Do i mean that species cross over to another?

There is no fossils tbat are found intact to demonstrate that one lifeform evolve to another higher ones. No one found a fish-toad, so to speak. There are only postulations and theories.

Tiktaalik. But thanks for acknowledging that the theory of evolution is correct.

 

[roman2819]

Tiktaalik. But thanks for acknowledging that the theory of evolution is correct.

Did i acknowledge that Theory od Evolution is correct?

Read post #1448 again

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did i acknowledge that Theory od Evolution is correct?

Read post #1448 again

Yes you did. Read post #1448 again.

 

[roman2819]

....... evidence for the evolution of man. It exists and shows that without a doubt that we are apes. But the evidence for the evolution of all life is even stronger and to make a special exception for man would place a huge burden of proof on creationists. Even if we do not look at the evidence for man's descent the evidence that other life evolved implies extremely strongly that man evolved. All life, including man is the product of evolution.

Can you explain how we evolved from apes? What are the evidence? You have read or studied about it, so can you provide a summary or even elaborate on it. I am interested to know, just like two months ago, i seek clarification on Evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you explain how we evolved from apes? What are the evidence? You have read or studied about it, so can you provide a summary or even elaborate on it. I am interested to know, just like two months ago, i seek clarification on Evolution.

How? By slow accumulated changes over the years. And we are still apes. You are still an ape. Creationists always make the mistake of thinking that there is a "change of kind".

The evidence is multifold. There is the fossil record that you are aware of. There is DNA evidence, there is ERV evidence, there is evidence from anatomy, evidence from embyology. Molecular evidence. There are so many different types of evidence that you could study it all of your life and still cover only a fraction of it.

Meanwhile there is no scientific evidence for creationism. There is no other rational belief.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

Here’s an article explaining why we know that A Afarensis was bipedal.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_2/j20_2_104-112.pdf

That’s right, I’m using creation.com as a source. The author is that rare beast, a creationist actually qualified in the field he is commenting on. (Admittedly he goes off the rails a bit at the end, talking about degenerating into chimps and the flood and so on).

 

[Jimmy D]

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

Fortunately, as far as I’m aware, Lucy isn’t touted as the best evidence of the evolution of apes to human.

It’s just another piece of evidence that increases our knowledge.

The argument about whether we evolved has been settled for over a century.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

Look at her hips... she was upright.

You are repeating false reasoning. No one is asserting that Lucy was human.

She had a little ape skull like a slightly rounded chimp skull.

Her chest and arms were more like those of a tree climbing chimp then a human.

Her hips and legs however were considerably more upright then a chimp. She was transitional.

And importantly, she isn't alone. There have been many examples of her species found. And also the many of other more human like species.

There isn't a gap between humans and other apes. No creationist has been able to present a coherent reasonable definition of human and ape that creates a consistent and reasonable split.

 

[Paul James]

Here’s an article explaining why we know that A Afarensis was bipedal.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_2/j20_2_104-112.pdf

That’s right, I’m using creation.com as a source. The author is that rare beast, a creationist actually qualified in the field he is commenting on. (Admittedly he goes off the rails a bit at the end, talking about degenerating into chimps and the flood and so on).

The conclusion was the best part of it!
All that was shown was that where was a breed of ape that walked upright. No surprises there cobber. One study suggested it may have been a tree dweller, which may explain the bipedal form of the pelvis. I agree with the conclusion that it does not prove any form a ape-human, but more like a breed of ape that has since gone extinct.

 

[Paul James]

Look at her hips... she was upright.

You are repeating false reasoning. No one is asserting that Lucy was human.

She had a little ape skull like a slightly rounded chimp skull.

Her chest and arms were more like those of a tree climbing chimp then a human.

Her hips and legs however were considerably more upright then a chimp. She was transitional.

And importantly, she isn't alone. There have been many examples of her species found. And also the many of other more human like species.

There isn't a gap between humans and other apes. No creationist has been able to present a coherent reasonable definition of human and ape that creates a consistent and reasonable split.

The article that JimmyD linked to his post established that the ape was upright. I concede that. It may well have been a breed of ape within its own category, apart from other apes that walked on all fours, but it does not it into the gap between ape and human. It has not be proved to be the missing link.

 

[Paul James]

It is now 9:15pm, and I have enjoyed the discussion during another day of being at home during New Zealand's lock down. I appreciate the respectful tone of the responses even though we have opposing views.

 

[roman2819]

How? By slow accumulated changes over the years. And we are still apes. You are still an ape. Creationists always make the mistake of thinking that there is a "change of kind".

The evidence is multifold. There is the fossil record that you are aware of. There is DNA evidence, there is ERV evidence, there is evidence from anatomy, evidence from embyology. Molecular evidence. There are so many different types of evidence that you could study it all of your life and still cover only a fraction of it.

Meanwhile there is no scientific evidence for creationism. There is no other rational belief.

You are citing stuff without explaining. Who knows if you really understand them. I was hoping for some attempt to explain some compelling evidences. For instance, if I am asked to share biblical basis for believing n Jesus, i will cite a few prophecies, beside personal experience. If asked to show why i believe in Bible. I will give a few specific historical details, etc

Whay is the big deal about studying evidence abundantly for whole life to know a little .Too much knowledge without practical end is pointless.

Do you think proof comes from scientific evidence only? Even scientists won't agree with you.

If you don't believe in a Creator God, how do you explain the origin of life? And what evidences do you have.?

 

[roman2819]

It is now 9:15pm, and I have enjoyed the discussion during another day of being at home during New Zealand's lock down. I appreciate the respectful tone of the responses even though we have opposing views.

Your views have been valuable and educational. Glad you join in. Do be back again.