The Fossils for Human Evolution

[Shemjaza]

Only it doesn't have those traits.

Ever seen an upright chimp?

Lucy walked on her hind legs like a human, and the rest of the line continues this mix of features.

Then why would I believe it happened?

I'll own I used a poor word there.

What I meant by no line between ape and human is that there is no clear difference between a human and an ape.

Each of the extinct hominids fall on the continuum between what would be recognised as very like a chimp and almost indistinguishable from a human.

They have no answer to the contested fossils, so they just say they aren't contested or it doesn't matter, when it actually makes the difference of whether they could be human ancestors or not. I even showed that some were likely a mixture according to other scientists.

Except that there is no scientific contest.

Last time your ridiculous evidence was that some minority scientists thought that australopithecus afarensis fossils should be classified australopithecus boisei instead. Australopithecus boisei is a another example of a transitional species.

And the other thing about australopithecus afarensis being a mix of human and ape bones appears to simply be a lie with no scientific evidence at all.

This appears to be an argument along the lines of:
E: "Wow, there was a sports car, I'm pretty sure it was a Porche."
C: "Don't be stupid, there's no such things as sports cars. Here: some guy said it was a Ferrari."

 

[renniks]

And yet those scientists who have committed their live's to studying the evidence find in favour of evolution

They are already committed to the paradigm. There are also 1000s of scientists who reject the Darwinian theory, many because of the obvious design of the universe.

 

[Astrid]

Ever seen an upright chimp?

Lucy walked on her hind legs like a human, and the rest of the line continues this mix of features.



I'll own I used a poor word there.

What I meant by no line between ape and human is that there is no clear difference between a human and an ape.

Each of the extinct hominids fall on the continuum between what would be recognised as very like a chimp and almost indistinguishable from a human.



Except that there is no scientific contest.

Last time your ridiculous evidence was that some minority scientists thought that australopithecus afarensis fossils should be classified australopithecus boisei instead. Australopithecus boisei is a another example of a transitional species.

And the other thing about australopithecus afarensis being a mix of human and ape bones appears to simply be a lie with no scientific evidence at all.

This appears to be an argument along the lines of:
E: "Wow, there was a sports car, I'm pretty sure it was a Porche."
C: "Don't be stupid, there's no such things as sports cars. Here: some guy said it was a Ferrari."

Sine the "mix of bones" claim is just plain false, a
repeat of someone else's lie, it cannot be properly
sourced, and should be easy for any reasonable person
to concede is in error.

 

[renniks]

Ever seen an upright chimp?

Lucy walked on her hind legs like a human, and the rest of the line continues this mix of features.

Have you been paying attention? That's exactly what we have been discussing and it's debatable that she did walk upright, depending on how they interpret the bone structure. They based that partly on tracks found nearby, that looked human. Which doesn't mean she made the tracks.

 

[Astrid]

They are already committed to the paradigm. There are also 1000s of scientists who reject the Darwinian theory, many because of the obvious design of the universe.

N!ame ONE who is not committed to the paradigm of goddidit.

Not a one has any actual data.
Some scientists.

ANY who go with "obvious design" as a reason are a sorry excuse
for scientists.
One, because science demonstrates how often intuition,
the "obviois" is not how things really are
And
Two, because an actual scientist is aware that a theory is not
disproved with feelings, but with data.

Three, creationists start with an unshakeable conclusion.

The opposite of science.
They can do fine right up to where they find a conflict with their
infallible bibke-readin'.

Then to quote the words of Dr. K Wise, PhD paleontology
( who creationists never seem to quote)

"...life all the evidence in the ubuverse turned against yec,,
I'd still be yec as that is what the Bible seems to say".

Typical.

 

[renniks]

Last time your ridiculous evidence was that some minority scientists thought that australopithecus afarensis fossils should be classified australopithecus boisei instead. Australopithecus boisei is a another example of a transitional species.

That's one interpretation, but there's other explanations. Like just another extinct primate.

 

[renniks]

N!ame ONE who is not committed to the paradigm of goddidit.

Not a one has any actual data.
Some scientists.

ANY who go with "obvious design" as a reason are a sorry excuse
for scientists.
One, because science demonstrates how often intuition,
the "obviois" is not how things really are
And
Two, because an actual scientist is aware that a theory is not
disproved with feelings, but with data.

Three, creationists start with an unshakeable conclusion.

The opposite of science.
They can do fine right up to where they find a conflict with their
infallible bibke-readin'.

Then to quote the words of Dr. K Wise, PhD paleontology
( who creationists never seem to quote)

"...life all the evidence in the ubuverse turned against yec,,
I'd still be yec as that is what the Bible seems to say".

Typical.

Learn to write so that you can be understood... just a tip. Maybe learn how to spell words correctly, or get a spell check feature on your phone

 

[Astrid]

Have you been paying attention? That's exactly what we have been discussing and it's debatable that she did walk upright, depending on how they interpret the bone structure. They based that partly on tracks found nearby, that looked human. Which doesn't mean she made the tracks.

Bears, chimps, even pangolins can walk on just two legs.

Birds do it a lot.

If a chimp can walk upright, what makes it so hard tp grasp it that
Lucy could do it too?

We wonder who made the human like tracks you reference?
There were no people then.

 

[Astrid]

Learn to write so that you can be understood... just a tip. Maybe learn how to spell words correctly, or get a spell check feature on your phone

Nothing there is spelled incorrectly nor hard for anyone with even
modest competence to understand.

The K Wise quote has "life" where it should be "if".

We all know you have no answer to my question.

Do you have some reason besides inability to make a
real response for the unwarranted personal attack?

ETA unlike a creationist I don't mind acknowledging
an error. Or a ( shudder) typo.

See "bibke".

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[Hans Blaster]

They are already committed to the paradigm. There are also 1000s of scientists who reject the Darwinian theory, many because of the obvious design of the universe.

These lists have things in common:

1. Often, many of the scientists aren't even scientists, they are engineers, medical doctors, etc.

2. Even from those with scientific training, the field is irrelevant to evolution or the universe. I.e., no inorganic chemist has any useful professional knowledge in these areas, nor do solid-state physicists, etc.

3. Even when they seem to be qualified on some relevant field, they are often invoked for the rejection of some other field they have no qualifications for, i.e., astronomers rejecting biological evolution, or botanists rejecting the Big Bang.

4. What you are left with is an exceedingly thin list of people even remotely qualified to reject the science they are on record as rejecting.

 

[Astrid]

These lists have things in common:

1. Often, many of the scientists aren't even scientists, they are engineers, medical doctors, etc.

2. Even from those with scientific training, the field is irrelevant to evolution or the universe. I.e., no inorganic chemist has any useful professional knowledge in these areas, nor do solid-state physicists, etc.

3. Even when they seem to be qualified on some relevant field, they are often invoked for the rejection of some other field they have no qualifications for, i.e., astronomers rejecting biological evolution, or botanists rejecting the Big Bang.

4. What you are left with is an exceedingly thin list of people even remotely qualified to reject the science they are on record as rejecting.

Of whom all, I bet, are creationists ( open challenge to
name one who isnt)
And not a one has any data to back their opinion.

No slice left at all.

 

[Ophiolite]

They are already committed to the paradigm. There are also 1000s of scientists who reject the Darwinian theory, many because of the obvious design of the universe.

I have seen a list of a thousand or so scientists who question evolution. (If you have a better one, let's see it.) Almost all of these were engineers, or scientists not in a biological discipline. I'll try to locate the similar list of scientists called Steve who accept evolution. You are clutching at straws and the straws are waterlogged.

Edit: There you go: Project Steve

 

[Astrid]

I have seen a list of a thousand or so scientists who question evolution. (If you have a better one, let's see it.) Almost all of these were engineers, or scientists not in a biological discipline. I'll try to locate the similar list of scientists called Steve who accept evolution. You are clutching at straws and the straws are waterlogged.

Edit: There you go: Project Steve

More to the point, they have assumptions,
not facts.

 

[renniks]

According to you, there were no people.

Bears, chimps, even pangolins can walk on just two legs.

Birds do it a lot.

If a chimp can walk upright, what makes it so hard tp grasp it that
Lucy could do it too?

We wonder who made the human like tracks you reference?
There were no people then.

 

[renniks]

Nothing there is spelled incorrectly nor hard for anyone with even
modest competence to understand.

The K Wise quote has "life" where it should be "if".

We all know you have no answer to my question.

Do you have some reason besides inability to make a
real response for the unwarranted personal attack?

ETA unlike a creationist I don't mind acknowledging
an error. Or a ( shudder) typo.

See "bibke".

".life all the evidence in the ubuverse turned against yec,,
I'd still be yec as that is what the Bible seems to say".

What?

 

[renniks]

I have seen a list of a thousand or so scientists who question evolution. (If you have a better one, let's see it.) Almost all of these were engineers, or scientists not in a biological discipline. I'll try to locate the similar list of scientists called Steve who accept evolution. You are clutching at straws and the straws are waterlogged.

Edit: There you go: Project Steve

What a dumb response from the evolution side.
Of course the popular paradigm is going to get more " votes" because who wants to buck popular opinion? It's the same with any topic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I strongly recommend reading the article in its entirety before commenting. It was not written by a creationist.

Indeed, it's written by a geologist.

 

[Shemjaza]

Have you been paying attention? That's exactly what we have been discussing and it's debatable that she did walk upright, depending on how they interpret the bone structure. They based that partly on tracks found nearby, that looked human. Which doesn't mean she made the tracks.

Tracks are nice supporting evidence... the hips are the real killer.

That's one interpretation, but there's other explanations. Like just another extinct primate.

Except no one is denying that it is an extinct primate... you are the one who can't explain the transitional features, and can't find any scientific justification or counter.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's one interpretation, but there's other explanations. Like just another extinct primate.

All of the ancestral species to humans are extinct primate species going back 50 million years or so.