Imotekh, Cabvet..you two parricularly appear to be one of those with plenty of words and nothing intelligent to say.
Not surprisingly, there is much disagreement among paleoanthropologists with respect to reconstructing phylogenetic relationships for the australoptihecines. Furthermore,(1) the discovery of new fossil specimens that are unexpected often cause dramatic re-organizations of hominid phylogenies. In addition to this, some new fossils are so out (2)of line with current phylogenies that they cannot be positioned anywhere sensibly on phylogenetic trees and are often left aside with question marks accompanying them (for example: Orrorin tugenensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Kenyanthropus platyops). Finally, paleoanthropologists are (3)people with egos (often large ones) and, not surprisingly, often place their recently discovered fossil specimens at points on the trees which are thought to be the most crucial in the grand scheme of human evolution (being ancestral to the genus Homo for example). For all of these reasons, reconstructing hominid phylogenies is extremely problematic, but still a very necessary task if one wishes to comprehend the evolution of the australopithecines.
Australopithecine Evolution
(4)"Researchers have to stop publishing papers that say, essentially, 'This fossil is an early hominid, so suck it up and accept it,'" Wood says. "Nature and Science could change this practice overnight if they wanted to."
Anthropologist Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, responds that, at least for Ardi, comparative studies published in 2009 ruled out the possibility that she was an ape. White led the team that excavated and analyzed Ardi's 4.4-million-year-old partial skeleton.
Ardi's remains show many similarities to ensuing hominids in East Africa, White adds. He lumps all proposed early hominids into an Ardipithecus genus that evolved into the Ardipithecus genus by 4.1 million years ago. In contrast, Wood and Harrison suspect that early hominids -- whatever their identities -- branched out in many different evolutionary directions.
Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis : Discovery News
I am asserting that..
1. If one single fossil can overturn current evolutionary thinking then effectively evolutionists cannot possibly know what they are talking about in the first place let alone suggest anything they present is evidence of anymore than an overactive imagination
2. There are many contradictions within evolutionary theory. There are many unexpected annomolies. These are butt covered by use of words like convergent evolution, genetic and morphological homoplasy, parallel evolution, indels and insertions that explain why comparisons that are not similar at all appear similar to the desperate.
3. Evolutionists egos are only matched by their desperation to promote their philosophy.
4. The reason why you have stuff all fossil evidence for gorilla and chimps is because they are hiding as supposed human ancestors.
5. Evolutionary theory has no more predictive ability that Alice in Wonderland eg the human/chimp Y chromosome.
6. If evolutionists were actually still able to use observation they would see that a living cell is irreduceably complex. There is no such thing as a 'primitive cell'. The term is a contradiction and delusion invented by naturalists that are prepared to believe any non plausible scenario.
7. Evolutionists can be hypocrites and demand a higher level of substantiation than they are able to supply themselves. 150 years of instability is proof that your underlying assumption of common descent is erraneous.
8. Creationists can produce their own supports for creation that is just as robust as anything evolutionists can produce.
http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html
Now I can back up everything I have to say. You have presented woffle and opinion and can supply no more than flavour of the month.....
As for this....
Astrid said...There was one attempt but that failed badly. You lot should not bring up your mistakes...it just makes it too easy......eg Tiktaalic, vestigal organs, ervs, LUCA, 200 years of evo theory, all of which and much more just opens the door to debunking evolution.
Imotekh said...So, instead of just repeating a small bit of the evidence we present and saying "blah, blah, blah, it's wrong." why not stop flouncing around acting like it's the easiest thing in the world to refute and ACTUALLY REFUTE IT. Or are you all talk no trousers?
Let me tell you that although I am not a scientist I expect some level of knowledge from the evolutionists I debate. It is pointles speaking to children that I have to educate in current research.
You are no better than Cabvet whose only defence is to say lies lies lies giving me undeniable proof that he, like you has no idea of the mess your theory is in at the moment. Don't worry about the glossy covered text books, they do not have the full story and are outdated by the time they go to print.
Now you tell me what of this you think is incorrect and I will show you just what dark place you are talking from and how much you have no idea about in relation to the psuedo science you support.....