The Fossils for Human Evolution

renniks said:

Transition to what? There's no evidence for anything but being an extinct ape.

Click to expand...

Let's add transitional to concepts that you do not understand. The way that you used the term it seems you think that there was a goal instead of a result There is no doubt that Lucy is a transitional fossil. Here you go:

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1"

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

All you have to ask yourself is does she have traits of an older group that humans do not have. And yes shed does. Do you need examples? I could give various skull features she shares with older apes.

And the second is does she have traits of a younger group. Yes, she is clearly bipedal. Does it matter if she may be slightly bipedal than us? Not at all. In fact that is even worse for you if that is the case. She is clearly mostly bipedal.

Instead of constantly denying the obvious, and if I can show you how you are wrong it is obvious, and making yourself look ridiculous you should be trying to learn.

Learn what is and what is not evidence. Learn what a transitional form is. Just lean the basics. Of course there is a drawback if you do. You will find it very very hard to come up with any objections to the theory of evoltution.

renniks said:

Only it doesn't have those traits.

Click to expand...

Yes, she does. She was clearly bipedal. And of course there are all of the other ape traits that we share with other apes.

Subduction Zone said:

Yes, she does. She was clearly bipedal. And of course there are all of the other ape traits that we share with other apes.

Click to expand...

Also, and I'm noticing this really for the first time, but people like renniks treat the singular Lucy fossil as THE be all and end all of Australopithecus fossils, when many, many, many more have been found since Lucy.

Hans Blaster said:

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

Click to expand...

That would be the equivalent of 1955 (66 years ago) in YEC time, before scientists accordioned the timescale and stretched it to 13.77 billion years.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Also, and I'm noticing this really for the first time, but people like renniks treat the singular Lucy fossil as THE be all and end all of Australopithecus fossils, when many, many, many more have been found since Lucy.

Click to expand...

I know. I have to point out time and time again that she was not the first Australopithecus afarensis found. She was not the last. She was merely the best. For example her missing foot bones are not an issue since they have found the foot bones of other Australopithecines. I think that they grasp on to claims in desperation and cannot let go at times.

Subduction Zone said:

I know. I have to point out time and time again... I think that they grasp on to claims in desperation and cannot let go at times.

Click to expand...

It's like their preoccupation with Darwin. 'He married his first cousin! With Darwin therefore nullified, 150 years of evolutionary theory immediately crumbles.'

essentialsaltes said:

It's like their preoccupation with Darwin. 'He married his first cousin! With Darwin therefore nullified, 150 years of evolutionary theory immediately crumbles.'

Click to expand...

Or OP's and others favourite argument "Darwin was racist, during a period when virtually everyone was an out and out racist! Therefore, evolution is wrong!"

AV1611VET said:

That would be the equivalent of 1955 (66 years ago) in YEC time, before scientists accordioned the timescale and stretched it to 13.77 billion years.

Click to expand...

I finally believe you when you say you're not a YEC. No YEC would claim that the things claimed by mainstream science happened, but at a compressed rate, such that the life times of living people included things like the extinction of the dinosaurs by a giant space impactor.

(I don't think your rescaling math works anyway.)

This game is dumb. Please stop.

renniks said:

I didn't. Yes, you are confused.

Click to expand...

"Johanson writes...

"Bipedalism has traditionally..." - Brian Richmond and David Scott.

Owen Lovejoy, who worked with Johanson....

Evidence discovered by evolutionists like Berge..."

You are presenting these men to give weight to your argument (such as it was). Are you now saying that these are people we should not trust?

Gimme a break. You put forward what they say when you think it supports your position (it doesn't) and then deny their life's work because it contradicts your literal interpretation of scripture.

I told you before. It's an ideal way to look foolish by using scientists to try to bolster your unscientific views. It will fail every single time. Stick with scripture. You're on safe ground there.

essentialsaltes said:

It's like their preoccupation with Darwin. 'He married his first cousin! With Darwin therefore nullified, 150 years of evolutionary theory immediately crumbles.'

Click to expand...

One should think all of Judaism and Christianity and Islam nullified since Abraham married his half sister.

Tinker Grey said:

One should think all of Judaism and Christianity and Islam nullified since Abraham married his half sister.

Click to expand...

Heaven knows what Noah's family were doing. But...even a cursory read of other religion's deities shows that what was considered de rigeur back in the day would get you some time in the Big House these days.

The Greek gods would hop into bed with literally any family member at the drop of a hat. Mothers, sisters, daughters... When you're populating a pantheon or seeding the the planet then you have to bend the rules somewhat. Christianity had precisely the same problem.

I was telling my grandson about the Minotaur as he was working through a maze in his puzzle book. 'Gee, where did it come from?' Ummm. Kinda magic, I guess. Hey, why don't we finish the maze, eh?

Humble_Disciple said:

There is nothing implausible about monogenism. If Adam and Eve lived 200,000 years ago, that would be plenty of time for human races to arise. Nowhere does the Bible say that earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Click to expand...

Except that measurements of genetic diversity show that the population of humans dropped to about 10,000 people around that time frame and that it was the smallest our population ever was.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Or OP's and others favourite argument "Darwin was racist, during a period when virtually everyone was an out and out racist! Therefore, evolution is wrong!"

Click to expand...

And in april 1941 Richard Dawkins pooped in his diapers. Can you imagine how wrong evolution must be?

Humble_Disciple said:

There is nothing implausible about monogenism.

Click to expand...

Sure.

If you ignore everything we know about effective population sizes and genetic bottlenecks for large vertebrates, the paleoarchological evidence of human migration, the genetic evidence from common ancestry, evidence of the development of anatomically modern humans from fossil remains, genetic evidence of early hominid interbreeding, genetic evidence of interbreeding between archaic humans species/sub-species.

Then there's nothing implausible about it.

Gene2memE said:

Sure.

If you ignore everything we know about effective population sizes and genetic bottlenecks for large vertebrates, the paleoarchological evidence of human migration, the genetic evidence from common ancestry, evidence of the development of anatomically modern humans from fossil remains, genetic evidence of early hominid interbreeding, genetic evidence of interbreeding between archaic humans species/sub-species.

Then there's nothing implausible about it.

Click to expand...

That makes things a lot easier - I thought @Humble_Disciple would have to demonstrate the evidence was faulty. If a quick handwave is all it needs then he's got us all beaten.

Game over, evolutionists.

Humble_Disciple said:

There is nothing implausible about monogenism. If Adam and Eve lived 200,000 years ago, that would be plenty of time for human races to arise. Nowhere does the Bible say that earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Click to expand...

As others have noted, what the Bible says is entirely a matter of opinion.

Bungle_Bear said:

That makes things a lot easier - I thought @Humble_Disciple would have to demonstrate the evidence was faulty. If a quick handwave is all it needs then he's got us all beaten.

Game over, evolutionists.

Click to expand...

Rats. I knew it would happen someday, but
it was so sudden.
What religion can I turn to now?

Estrid said:

As others have noted, what the Bible says is entirely a matter of opinion.

Click to expand...

Until we're judged by It, then it's going to be God's opinion that matters, not ours.

Estrid said:

Rats. I knew it would happen someday, but
it was so sudden.
What religion can I turn to now?

Click to expand...

Whichever religion you want - you just have to be vociferous and unbending in your certainty that you, and you alone, have discovered The Truth.