A thread on evolution

[Subduction Zone]

homindae is not part of traditional taxonomy, and was added later to presuppose evolutionary concepts. you will have to make a peer reviewed argument as to the preference of homindae over say family taxonomical concepts.

Oh, that's easy.

This article explains how man, gorilla, and chimpanzee are related. Since we are more closely related to chimps and chimps are more closely related to us either of use are related to gorillas then man and chimps at the least should be in the same classification:

Genomic Relationships and Speciation Times of Human, Chimpanzee, and Gorilla Inferred from a Coalescent Hidden Markov Model

This article adds orangutans into the mix. We are more closely related to gorillas than we are to orangutan, that puts us in the same group as gorillas.

The same could be done again with the other apes. I will leave that as an exercise for you to finish. When you do that you show that we are rather closely related to the other great apes and they are all rather closely related to us.

Therefore we all belong to the same group. Biologists decided the same and that was how "hominidae" came into existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the terms I use are human like and ape like, and generally when it says homo (...) it is a human like species, while when the subject starts with an "a" for example, it's an ape like species. Generally speaking that has been the case. But I see conflicting reports on homo habilis. Some skulls are clearly human like, while other examples are ape like. Perhaps this is where these scientists are getting confused.

But that is wrong and ignorant. We are more closely related to chimps and bonobos, and they to us than either of us are to other great apes. The phrase "ape like" is meaningless if you do not include man in the mix.

 

[createdtoworship]

Here you go:
Australopithicus!

Lucy is clearly not a chimp, as seen compared to Pan troglodytes, but she isn't exactly a "human" (as you called him) when compared to Homo habilis.

they are both ape like. and of similar genus.

 

[pitabread]

so chimps and humans are of a different genus, and cannot mate or evolve into each other due to not being able to mate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

they are both ape like. and of similar genus.

Correct, and some of them are of the genus Homo. In other words Homo is an ape.

 

[Shemjaza]

the terms I use are human like and ape like, and generally when it says homo (...) it is a human like species, while when the subject starts with an "a" for example, it's an ape like species. Generally speaking that has been the case. But I see conflicting reports on homo habilis. Some skulls are clearly human like, while other examples are ape like. Perhaps this is where these scientists are getting confused.

The point of the exercise is that there isn't a clear line between "human-like" and "ape-like". You are clearly able to take tow very similar fossils from one species and label one as ape and one as human.

Here's the original picture I posted.

And here are the two, seemingly contradictory responses i got from Gradyll on it.

yes, thank you.

so far only one skull in the list is human like, the second from the right.

apes have what is called a shovel face, really seen well in the chimp skull. some homo habilis skulls are human like, but many are actually ape like. Apes have a more prominent cheek bone as found in the side picture, which this does not have. So it's sort of incomplete. We would need both sides to fully examine the skulls. So far no transitions seen.

they are both ape like. and of similar genus.

So if you have changed your mind, and now both Homo habilis are "clearly an ape", I have a new set of fossils:

We have "ape" at one end and "human" at the other end some transitionals in between.

 

[createdtoworship]

OTE="Shemjaza, post: 71541120, member: 146291"]The point of the exercise is that there isn't a clear line between "human-like" and "ape-like". You are clearly able to take tow very similar fossils from one species and label one as ape and one as human.

Here's the original picture I posted.

And here are the two, seemingly contradictory responses i got from Gradyll on it.





So if you have changed your mind, and now both Homo habilis are "clearly an ape", I have a new set of fossils:

We have "ape" at one end and "human" at the other end some transitionals in between.[/QUOTE]
My post has contradictory statements because everyone skulls of homo habilus on Google are contradictory. This is why at the end of the post I said the scientists are confused, but if you have an example I can tell if it's human like or ape like but I need anterior and posterior and side images. sorry I am on my phone and its messing up.

 

[Shemjaza]

My post has contradictory statements because everyone skulls of homo habilus on Google are contradictory. This is why at the end of the post I said the scientists are confused, but if you have an example I can tell if it's human like or ape like but I need anterior and posterior and side images. sorry I am on my phone and its messing up.

Here are some more shots of the same fossils I've been using:

Scientists aren't confused, they're convinced.

Evolution is the simplest and best explanation for transitional species and DNA markers that demonstrate that humans are a single species within a family of apes.

 

[createdtoworship]

Here are some more shots of the same fossils I've been using:

Scientists aren't confused, they're convinced.

Evolution is the simplest and best explanation for transitional species and DNA markers that demonstrate that humans are a single species within a family of apes.

D,f,and h are human like, the rest have shovel faces and are ape like. easy.

 

[Job 33:6]

There is plenty more to look at beyond just the length of the snout.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis has its foram magnum located beneath its skull, indicating a life of up right walking (human like). It has a shorter snout and a more human like Jaw than great apes like chimps and gorillas.

Yet it has the brain capacity a quarter size of modern day people, large prominant eye ridges, and primitive teeth.

This is common, you get fossils that demonstrate features of both mankind and other great apes.

 

[Shemjaza]

D,f,and h are human like, the rest have shovel faces and are ape like. easy.

So, the fact that D and E are almost identical and are in fact the same species, but has a slightly more protruding jaw means Ape or Man?

Am I to understand that a kinda tiny brained, lantern jawed, little ape-man like Homo habilis counts as a "human" to you?

 

[createdtoworship]

There is plenty more to look at beyond just the length of the snout.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis has its foram magnum located beneath its skull, indicating a life of up right walking (human like). It has a shorter snout and a more human like Jaw than great apes like chimps and gorillas.

Yet it has the brain capacity a quarter size of modern day people, large prominant eye ridges, and primitive teeth.

This is common, you get fossils that demonstrate features of both mankind and other great apes.

pictures of fossils are better than just opinion. Just saying.

 

[createdtoworship]

So, the fact that D and E are almost identical and are in fact the same species, but has a slightly more protruding jaw means Ape or Man?

Am I to understand that a kinda tiny brained, lantern jawed, little ape-man like Homo habilis counts as a "human" to you?

the middle is iffy. That fossil is probably ape like. It doesn't look at all like the right skull. it's not a direct side picture, so it looks like a nose ridge, but the fossil is turned slightly making the cheek bone look like a nose ridge. So yeah. Not human like at all. no transition here. next slide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the middle is iffy. That fossil is probably ape like. It doesn't look at all like the right skull. it's not a direct side picture, so it looks like a nose ridge, but the fossil is turned slightly making the cheek bone look like a nose ridge. So yeah. Not human like at all. no transition here. next slide.

gradyll, you do not know what is and what is not evidence and you do not know what a transitional fossil is either, even though you has much as admitted that those are all transitional.

I can help you with that. So can others here.

 

[Shemjaza]

the middle is iffy. That fossil is probably ape like. It doesn't look at all like the right skull. it's not a direct side picture, so it looks like a nose ridge, but the fossil is turned slightly making the cheek bone look like a nose ridge. So yeah. Not human like at all. no transition here. next slide.

You keep changing your mind about which ones are apes and which ones are men.

I think this is pretty conclusive evidence that there isn't a clear difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep changing your mind about which ones are apes and which ones are men.

I think this is pretty conclusive evidence that there isn't a clear difference.

Duane Gish had the same problem with Homo erectus. He could not decide if it was "definitely an ape" or definitely a man":

Homo erectus Creationists disagree on classification

 

[VirOptimus]

you beg the question as to the facts of the matter. If the facts are what is in question. You can't simply proclaim I am right" and you are wrong". Not having an argument in a debate is similar to getting sued, but not showing up in court. You still lose in the end.

No, you are quite simply wrong. Humans are apes, thats a fact and not up for debate.

 

[Job 33:6]

pictures of fossils are better than just opinion. Just saying.

Are you asking for a photo?

It isnt human. Much to small, the brow is abnormally pronounced (yet normal for proto species), brain case is very small (about the size of a chimp skull, maybe a quarter the size a modern human). It does have a bit of a snout, more elongate than modern man, less elongate than modern ape). Its eyes are kind of spaced in a strange way, the skull is filled out more in the top than bottom. Its just strange looking, clearly not a modern man.The back of its skull where the brain would rest is also more elongate like modern ape. And it has those massive cheek bones (more similar to modern apes). Its just not human (as we know ourselves).

It isnt like that of a modern ape either. The position of its teeth are more human like, shortened, than they are stretched out like a chimps. Shorter like a human C shape than a modern ape like U shape. Its face is more flatened, than elongate like modern apes. The foreman magnum is positions below the skull indicating it may have been an upright walker. Whereas with modern day apes, the foreman magnum is directed moreso toward the back of the skull. It isnt like modern apes either. It doesnt have those massive canines either like you might find in a gorilla.

It truly does share qualities of both modern man and ape, but predominantly its qualities are somewhere in between.

 

[createdtoworship]

You keep changing your mind about which ones are apes and which ones are men.

I think this is pretty conclusive evidence that there isn't a clear difference.

I already gave you direct evidence of what is ape like, and what is human like. If you has ct scans instead of low resolution images, it may help. I can only work with what is given to me.

 

[createdtoworship]

Are you asking for a photo?

It isnt human. Much to small, the brow is abnormally pronounced (yet normal for proto species), brain case is very small (about the size of a chimp skull, maybe a quarter the size a modern human). It does have a bit of a snout, more elongate than modern man, less elongate than modern ape). Its eyes are kind of spaced in a strange way, the skull is filled out more in the top than bottom. Its just strange looking, clearly not a modern man.The back of its skull where the brain would rest is also more elongate like modern ape. And it has those massive cheek bones (more similar to modern apes). Its just not human (as we know ourselves).

It isnt like that of a modern ape either. The position of its teeth are more human like, shortened, than they are stretched out like a chimps. Shorter like a human C shape than a modern ape like U shape. Its face is more flatened, than elongate like modern apes. The foreman magnum is positions below the skull indicating it may have been an upright walker. Whereas with modern day apes, the foreman magnum is directed moreso toward the back of the skull. It isnt like modern apes either. It doesnt have those massive canines either like you might find in a gorilla.

It truly does share qualities of both modern man and ape, but predominantly its qualities are somewhere in between.




View attachment 201933

this one obviously only has one human like creature. the rest have shovel faces.

you can easily see the human like creature has a bigger brain and more of a roundish skull.