Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Astridhere]

Let's see if I can post links now.

Homo Rudolfensis
Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed


Here is your (F) Rudolfensis, above...an ape.

Lluc, the flat faced ape 12myo.


Lucy
Lucy: The First Hominid Skeleton

Above is Lucy, with curved fingers, no heavy eye brow ridging...and still an ape.



http://truthopia.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/turkana-boy-he.jpg?w=497&h=378

Above is Turkana Boy, Erectus or eragaster, they haven't made up their mind...as you see the side view shows...an ape...and an ape with heavy eyebrow ridging. If you square his chin up by tilting the head back a little even more does he look like an ape.


Another Homo Erectus from Wiki......just a heavily eyebrow ridged ape.

None of these are intermediates. They are varieties of apes.

You do not know what these creatures actually look like with flesh on. Nor do you know what the common ancestor looked like, nor do I know what the first ape kind looked like. Regardless of arm length, disputes over whether or not fossils are from one or more individuals, these are all apes and are obviously discontinuous with mankind. They are incapable of complex and sophisticated speech and high level reasoning and perceptive ability.

This is the kind of misrepresentation that can be demonstrated with much of the fossil record.

Rather a huge variety of apes and mankind suddenly appearing in the fossil record demonstrates evidence for creation.

I could be gracious and say it is a matter of interpretation. However, I think these are clearly apes, and only someone that needs intermediates would ever think they were anything but apes.

Creation=Science.

 

[Chalnoth]

You claimed that the fossil evidence you presented was just the 'tip of the iceberg' of the evidence available to us. So what 'huge' amount of evidence did you not include?

I have no idea how you went from there to "morphing". But whatever.

First of all, those fossils posted or only a teeny tiny fraction of the total number of hominid fossils found. Put together, the hominid fossils paint a very clear picture of a series of lineages, some of whom died out, but one of whom became us. So even where the fossil evidence is concerned, there is much much more.

There is also the morphological evidence: we share a number of uniquely-ape characteristics with the other apes, such as fingernails, a lack of a tail, and our particular sort of molars.

But the best evidence we have is genetic. We can do genetic tests for the relationships between species in the exact same way we do genetic tests for the relationships between people. And we find that chimpanzees are our closest cousins.

And then this is only talking about the evidence linking humans with the other apes.

Straw man.

I don't think you know what that is. That little story was how I see the debate between the two of us.

 

[Chalnoth]

None of these are intermediates. They are varieties of apes.

They are varieties of apes and intermediates.

Now tell me. Which of these skulls is "fully ape" and which is "fully human"?

Source: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

 

[Nostromo]

However, I think these are clearly apes, and only someone that needs intermediates would ever think they were anything but apes.

Which apes are they?

 

[Greg1234]

This might help. I believe Delphiki made this:

It shows the gradual change of a new car to a broken down old car, not car to airplane transition as the tests reveal. Or the gradual transition from undercarriage-up to undercarriage-down landing config.

 

[Greg1234]

Now tell me. Which of these skulls is "fully ape" and which is "fully human"?

F-16 C model or D model?

 

[Chalnoth]

It shows the gradual change of a new car to a broken down old car, not car to airplane transition as the tests reveal. Or the gradual transition from undercarriage-up to undercarriage-down landing config.

So, you've never seen a non-human animal or a child grow up?

 

[Chalnoth]

F-16 C model or D model?

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Greg1234]

So, you've never seen a non-human animal or a child grow up?

The growth of children,which is a programmed feature, does not rule out childbirth. Data shows that the growth of a child does not mean that will morph into a lion. They are created independently.

 

[Greg1234]

What does this have to do with anything?

It's a simple question, chief.

 

[AV1611VET]

F-16 C model or D model?

Which one of these was designed by scientists?

 

[Chalnoth]

The growth of children,which is a programmed feature, does not rule out childbirth.

Except it is absolutely not a programmed feature. The information in an adult is far and away greater than the information content of a single, fertilized egg. That information is generated spontaneously by interactions between the growing human (whether embryo or fetus or child) and its environment. Screw up the environment, and you get errors in development. For example, if you implanted a human embryo into a lioness, you almost certainly wouldn't get a viable human child. You wouldn't get a lion, of course, but it would most likely end in miscarriage.

Data shows that the growth of a child does not mean that will morph into a lion. They are created independently.

This doesn't mean that all of the information exists before the child starts growing.

 

[Chalnoth]

It's a simple question, chief.

Um, it's not even a complete sentence. The fact that it has a question mark doesn't make it a question. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution. Oh, and the image link is broken too.

 

[SkyWriting]

Which one of these was designed by scientists?

roflol

 

[Chalnoth]

Which one of these was designed by scientists?

Neither. The former is imaginary, the latter was designed by engineers.

 

[Nostromo]

F-16 C model or D model?

F-16D

 

[SkyWriting]

Except it is absolutely not a programmed feature. The information in an adult is far and away greater than the information content of a single, fertilized egg. That information is generated spontaneously by interactions between the growing human (whether embryo or fetus or child) and its environment. Screw up the environment, and you get errors in development. For example, if you implanted a human embryo into a lioness, you almost certainly wouldn't get a viable human child. You wouldn't get a lion, of course, but it would most likely end in miscarriage.


This doesn't mean that all of the information exists before the child starts growing.

Yes. Physically the body has all the information it needs to grow it's entire life. Even the timing of it's death is determined before birth. The provided details can adapt to a variety of environmental changes and even evolve quickly to extreme circumstances. Information from the environment does allow for developmental options, but none are essential.

 

[AV1611VET]

roflol

Here's another one --

Can you explain the science behind these two events?

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes. Physically the body has all the information it needs to grow it's entire life. Even the timing of it's death is determined before birth.

Say what? So, you're telling me that if I get struck by a car tomorrow and die, it's because of my genes?

The provided details can adapt to a variety of environmental changes and even evolve quickly to extreme circumstances. Information from the environment does allow for developmental options, but none are essential.

Then explain to me why you can't implant the embryo of one species of mammal into another's womb and expect that embryo to develop into a viable organism.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have no idea how you went from there to "morphing". But whatever.

First of all, those fossils posted or only a teeny tiny fraction of the total number of hominid fossils found. Put together, the hominid fossils paint a very clear picture of a series of lineages, some of whom died out, but one of whom became us. So even where the fossil evidence is concerned, there is much much more....

There is. And if you were involved in the research you may dispute many of the lines of information that you currently have faith in. But there is no "clear" anything in science. Everything must be retested. And if you cannot recreate an event, it's not science. What your referring to may seem scientific, but it's not science.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).