Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Astridhere]

Yeah, that's why I used the "quotes". Proper binomial names and phylogenetic classifications are the electrified rail for most Creationists. Note how when they talk about "kinds" they always use common names for barnyard or petting zoo beings or meaningless verbiage like "goo to you" or "frog to prince".
Oh you mean like the definition of species as speciation to the point of inablity to mate thrown in the garbage bin with so many contradictions

I hate to succumb to hubris,(too late) but there simply isn't a Creationist out there, layman or self-declared professional that can respond seriously to my "kinds" challenge - especially when I include triads like groups of mollusks and arthropods.
Baramins are just as good as your species definition mess.
Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And back to the "ape" thing, have you ever seen the Talk Origins chart that shows the disparity amongst Creationists who consider a particular hominid species "fully ape" and "fully human"? It's quite humorous.
and so is evolutionists sending Ardi and Lucy to the scrap heap. Humour is also the rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past such as knuckle walking ancestry, LUCA, brain size tied to bipedalism, junk DNA, all once irrefuteable evidence for common ancestry, that now resides in the garbage bin.


How are you sir! I've been harping on the position of the foramen magnum being the characteristic determining bipedalism for 7 years now. Several years before Mark Kennedy came up with his crazy theory that hominids with a bidpedal foramen magnum placement are actually bipedal chimp ancestors... or whatever nonsense he's asserted regarding that hairbrained pronouncement.Oh you mean like the rubbish evolutionists used to sprook about untill they found human footprints over 3.5 million years old and tried to attribute them to the ape Lucy with her ape fingers and no feet, who is now being thrown into the ape line of descent?This is more hilarious

Considering the state of your species definitions, I think it quite comical that you suggest any truth lies with a precise definition of kind.

The IDers have come up with Baraminology. Biblical creationists can use a form of baraminology, discontinuity, to assert a definition of kind. So if you have never heard of any definition of kind I suggest you are speaking from an ignorant base.

Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms

I use discontinuity also. Given neither side of the debate knows for sure what the initial creation or so called common ancestors looked like, it is folly to make assumptions. There is huge range in every species. Rather I use the most obvious distinction between two kinds to differentiate. In the case of mankind and ape it is high functioning reasoning ability and perception as well as sophisticated language that distinguishes them apart.

A kind are the ancestors of the initial creations of God. Turkana Boy has a small neural canal and was unable to use sophisticated speech. His skull resembles that of a non human primate and is discontinuous with the range and variety of the human skull. Turkana Boy and other Erectus were incapable of sophisticated speech. It is an ape and is your best example. Turkana Boy was also found in pieces and may well be a head placed on another individuals body.

For me, a kind is generally pegged to the rank of subfamily or family, where no subfamily exists. However there are exceptions eg human, platypus. This is also where the evolutionary mess is most obvious. However your taxonomy is such a mess that this can only be a vague comparison as some kinds are at the genus or species level of your mess.

Lucy, even with her resemblance to a Bornean orangutan looks more human than Turkana Boy.



Lucy, Australopithicus afarensis

I. SCIENCE I. Origin of Man, Evolution Style: Homo Ergaster « Truthopia

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

Not all apes have heavy eye brow ridging. As you see Lucy does not have eye brow ridging. However 2 million years later your intermdediates do show marked and heavy eye brow ridging. This does not make any sense and demonstrates that there is no graduation at all in the fossil record.

Turkana Boy looks similar to Rudolfenesis after the woopsie was corrected. These reconstructions are biased and as you can see mistakes and misrepresentations are easily made from a bunch of fragments glued together. Besides, flat faced primates have been around for 12my with Lluc. It is not a sign of becoming human at all. Turkana Boy is discontinuous with mankind and is therefore NOT mankind.

Your species definitions are full of contradictions. Allele frequencies relate to adaptation. You have had to invent terms like cryptic species etc, convergent evolution, morphological homoplasy and genetic homoplasy and a host of other terms to keep your theory of common descent from death.

The icing on the cake is that you have few, if any, examples of chimp ancestry. This is because they are all thrown into the human line for headlines and glory.

Evolutionists expect the production of a convoluted mess. Creation does not require this. And just like you we do not have to have an answer, or rather theory, that changes like the wind to establish evidence for the creation. The various Creationists assertions have as robust a theoretical base as evolutionists. Evolution is a theory in evolution itself.

Again I think it laughable that you think the truth lies in ones defintion of kind. If this is the case evolution died long ago.

You do not have human intermediates. Erectus are apes, Lucy and ardi are challenged, and therefore the evidence supports creation as a science...and this is just one example of a plethora too long to speak to in one thread.

Creation=Science. Evolution=Wishfull thinking

 

[Astridhere]

This is a false dichotomy. The correct statement would be:

"All evidence for Darwinism is evidence against Creationism, and evidence for Creationism is evidence against Darwinism."

But the issue here is that Darwinism is not the only potential alternative here. If there were any evidence against Darwinism (which there isn't), then that wouldn't automatically be evidence for any particular other theory, let alone Creationism.

You are missing the point.

If your intermedites such as Lucy and Ardi are now being challenged as being ape ancestors then they are not evidence.

If your Erectus are also apes then effectively you have no evidence for mankinds ancestry to apes, just a bunch of apes and then humans.

So in actual fact the EVIDENCE in the fossil record demonstrates creation. These intermediates of yours are straw grabbing humanaizations of apes, that is all. It is very clear from Turkana Boys side view tht he is not human, nor becoming human. Some creationists accept him as human vecause they have put too much faith in the reasonings of man and false and biased reconstructions.

You do remember a time when evos used to serve up junk dna as being solid evidence of evolution and solid evidence against creation. Well that is in the scrap heap now. This is an ongoing creationist prediction that has always been asserted and continues to be validated more and more.

Evolution is based on misrepresentations and theories that change like the wind. If you wish to have faith in this...good for you.

 

[Chalnoth]

How are you sir! I've been harping on the position of the foramen magnum being the characteristic determining bipedalism for 7 years now. Several years before Mark Kennedy came up with his crazy theory that hominids with a bidpedal foramen magnum placement are actually bipedal chimp ancestors... or whatever nonsense he's asserted regarding that hairbrained pronouncement.

Ah, yeah, forgot about that Yes, that's an important bipedal characteristic as well.

 

[Chalnoth]

You are missing the point.

If your intermedites such as Lucy and Ardi are now being challenged as being ape ancestors then they are not evidence.

Except they aren't being challenged.

But regardless, as strong as the fossil evidence is, it doesn't even come close to other forms of evidence we have for evolution. For human evolution, the genetic evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

If your Erectus are also apes then effectively you have no evidence for mankinds ancestry to apes, just a bunch of apes and then humans.

Um, humans are also apes. So this does not follow.

So in actual fact the EVIDENCE in the fossil record demonstrates creation.

It's positively hilarious that you think this. The fossil record proves that easily more than 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. How does that fit with creationism?

 

[Psudopod]

Astridhere, if humans are not apes, can you point out what part of the definition of ape humans fail to meet?

 

[Astridhere]

Except they aren't being challenged.

Questions raised about ‘Ardi’ as human ancestor - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
"This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario."


Apologetics Press - Lucy Dethroned

It appears your irrefuteable evidence for ancestry to these creatures is as clear as mud.

But regardless, as strong as the fossil evidence is, it doesn't even come close to other forms of evidence we have for evolution. For human evolution, the genetic evidence is absolutely overwhelming.
I am sorry to say that it is only overwhelmingly misrepresented. Do not forget that now with HGT the idea of a single cell arising to life is dead.

Hence the first so called 'primitive cells' were of such similar genetic makeup that they were able to horizonatlly transfer genetic material.

What your researchers have inadvertantly demonstrated is that all these living cells that supposedly 'morphed' into life all by themselves were alike and of the same basic genetic design. This further demonstrates that all life regardless of whether or not it was created or arose naturally is going to be of the same basic design.

LUCA is dead!!!!!!!!!!

The truth is, as I have already stated, that some organism had to be more similar to mankind than another. It happens to be a chimp for most genomic regions and orangutan for some others. This does not prove descent at all.

In fact chimps are 30% different to mankind and more differences are constantly being found. Gene surface is different and the chimp genome is 10% larger.Your researchers have taken one little part, MtDNA, the cells powerhouse, and the only genomic region with such similarity as 94% to try to show descent.(chimp genome project Wiki).

Then you have the Y chromosome. It is remarkably different in the chimp and human....and your excuse is 'accelerated evolution'. Rubbish!
Access : Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content : Nature

Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.
Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees | john hawks weblog
​

The Y chromosome proves mankind and chimps are not related. Evos need a plethora of convoluted theories to turn clear evidence against common descent into a mystery. Evolutionists have this trade down pat.

ERVs are nothing more than dead and lifeless particles and ghosts and remnants. Once a virus hits the germ line and becomes endogenous your researchers cannot tell if it was transfered horizontally or vertically. It is faith in TOE that leads them to say that the ervs that are not apparent in other primates eg PTERV1, can only have got there through HGT.

The evolutionary warcry that junk DNA disproves creation and support evolution has turned to manure with functionality being attributed to junk DNA and ervs.

The same goes for vestigal organs that are now being found to be functional.eg appendix

Your evidence for evolution is no more robust than flavour of the month.

Um, humans are also apes. So this does not follow.

Only evolutionists see themselves as apes.

It's positively hilarious that you think this. The fossil record proves that easily more than 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. How does that fit with creationism? What is more hilarious is your assumption that extinction is non biblical

This thread topic is suggesting that creationists do not have science behind their assertions. This is a disprespectfull ploy at self gratification.

Again I say, there is no evidence for evolution, it is a faith. The human fossil record is just one example of the misrepresentations that one must endure and have faith, in to be a follower.

 

[Astridhere]

Psudopod said

"Astridhere, if humans are not apes, can you point out what part of the definition of ape humans fail to meet?"



I have said this so many times......

Mankind has advanced and superior reasoning ability and perception and can conceive thought of God and afterlife. Mankind also has sophisticated language capability. Mankind alone, has been created in the image of God.

Only evolutionists see 4 similar limbs and a head and say humans are apes with total disregard for the huge and obvious differences between beast and mankind.

Homo Erectus, particularly the Turkana Boy reconstruction, in so far as one can trust any of these reconstructions, demonstrates he did not have the capacity for sophisticated language, which is obvious as he is an ape, that researchers have tried to humanize as best they can.

 

[Chalnoth]

You do realize, I hope, that moving Lucy to the "robust australopiths" doesn't change much of anything?

The point is that all fossils we find are expected to be from a group that branched from the specific ancestors that led to us. Ancestors are exceedingly rare, and we don't ever expect to find the fossil of a direct ancestor. Instead what we get are lots of offshoot species. Demonstrating that Lucy was an offshoot of the specific lineage that led from the chimpanzee-human common ancestor to us is basically demonstrating what everybody expected anyway.

 

[Chalnoth]

Psudopod said

"Astridhere, if humans are not apes, can you point out what part of the definition of ape humans fail to meet?"



I have said this so many times......

Mankind has advanced and superior reasoning ability and perception and can conceive thought of God and afterlife. Mankind also has sophisticated language capability. Mankind alone, has been created in the image of God.

Only evolutionists see 4 similar limbs and a head and say humans are apes with total disregard for the huge and obvious differences between beast and mankind.

Homo Erectus, particularly the Turkana Boy reconstruction, in so far as one can trust any of these reconstructions, demonstrates he did not have the capacity for sophisticated language, which is obvious as he is an ape, that researchers have tried to humanize as best they can.

Additional traits do not exclude an animal from a classification. Every species has its own unique traits, after all. Rather, show what the other apes all have in common, but humans lack.

 

[Astridhere]

Ah, yeah, forgot about that Yes, that's an important bipedal characteristic as well.

You may find this interesting

PREMOG: Research Current - Bipedalism in Apes and Humans

PREMOG: Research Current - The Laetoli Footprint Trail

"Hominin material from between 2 and c. 3.8 MY includes Australopithecus afarensis, eg. AL-288-1 (‘Lucy’) and DIK-1-1 (‘Lucy’s baby’). This species was almost unquestionably bipedal but with short legs, wide pelvis and long arms. There are two very contrasting views of the locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis AL-288-1, ‘Lucy’, still the best known early hominid. The first argues that because of skeletal features which suggest partial arboreality, that her bipedalism would have been a ‘compromised’ ,‘shuffling, ‘bent-hip, bent-knee’ bipedality, like that characteristically displayed by other African apes. The alternative sugests thatLucy was an habitual, upright, terrestrial biped"

See, as I said, it is all as clear as mud.

Indeed Lucy had some toes. In the link above you can see how these Habilis toes do not look human at all and habilis is younger than Lucy. In fact reseachers have said Lucy's toes are so deteriorated they cannot tell if Lucy was bipedal. This is a suspicious nonsense as evolutionary researcher often take the liberty of reconstructing a whole species from a chard of bone.

The link shows what actual fossil evidence evolutionists have in relation to walking and feet, and it is scant.

Footprints dated to 3.8 million years is what researchers try to pass off as evidence of bipedal walking in australopithicus afarensis. This is a nonsense also. These human footprints demonstrate that humans were around at the time of Lucy. There is no common descent. Now as I have shown Lucy is being challenged as a human ancestor.

So once again SCIENCE (what data scintists have found) supports CREATION.

As for current dating method flaws...that is another topic.
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis

Only evolutionists can take any of this flavour of the month stuff seriously and seem to think flavour of the month is evidence. However, what they have demonstrated, is that the data actually supports creation and requires huge leaps of faith and convoluted explantions and theories to turn clear evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery.

 

[Chalnoth]

You may find this interesting

PREMOG: Research Current - Bipedalism in Apes and Humans

PREMOG: Research Current - The Laetoli Footprint Trail

"Hominin material from between 2 and c. 3.8 MY includes Australopithecus afarensis, eg. AL-288-1 (‘Lucy’) and DIK-1-1 (‘Lucy’s baby’). This species was almost unquestionably bipedal but with short legs, wide pelvis and long arms. There are two very contrasting views of the locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis AL-288-1, ‘Lucy’, still the best known early hominid. The first argues that because of skeletal features which suggest partial arboreality, that her bipedalism would have been a ‘compromised’ ,‘shuffling, ‘bent-hip, bent-knee’ bipedality, like that characteristically displayed by other African apes. The alternative sugests thatLucy was an habitual, upright, terrestrial biped"

See, as I said, it is all as clear as mud.

Indeed Lucy had some toes. In the link above you can see how these Habilis toes do not look human at all and habilis is younger than Lucy. In fact reseachers have said Lucy's toes are so deteriorated they cannot tell if Lucy was bipedal. This is a suspicious nonsense as evolutionary researcher often take the liberty of reconstructing a whole species from a chard of bone.

The link shows what actual fossil evidence evolutionists have in relation to walking and feet, and it is scant.

Footprints dated to 3.8 million years is what researchers try to pass off as evidence of bipedal walking in australopithicus afarensis. This is a nonsense also. These human footprints demonstrate that humans were around at the time of Lucy. There is no common descent. Now as I have shown Lucy is being challenged as a human ancestor.

So once again SCIENCE (what data scintists have found) supports CREATION.

As for current dating method flaws...that is another topic.
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis

Only evolutionists can take any of this flavour of the month stuff seriously and seem to think flavour of the month is evidence. However, what they have demonstrated, is that the data actually supports creation and requires huge leaps of faith and convoluted explantions and theories to turn clear evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery.

There is no question that these hominids were primarily bipedal. The work you have cited here is merely arguing about precisely how proficient at bipedal locomotion they were. It absolutely, positively does not argue that Australopithecus was not bipedal at all. If the skepticism of proficient bipedalism represented here is accurate, then this would indicate that the Australopithecines were a transitional form between the primarily arboreal locomotion present in earlier apes, and the primarily bipedal locomotion present in later hominid lineages.

So how is showing the precise details of how Australopithecus is a transitional form evidence for creation, pray tell?

Oh, and by the way, your attempt to say that modern humans existed ~3 million years ago is positively hilarious.

 

[Nostromo]

There is no common descent. Now as I have shown Lucy is being challenged as a human ancestor.

So again, which apes are they?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not up for debate as science is based on gathering empirical evidence. Neither God nor miracles could be empirically tested due to their nature, so they cannot be included in science.

Now we know that is not true. Science as we have both agreed has metaphysical elements that can not be empirically tested. In fact, that science is based on these assumptions that are untestable due to their nature, means that you are using special pleading to exclude God as a possible cause for the universe.

If science included non-empirical methods and data it wouldn't be science, and if miracles were explainable by natural and empirical means they wouldn't be miracles.

See above.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Except they aren't being challenged.

But regardless, as strong as the fossil evidence is, it doesn't even come close to other forms of evidence we have for evolution. For human evolution, the genetic evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

Such as?

It's positively hilarious that you think this. The fossil record proves that easily more than 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. How does that fit with creationism?

I find it interesting that during these immense extinctions, how do we find common ancestry in all living forms today? Also, if you find it positively hilarious that the fossil record proves gradual evolution, do you find it equally funny to find that since the Cambrian Era there have been no new phyla? Do you find it funny that Darwin and evolution claim that life is from simple to complex in small graduations along long periods of time. The cambrian era does not fit with this claim.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

since the Cambrian Era there have been no new phyla?

I could be way off here but, I think that is because it would simply be impossible. Rather like it is impossible for new Kingdoms to arise, you'd need something older then the kingdom to make a new kingdom.
(By all means, somebody correct me. I just know im butchering this terribly.)

 

[Oncedeceived]

I could be way off here but, I think that is because it would simply be impossible. Rather like it is impossible for new Kingdoms to arise, you'd need something older then the kingdom to make a new kingdom.
(By all means, somebody correct me. I just know im butchering this terribly.)

Why would it be impossible?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Why would it be impossible?

Because every living thing is part of the kingdoms we have currently, and they can never escape their kingdom so they cannot make new kingdoms (As they are already in one.) Anything they evolve will simply be part of the kingdom they already are in.

In order to have a new kingdom you'd need the life form that existed before it split into the 8(?) kingdoms. And that life form would need to evolve into a different direction in order to become the 9th kingdom. As a result that would have to take place before the kingdoms formed thus putting that opertunity window squarly in the distant past.

I hope that made sense, dont put to much weight on what i said here I could be way off.

 

[USincognito]

I could be way off here but, I think that is because it would simply be impossible. Rather like it is impossible for new Kingdoms to arise, you'd need something older then the kingdom to make a new kingdom.
(By all means, somebody correct me. I just know im butchering this terribly.)

Why would it be impossible?

Because existing taxa don't give rise to other existing taxa, they only subspeciate. Taxonomic classifications are derived within a deep time context, but really reflect what we've observed over the last 200 years or so. I can't see any way that any lifeform would survive long enough beyond abiogenesis to warrent classification at the Kingdom level. There's just too many predators around for such a new lifeform establish such a taxonomic niche.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because existing taxa don't give rise to other existing taxa, they only subspeciate. Taxonomic classifications are derived within a deep time context, but really reflect what we've observed over the last 200 years or so. I can't see any way that any lifeform would survive long enough beyond abiogenesis to warrent classification at the Kingdom level. There's just too many predators around for such a new lifeform establish such a taxonomic niche.

Exactly, the classifications arose from study of comparative anatomy and so forth. However, the other statement I am clueless. What do you mean?

 

[USincognito]

Exactly, the classifications arose from study of comparative anatomy and so forth. However, the other statement I am clueless. What do you mean?

I knew when I posted that paragraph it was a bit muddled. Let me try again.

Kingdoms are broad groupings that encompass a large number of descendant species, but have to exclude the characteristics of other, similarly broad groups (the other kingdoms). It's unlikely that such a new lifeform would evolve without being consumed to extinction before it had much chance to diversify, be discovered and be classified. Simply put, we're unlikely to find an autotrophic eukaryotic lifeform that isn't a plant nor any of the other eukaryotic kingdoms.

What's more likely to happen, as you can see by reading the Wiki entry on Kingdoms, is a reclassification of beings from one kingdom into two or three or three or four kingdoms being reclassified into two different domains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)

(Oooops, I see exds's post from earlier covers it better than I did)