Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Chalnoth]

Regardless of whether or not you think there is a modern version that has replaced the original is not the point. Darwin's model has been falsified. I am not stating anything but the truth. You seem to agree, Chalnoth seems to agree. So why is it so hard for any of you to concede the point?

It's only as falsified as Newtonian Gravity is falsified. Newtonian Gravity is exceedingly accurate for measuring the motions of every object in our solar system except Mercury. Newtonian Gravity is, as a result, an incredibly good approximation to reality, and still used for nearly all situations where we are interested in the effect of gravity.

 

[Astridhere]

Why?



Based on what evidence? A bird can build a very complex nest, so what is the problem?

The problem is grabbing at straws at every turn. Can you see the ridiculous base you are placing your point on? You are comaring inate qualities with learned one. Apes do not build stone huts nor is this trait inate in apes.
Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

You seem to be making a lot proclamations for which you have zero evidence.

Rather I am making proclamation with plenty of evidence. See above, I have actually supplied evidence of a 1.7myo stone hut. There is also butchery sites and storage caches. Your own researchers say that at this time humans were still half wits. They had ape heads and smaller brains and did not have sophisticated speech as Turkana Boy has demonstrated.

Hence my claim that evolutionists believe ape men build huts is based on your own evolutionary data. I have actually supplied research to support my claim and you have refuted it with your opinion.

Then show us a modern human fossil that dates to 3 million years before present.I have, it is a human footprint

If evolutionists can get away with proposing mythical common ancestors you can never produce any evidence of, I can get away with using dated footprints, surely. Or are you one of those evolutionists that demand a higher level of evidence from creationists than you, yourself can provide.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, absolutely not. The model was entirely accurate about nearly all multicellular forms of life, if a bit incomplete. Now, he was a bit mistaken on a few of the finer points, but that doesn't mean the model was wrong. That just means that he didn't have all the relevant facts.

Wrong about a few finer points? OK.:o

That said, Darwinian evolution only described the evolution of larger organisms and needed to be modified to account for how single-celled forms evolve. It also didn't have any explanation whatsoever for what actually carried the inheritance, which we now know quite a lot about. So Darwin's model of evolution isn't entirely correct, though it is very accurate within a certain range of application. Our current theory, sometimes called the neo-Darwinian synthesis, incorporates these additional modifications, but still very closely resembles Darwin's original model.

I think you are denying the obvious, but I expected that.

Because you used the phrase "only a theory" which is a phrase that makes no sense whatsoever with the scientific definition of the word theory. The scientific definition is merely that a theory is an explanation which connects different observations into a consistent framework. The theory of evolution explains the patterns we see in living organisms and in the fossil record.

When did I ever say only a theory?

For example:
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution after Introduction to a New Home

The evolution of additional valves in their digestive systems in a span of only 30 years is quite impressive, and is most definitely macro-evolution by any reasonable definition.

It is still a lizard, how is this evidence of macroevolution?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Um, if this life died out before the Cambrian, then you're claiming that the Cambrian forms magically appeared out of the dirt? That's positively absurd. And it's amazing how you simply ignore any evidence that doesn't suit your preconceived notions.

I am using factual evidence to back up my claims. I am providing peer reviewed documentation to show you that you are the one that is ignoring the evidence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If evolutionists can get away with proposing mythical common ancestors you can never produce any evidence of, I can get away with using dated footprints, surely. Or are you one of those evolutionists that demand a higher level of evidence from creationists than you, yourself can provide.

Yea, who could possibly look at the evidence and conclude that species come in nested hierarchies with common ancestors linking the whole thing together...

Clearly God just had a fondness for finches, right?

 

[Chalnoth]

If evolutionists can get away with proposing mythical common ancestors you can never produce any evidence of, I can get away with using dated footprints, surely. Or are you one of those evolutionists that demand a higher level of evidence from creationists than you, yourself can provide.

You might have a point when you can actually present any evidence whatsoever that supports creationism.

 

[Chalnoth]

It is still a lizard, how is this evidence of macroevolution?

You should know better than to post this tripe. No organism becomes a completely different form from its ancestors. It just becomes a new, specific variant of its ancestors.

And it is proof positive of macroevolution because it is the evolution of a new structure in the body, one that did not exist in the lizard's ancestors.

 

[Chalnoth]

I am using factual evidence to back up my claims. I am providing peer reviewed documentation to show you that you are the one that is ignoring the evidence.

No you aren't. You just said that these forms died out before the Cambrian began. Prove it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is grabbing at straws at every turn. Can you see the ridiculous base you are placing your point on? You are comaring inate qualities with learned one. Apes do not build stone huts nor is this trait inate in apes.

Your point? Using tools is not innate to chimps either, and yet they use tools. In fact, they pass on tool use to their offspring through learned behavior.

Rather I am making proclamation with plenty of evidence. See above, I have actually supplied evidence of a 1.7myo stone hut.

And?

Your own researchers say that at this time humans were still half wits.

Which research is this?

They had ape heads and smaller brains and did not have sophisticated speech as Turkana Boy has demonstrated.

Humans have ape heads, so I really don't understand what you are arguing here. Turkana boy had a larger brain than a chimp, but smaller than a modern human. Why isn't that transitional? What features must a fossil have in order for you to accept it as transitional? Why can't you answer this question?

If evolutionists can get away with proposing mythical common ancestors you can never produce any evidence of, I can get away with using dated footprints, surely. Or are you one of those evolutionists that demand a higher level of evidence from creationists than you, yourself can provide.

ERV's are smoking gun evidence of common ancestry between humans and other apes. I have stated this several times now. In fact, you used to participate in the thread where we discussed ERV's, but once I proved that ERV's were indeed products of retroviruses you stopped participating. Why is that?

You still refuse to list the features that a transitional hominid should have. Until you do so you have no way of claiming that fossils are not transitional. The only thing you have pointed to is your religious beliefs which prevent you from even approaching the question. Hence, creationism is a religious philosophy, and a dogmatic one at that.

 

[Astridhere]

So let's look at Astridhere's criteria for determining if a fossil is transitional or not.

[/color]

So the fossil needs more than one bone. Check. Lucy is certainly made up of more than one bone, as are many Australopithecine and Homo fossils. So why do you reject them as transitional?

I said few have more than a few bones and I am absolutely correct, despite your being able to name the few more complete fossil specimens. I reject them as transistional because they are discontinuous with mankind. Individual bones could belong to anything but are classified according to assumption. They do not have highly developed reasoning ability and they do not have sophisticated speech, the hallmark of humanity. Apes come in many varieties and erectus and older have ape features, which still makes them apes. Turkana Boy, your best specimen has an ape head and small neural canal.

With Ardi and Lucy being dethroned as human ancestors you now have supposed bipeds, that researchers have gone on and on about, that may be the ancestros of knucklewalkers. You do not know and cannot say other than by asserting your assumptions. Hence bipedalism and possible accompanying shorter arms are not a sign of a rise to humanity and neither is flattened faces as I have demonstrated with Lluc. Neither of us know what the first ape looked like for sure and regardless of any finds you still do not know.

No, you haven't. All you have given us is straight denial without any idea of what a real transitional would look like.
Yes I have and I have just done so again. You lot, with your convoluted theories and absurd scenarios expect the same mess from creationists. This business of requesting a creationists to describe a mythical creature is absurd. What if I guessed and got it wrong? That is what you lot hope for. To corner a creationists into providing a description of a mythical creature and then use that against them. I am smarter than that. Do you have to describe what Nephalim looked like so you can prove there are no nephalim. It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous.


A transitional is a fossil that has a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. In the case of H. erectus, we have a prognathus, smaller cranium, and large brow ridges like those seen in other apes. H. erectus also has obvious modern human features. It is a mixture of modern human and basal ape features, therefore it is transitional.
LLuc has a flat face and is only not in the human line because he is 12 million years old. With convergent evolution you realy have no idea past a wish list.
So what are your criteria?

Annoying to the hilt. I have put it up many times. What separates beast from man is highly developed reasoning ability and perception, sophisticated language and an ability to perceive a God and pay homage to Him. There is no need to evoke guesswork by making assumptions. Clearly these traits are those that separate man from beast, and not the shape of their morphology alone.

What "debarkle"? The skull cap from Java man matches samples from real H. erectus fossils. Ardi is transitional, as is Lucy. Perhaps you are confusing direct ancestry and transitional?

[/color]

How did you determine that transitional fossils do not exist if you can't even tell us what one would look like? I can describe what werewolves, unicorns, and vampires would look like even though I don't believe in their existence. So why can't you do the same for transitional fossils? What are you afraid of?

I am not affraid of anything other than not wanting to get caught up in your convoluted wastes of time

So you are saying that you would accept evolution if scientists hadn't tossed out ideas that were shown to be wrong? Really? The very fact that the theory has changed to match the evidence is EXACTLY what a scientific theory should do, and the very opposite of what dogmatic religious beliefs do.

Can you or should you have to describe God or Nephalim for evolutionary theory to be robust?.[/

quote]

Give me the biblical description of a Nephalim and I will see if there is a fossil that fits.
There is and it is called Neanderthal


I can find differences between a great dane and a chihuahua. Does this mean that they do not share a common ancestor?

A wolf is still of the dog kind, the same as bacteria remains bacteria and fruitflies are still fruitflies even with legs hanging off their heads.

So a transitional would not have primitive features? Why not? Are you saying that a transitional would need to be 100% identical to modern humans with no basal ape features?

I am saying regardless of what similarities a fossil has, an ape and a man are distinct creatures to a creationist in real life.

So you are saying that a transitional would need to be within modern human ranges?

Show me an ape with half the human variation of the foxp2 genes that has been dated to around 45 thousand years. A chimp is 30% different to mankind at least (chimp genome project Wiki). Show me an ape that is around 15% overall difference.


Actually, it does in this case. It shows that a transitional, in your eyes, would need to be identical to modern species. This is not what we would see if evolution were true, but this is your definition nonetheless.

A mouse deer, Indoyus is not a whale, ambulocetus natans that looks more like a crocodile is also not a whale and neither are on their way to whaledom. If evolution was false one would see scientists grabbing at any straw possible to make it flavour of the month and then recanting with more data as the straw foundation crumbles. This is exactly what we see.

A half wit human cannot build stone houses and fire lighting is a complex task, then you have evidence of functions humans and not half wits.

Then you can not claim that these fossils are not transitional.
You do not need me to speak for myself as you are in orbit all by yourself having a conversation with yourself and apparently answering your own questions for me.


Transitional is not the same as direct ancestor. You do understand the difference, do you not?

I do understand and now that erectus is dethroned you have stuff all evidence for human ancestry, just a stack of dethroned sisters.

ERV's are irrefutable evidence that we share a common ancestor with other apes. What the fossil record can show us is in what order the changes occurred in our lineage.

ERVs are lifeless fragments that can equally be used to demonstrate no ancestry to apes eg PTERV1. There is no way your researchers can differentiate an erv that has hit the germ line and become endogenous. All shared ERVs could have been past by horizontal infections or exposures that have endogenized.
PLoS Genetics: Parallel Germline Infiltration of a Lentivirus in Two Malagasy Lemurs

Here is a woopsie..is it a rabbit or a human erv???????
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC136318/

Actually, there is one species of ape that is capable of that. They are called humans. You should look into it.
This is perfect evidence that you have syaed that shows the higher functioning of mankind. Again all the woffle about apes and half wits lighting fires is another ridulous Alice in Wonderland scenario.


Only DNA can be used to determine direct ancestry. Morphology can not. However, a fossil can have a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Those fossils are called transitional. The platypus is transitional. It has a mixture of features from placental mammals and reptiles. That doesn't mean that the platypus is the direct ancestor of placental mammals. Do you understand the difference?
I do not need a lesson in evolutionist mentally. The point being some creature is going to be more similar to another both genetically or physically, this does not mean they descended from a common ancestor.
You have convergent evolution as the proffered excuse for evolution stumbling on best designs over and over rather than they being the work of an intelligent designer which makes more sense than good ald evolutionary scientific luck paradigms..
For nutrition and other life to be used as food all life needs to be basically similar otherwise we may not be able to assimilate nutrition. It h as nothing to do with descent.


The only mess here is your understanding of biology.
Evolution is a mess of fancifull scenarios that get discredited while a new flavour of the month ensues. This is what you call science..


Stone tools have been found in strata containing H. habilis and H. erectus. The evidence points to these species forming and using simple stone tools.
Apes and other species use tools now, it is only a transitional trait in the minds of the desperate. If humans were around any fashioned tool would have belonged to them.
Also, wouldn't you expect a transitional to have a head with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features?

Is that why Lucy, Ardi, Erectus have been dethroned and why many scientists do not accept ergaster? Clear as mud is the substance of evolutionary sciences.

The pelvises of Australopithecines and orangs are quite different. The Australopithecine pelvis is much more like ours, so it makes sense that we would find footprints like ours. As for the curved fingers, this is what we would expect to find in a transitional, a mixture of basal ape and modern features.
You have had to make a freak out of an ape to provide another outlandish claim in support of evidence against same. Selam was 3yo and already adapted to tree life. It is as clear as day to the non desperate. Anything more than this is desperation and straw grabbing.


Transitional fossils support creationism? Since when?There are no intermediates between kinds and yes that supports creation nicely, thankyou

So you have stuff all fossil evidence for direct human ancestors and a bunch of what you call relatives. Meaning there is something about the relos that does not align with the evolution of the human lineage.

You have stuff all fossil evidence of chimp ancestors and I can tell you why. They have all been thrown into the human line. Many of these so called transitional fossils are the declining descendants of the rise of modern ape varieties.

If anyone can believe any of what your researchers say it appears that the first ape may have been better on its feet, may have had shorter arms. It also may mean for evolution that todays chimps are descendant from a bipedal ape. The common ansestor is becoming more and more human according to your fable. Soon you lot are going to be saying apes evolved from mankind.

Evolutionist Scientists Say "Apes Evolved from Humans" - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

Your researchers cannot tell the difference between an orang and a human. Your fossils could be anything or a mix of creatures in some cases.

"In their paper, Wood and Harrison caution that history has shown how uncritical reliance on a few similarities between fossil apes and humans can lead to incorrect assumptions about evolutionary relationships. They point to the case of Ramapithecus, a species of fossil ape from south Asia, which was mistakenly assumed to be an early human ancestor in the 1960s and 1970s, but later found to be a close relative of the orangutan."
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry


Where are all your ape and chimp ancestors? Why they are in with us humans until they get discredited like Lucy, Ardi and Erectus.

The evidence supports creation and it takes nonsensical claims and desperate non plausible scenarios, like stone hut building from half wits and human footprints from tree dwellers, to turn it into an evolutionary mystery and a mess ready to be discredited tomorrow.

.

 

[Incariol]

The evidence supports creation and it takes nonsensical claims and desperate non plausible scenarios, like stone hut building from half wits and human footprints from tree dwellers, to turn it into an evolutionary mystery and a mess ready to be discredited tomorrow.

.

Feel free to cite some any time now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Feel free to cite some any time now.

How about I do the opposite, and we'll see if you're any less indifferent, eh?

 

[Astridhere]

[/color]

Your point? Using tools is not innate to chimps either, and yet they use tools. In fact, they pass on tool use to their offspring through learned behavior.
Splitting hairs is not a good look. They have tried to humanize apes by teaching sign and all sorts of things and guess what. They are just apes.
[/color]

And?

[/color]

Which research is this?

[/color]

Humans have ape heads, so I really don't understand what you are arguing here. Turkana boy had a larger brain than a chimp, but smaller than a modern human. Why isn't that transitional? What features must a fossil have in order for you to accept it as transitional? Why can't you answer this question?

Your brain sizing is nonsense. Brains are generally larger in larger kinds. A 6ft ape is going to have a larger brain that a 3 ft one and it says nothing about common descent.



This is Turkana Boy not yet developed. Neotony suggests that he would be even more ape like as an adult. Your researchers can't agree on what age it is because they are trying to make a human out of an ape.

Adult ergaster

This is still an ape, with receeding forehead and looks nothing like something becoming human despite having a different shaped skull.

The algorithms used to get your silly results are convoluted desperate nonsense trying to make apes into humans.


ERV's are smoking gun evidence of common ancestry between humans and other apes. I have stated this several times now. In fact, you used to participate in the thread where we discussed ERV's, but once I proved that ERV's were indeed products of retroviruses you stopped participating. Why is that?
No I stopped participating when the point was clearly made, mostly by Greg1234, that ERVs mean nothing in relation to common descent.
You still refuse to list the features that a transitional hominid should have. Until you do so you have no way of claiming that fossils are not transitional. The only thing you have pointed to is your religious beliefs which prevent you from even approaching the question. Hence, creationism is a religious philosophy, and a dogmatic one at that.
They are not transistional between kinds because they still look like apes. That has to do with having eye sight, not religion.

Quite clearly if you have no idea of what a common ancestor looks like any supposition on your part and any evidence to maintain any claim can only be best guessing at best. That is just one reason why evolution is a theory in evolution itself, is the only thing macroevolving around here and falls apart like a house of straw.

Whereas the evidence stripped of the convoluted theories behind it simply supports the creationist paradigm better than any evolutionary one.

 

[Astridhere]

Feel free to cite some any time now.

I do not need to cite anything further.

You lot have produced the dating on the hut at 1.7myo and you have Turkana Boy that demonstrates a slope headed ape that makes stones huts and fires. What a laugh.

You lot have produced Salem the curved fingered ape and Lucy with theorised chimpy feet until the footprints were found,,then wallah they must be Lucys. What a laugh!...despite proof of Ardi having ape feet about a million years earlier. Ha Ha, very funny, good one!.

The icing on the cake again....this biped is not human at all .HA HA HA HA HA HA.

.

 

[Nostromo]

I am providing peer reviewed documentation...

When?

 

[Incariol]

I do not need to cite anything further.

You lot have produced the dating on the hut at 1.7myo and you have Turkana Boy that demonstrates a slope headed ape that makes stones huts and fires. What a laugh.

You lot have produced Salem the curved fingered ape and Lucy with theorised chimpy feet until the footprints were found,,then wallah they must be Lucys. What a laugh!...despite proof of Ardi having ape feet about a million years earlier. Ha Ha, very funny, good one!.

The icing on the cake again....this biped is not human at all .HA HA HA HA HA HA.

.

Translation: "I don't actually have any evidence for my position, but let me just laugh and mock random things and hope you don't notice".

 

[Psudopod]

Astridhere - what part of the criteria for ape do humans not meet? I assume you missed my last post, so I'll ask you again fresh. Remember, the question is what part of the criteria do humans not meet, not name a feature unique in humans.

 

[Chalnoth]

Splitting hairs is not a good look. They have tried to humanize apes by teaching sign and all sorts of things and guess what. They are just apes.

Chimpanzees have been observed to use tools without being taught by humans.

 

[Loudmouth]

I reject them as transistional because they are discontinuous with mankind.

So a transitional would be continuous with both humans and other apes?

Individual bones could belong to anything but are classified according to assumption.

What assumptions?

They do not have highly developed reasoning ability and they do not have sophisticated speech, the hallmark of humanity.

So a transitional has to be identical to modern humans?

Apes come in many varieties and erectus and older have ape features, which still makes them apes. Turkana Boy, your best specimen has an ape head and small neural canal.

Again, are you saying that a transitional has to be identical to modern humans?

You have stated what transitionals can not have, so what morphological features SHOULD they have? What are they?

This business of requesting a creationists to describe a mythical creature is absurd.

Neither the common ancestor nor H. erectus is mythical.

Do you have to describe what Nephalim looked like so you can prove there are no nephalim.

Yes, you do. That's the whole point. How can you know if something does not exist unless you can describe it?

LLuc has a flat face and is only not in the human line because he is 12 million years old. With convergent evolution you realy have no idea past a wish list.

So you are saying that Lluc is transitional?

What separates beast from man is highly developed reasoning ability and perception, sophisticated language and an ability to perceive a God and pay homage to Him.

I am asking what morphological features a transitional would have. Why can't you answer this question?

I am not affraid of anything other than not wanting to get caught up in your convoluted wastes of time

Then just admit that you will reject any fossil as transitional because of your religious beliefs and we can be done with this discussion.

The common ansestor is becoming more and more human according to your fable.

Why is that a problem?

Your researchers cannot tell the difference between an orang and a human.

Um, yes they can.

Still waiting for your list of morphological criteria that you use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not.

The evidence supports creation . . .

Such as? Can you show evidence that these hominid species were magically poofed into being?

A wolf is still of the dog kind,

There are more differences between a great dane skull and a chihuahua skull than there are between an H. erecuts skull and a H. sapiens skull. Thanks for proving my point.

This is still an ape, with receeding forehead and looks nothing like something becoming human despite having a different shaped skull.

The forehead is actually intermediate between other apes and humans, making it transitional. Or are you saying that a transitional has to be 100% identical to humans? Why do you insist that a transitional would not have any ape features?

No I stopped participating when the point was clearly made, mostly by Greg1234, that ERVs mean nothing in relation to common descent.

I refuted every one of Greg's points. Sorry, you lose.

[qs]Show me an ape with half the human variation of the foxp2 genes that has been dated to around 45 thousand years.[/qs]

Modern humans were already around 45,000 years ago. The transitionals we are speaking of lived more than a million years before humans. Again, I am asking for MORPHOLOGICAL features.

ERVs are lifeless fragments that can equally be used to demonstrate no ancestry to apes eg PTERV1.

You have been shown that these are untrue on other forums, and yet you repeat them here. How surprising. PTERV1 insertions are not found at orthologous positions, something you ignore each and every time. You also ignore the source of ERV's, which is retroviral insertion. Your continuing refusal to address these points further demonstrates your dishonesty.

Jump over to the ERV thread and I will enjoy further demonstrating your ignorance of the topic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because the history of life prior to the Cambrian is far longer than either 5 million or 140 million years?

The point is that life had died out 20 million years prior to the Cambrian explosion. So it really doesn't matter if there was 100 billion years, the life die out and there is no evidence for it until the explosion.