Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[AV1611VET]

You think that's the nested hierarchy he's talking about??

No wonder you don't get anything about evolution and talk about tornadoes, airplanes, and cars...

jerarquía anidada

 

[Loudmouth]

No it won't. It simply means that airplanes helicopters and boats share a common ancestor.

So after each lineage split off, which features developed in each lineage?

Again, there is no limit to what random mutation can produce in an organism as per Darwinian doctrine.

But there is a limit for the spread of each mutation, and that limit is the species boundary. That's the whole point. Mutations stay in lineages unlike changes in vehicles.

Transitionals don't break the nested hierarchy in Darwinism.

Transitionals can break the nested hierarchy. The theory of evolution makes predictions on which transitionals you should and should NOT see. A dino-bird transitional is predicted by the theory, but a mammal-bird transitional is not. Dinosaurian features in a bird does not break the nested hierarchy because birds are a division of dinosaurs. Hominid features in an ape do not break the nested hierarchy because hominids are apes. However, a species with feathers and mammary glands would break the nested hierarchy. Do you understand this or not?

An example was already given. No valid reason to go in circles was presented.

No, it wasn't. You never gave an example of how cars fall into nested hierarchies. You never even gave two major divisions, and explained the shared and derived characteristics. Just take 3 cars and show me what groups they fall into and the characteristics you used to group them.

Species are within eco-systems

We are talking about nested hierarchies and how animals fall into a nested hierarchy when you group them by shared and derived characteristics. Please focus.

 

[USincognito]

A nested hierarchy is produced when there is an addition upon a previous feature whereby sub-groups contain all the features of the previous plus novel installments.
For example-
{snip}

Why don't you do the same with body styles and then show me how truck lineage and the sedan lineage are not violated by the Chevy El Camino or the Holden Ute.

 

[Astridhere]

We don't need faith. We have evidence.

Also, humans do produce ape footprints, being that we are apes.

You have totally missed the point. Lucy is not human, she is a 3.5ft ape, that left full sized human footprints. So therein lies the non plausible scenario required to turn evidence of mankind dwelling alongside our supposed ancestors into an evolutionary muddle.

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
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

Do not forget you guys are trying to put normal sized human feet on a curved fingered 3.5 foot ape. Sorry darls...that is ridiculous

There are many such articles that are now suggesting this ape evolutionists tried so hard with all their might to humanize is likely not even in the human line.

So you are saying that a transitional between us and our common ancestor with other apes should be identical to modern humans? Really?
Talk about misrepresentation!!!!! You do not have any intermediates. Even your homo erectus is about to bite the dust as a human ancestor.

http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-ergaster/
Human ancestor older than previously thought; Finding offers new insights into evolution

Your best example is Turkana Boy and he has an ape head. small neural canal, lacked sophisticated language. This ape is classed as ergaster or erectus. Further to that you lot have no idea what the first ape looked like so you actually have no comparison for which to compare any specimen with. You do not know if the first ape had shorter arms that lengthened whilst 'evolving' knucklewalking etc.

In the link you will see that it have been proven almost beyond doubt that erectus was not the ancestor of mankind. So effectively you have few direct human ancestors to speak to, just a stack of fossil fragments and skulls that have been sidelined to relatives


Why can't a hominid transitional have curved fingers? Please explain.

You have made a monster of an ape. A 3.5ft ape is not going to leave full sized human footprints and only a dill would ever entertain such a notion. I am not a dill.

Then why can't we find a single modern human fossil that dates to that time period?

You have found evidence via footprints that mankind co existed with afarensis. You need to deal with it.

It is not philosophica at all. The pelvis and femurs of Australopithecines is very much like ours, consistent with bipedalism. So why shouldn't they leave footprints like ours?
Yes you are right. I called evolution philosophical instead of being rude and saying it is a fairytale based on ridiculous non plausible scenarios to save itself
The only philosophy that we see here is your dogmatic religious philosophy. It requires you to reject any evidence that fossils are transitional. There is no fossil we could ever show you that you would accept as transitional. Creationism is blind faith, a blindness that requires you to look away from the evidence.
Actually it is your own evo researchers that have thrown evolution into a disaray. As you see the research I use is primarily from evolutionary researchers.

Many very good Christians believe in TOE.

However, if evolutionists want to think that a 3.5ft anything left full sized human footprints I'd say they are the religious nuts, not I. The religion being the philosophy of TOE.

Further, if you think that a half witted creature devoid of sophisticated language and higher reasoning capability could build stone huts I again assert that it is evolutionists that are the religious nuts.

And more importantly mammal footprints dated to nearly 400 million years means evolution is falsified.

.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100106/full/news.2010.1.html

This clearly defined pawprint looks just like a bear pawprint and disproves evolution as it is 395myo. Paws are found in mammals. It must have taken huge skills in ignorance for evo researchers to ignore the obvious.

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Many very good Christians believe in TOE.

However, if evolutionists want to think that a 3.5ft anything left full sized human footprints I'd say they are the religious nuts, not I. The religion being the philosophy of TOE.

Further, if you think that a half witted creature devoid of sophisticated language and higher reasoning capability could build stone huts I again assert that it is evolutionists that are the religious nuts.

And more importantly mammal footprints dated to nearly 400 million years means evolution is falsified.

.

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

This clearly defined pawprint looks just like a bear pawprint and disproves evolution as it is 395myo. Paws are found in mammals. It must have taken huge skills in ignorance for evo researchers to ignore the obvious.

Unless, of course, you're wrong. It is your assertion alone that the print was made by a paw, by a mammal. Known tetrapods of that era have been used used to estimate what such footprints might look like (such as here), and then we discovered actual 350+ million year old tetrapod footprints which correlate to tetrapod footprints. Not mammals, but ancestral tetrapods.

The controversy surrounding these prints is not that they show a mammal print - they don't - but that the prints themselves are of dubious authenticity. While the finder maintains they're that of a large tetrapod (notice that he doesn't call it a mammal), others are sceptical that they're anything other than natural depression or cavitation.

But please, go on posting these reactionary and sloppy citations. It just makes it easier for us to point out where you are making your many mistakes.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have totally missed the point. Lucy is not human, she is a 3.5ft ape, that left full sized human footprints.

No, Lucy left Lucy footprints which are nearly identical to modern humans.

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

That doesn't change the fact that Australopithecines are transitional. You do understand the difference between transitional and ancestral, do you not?

Do not forget you guys are trying to put normal sized human feet on a curved fingered 3.5 foot ape. Sorry darls...that is ridiculous

Why is it ridiculous? Why can't a fossil have human-like feet and curved fingers?

Why can't a transitional have curved fingers? Are you saying that a transitional has to be indentical to modern humans in every way?

Loudmouth: So you are saying that a transitional between us and our common ancestor with other apes should be identical to modern humans? Really?

Astridhere: Talk about misrepresentation!!!!! You do not have any intermediates. Even your homo erectus is about to bite the dust as a human ancestor.

Notice how you didn't answer my question? I guess I will have to repeat it.

Are you saying that a transitional should be identical to modern humans? If not, please list the differences that a transitional hominid fossil should have.

You have made a monster of an ape. A 3.5ft ape is not going to leave full sized human footprints and only a dill would ever entertain such a notion. I am not a dill.

You have found evidence via footprints that mankind co existed with afarensis. You need to deal with it.

What we have is human-like footprints with no modern humans around to make them. This indicates that they are from the other human-like species, such as the Australopithecines.

Why isn't a 3.5 foot ape (which humans are also apes) going to leave human-like footprints? You still haven't explained this.

Also, I asked why a transitional can not have curved fingers, and you completely ignored the question.

Loudmouth: It is not philosophica at all. The pelvis and femurs of Australopithecines is very much like ours, consistent with bipedalism. So why shouldn't they leave footprints like ours?

Astridhere: Yes you are right. I called evolution philosophical instead of being rude and saying it is a fairytale based on ridiculous non plausible scenarios to save itself

Again, why can't you answer my questions with straight answers? You want to claim that evolution is a philosophy, and yet you answer scientific questions with ridicule. Hmm, I wonder who is the one being guided by religious dogmatic philosophy?

Further, if you think that a half witted creature devoid of sophisticated language and higher reasoning capability could build stone huts I again assert that it is evolutionists that are the religious nuts.

Then they must not have been as half witted as you think. That ever cross your mind?

And more importantly mammal footprints dated to nearly 400 million years means evolution is falsified.

No, there isn't. How you can ignore all of the human features in H. erectus and claim it is not human while insisting that the print comes from a mammal is beyond me.

 

[Psudopod]

Astridhere - what part of the criteria for apes do humans not meet?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Subscribing

 

[Chalnoth]

Subscribing

Just fyi, you can do that by going to "thread tools" near the top of the page.

 

[Astridhere]

Psuedopod, I have explained the difference between ape and man heaps. Go back and take a look. Hint ..apes do not have sophisticated language, nor higher reasoning capability, nor do they build stone huts, nor do they understand the complex task of fire lighting, nor do 3.5ft apes leave full sized human footprints. Deal with it!

More importantly deal with this....

Can an evolutionist please explain how a mammal paw dated at 395 million years ago lines up with evolution?

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

All the debate about anything appears to be fruitless if mammals were around 395mya, rather than appearing around 220mya.

These footprints predate tiktaalik by 20my and demonstrate a clearly defined paw print, similar to a bear.

Rather, this is evidence that a creature similar to a bear roamed the earth 395mya, around 100my after the Cambrian. This is evidence that is supportive of the instant creation of animal life, with no time for evolution to do its thing.

I believe evolution has been adequately falsified with this evidence and all other debates as to the veracity of any evolutionary support are void.

Creation=Science Evolution=Philosophy

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Psuedopod, I have explained the difference between ape and man heaps. Go back and take a look. Hint ..apes do not have sophisticated language, nor higher reasoning capability, nor do they build stone huts, nor do they understand the complex task of fire lighting, nor do 3.5ft apes leave full sized human footprints. Deal with it!

More importantly deal with this....

Can an evolutionist please explain how a mammal paw dated at 395 million years ago lines up with evolution?

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

All the debate about anything appears to be fruitless if mammals were around 395mya, rather than appearing around 220mya.

These footprints predate tiktaalik by 20my and demonstrate a clearly defined paw print, similar to a bear.

Rather, this is evidence that a creature similar to a bear roamed the earth 395mya, around 100my after the Cambrian. This is evidence that is supportive of the instant creation of animal life, with no time for evolution to do its thing.

I believe evolution has been adequately falsified with this evidence and all other debates as to the veracity of any evolutionary support are void.

Fortunately, you are not arbiter over the truth. The simple fact is, these footprints are not mammalian. It's not even established that they were created by an animal at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Psuedopod, I have explained the difference between ape and man heaps.

Why do differences between humans and other apes preclude them from sharing a common ancestor?

There are differences between chihuahuas and great danes. Does this mean that chihuahuas and great danes do not share a common ancestor?

Hint ..apes do not have sophisticated language, nor higher reasoning capability, nor do they build stone huts, nor do they understand the complex task of fire lighting, nor do 3.5ft apes leave full sized human footprints. Deal with it!

Why can't Australopithecines leave human-like footprints? You still haven't explained this. You still haven't supported your claim that H. erectus was not intelligent enough to build stone huts. There are tons of stone tools associated with H. erectus, so I really don't see why piling stones on top of each other would be that difficult for H. erectus.

Can an evolutionist please explain how a mammal paw dated at 395 million years ago lines up with evolution?

That's not a mammal paw print.

These footprints predate tiktaalik by 20my . . .

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."
--Charles Darwin, Chapter 6, Origin of Species

Darwin refuted your argument 150 years ago.

 

[Chalnoth]

Why can't Australopithecines leave human-like footprints?

I think she's hung up on the "full sized" part, not realizing that typically when we leave footprints, especially in soft earth, we leave footprints much larger than our feet, because we don't step straight up and down.

 

[Astridhere]

Fortunately, you are not arbiter over the truth. The simple fact is, these footprints are not mammalian. It's not even established that they were created by an animal at all.

Well it is good to see this is the best an evolutionists can come up with.

The footprint, my dear, looks like a paw print and one does not need to be a scientist to see it for themselves.

Paws belong to mammals and there is no escaping that fact either.

Evolutionists are happy to put a full reconstruction and life story to a single bone, yet are content ignoring the hard and inescapable facts of their own science.

The footprints are verified via compression and could not have been made by nature.

I maintain, not omly are the footprints mammal footprints they are bear footprints. What one can even see depressions alike the back and front paw.

This is the evidence I have been waiting for. Bears do not share a common ancestor with a seal at all. They were alive and well 395 million years ago and 20my older than the famous tiktaalik.

It is typical for ignorance to raise it's nasty head when evolutionists are faced with hard facts where the best they can do is ignore and deny it.

These are mammalian footprints, lovey. Why? Because they look just like paw prints and a creationist doesn't need to get out their algorithms, tape measures and fancy nonsense to see it.

Evolution has been falsified and ignoring the evidence will not make it go away.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Well it is good to see this is the best an evolutionists can come up with.

The footprint, my dear, looks like a paw print and one does not need to be a scientist to see it for themselves.

You making an assertion does not equal established fact, my dear.
Say that I do not think they look like pawprints at all and assert they arent, now what?

But ofcourse it is not uncommon for a creationist to decide their personal judgement is superiour to that of every expert working in whatever field they are trying to deface.

Regardless that their only 'training' is reading genesis 1, and they cannot even describe what criteria of ape humans fail to meet.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well it is good to see this is the best an evolutionists can come up with.

The footprint, my dear, looks like a paw print and one does not need to be a scientist to see it for themselves.

Paws belong to mammals and there is no escaping that fact either.

Indeed, but paw-like structures exist in other animals. Only mammals have hair, but bees have hair-like structures - and I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference from a .jpg of an impression in mud.

Evolutionists are happy to put a full reconstruction and life story to a single bone,

Such as? You wouldn't be referring to the apochryphal Creationist myth of Piltdown man, would you?

yet are content ignoring the hard and inescapable facts of their own science.

The footprints are verified via compression and could not have been made by nature.

Source?

I maintain, not omly are the footprints mammal footprints they are bear footprints. What one can even see depressions alike the back and front paw.

This is the evidence I have been waiting for. Bears do not share a common ancestor with a seal at all. They were alive and well 395 million years ago and 20my older than the famous tiktaalik.

It is typical for ignorance to raise it's nasty head when evolutionists are faced with hard facts where the best they can do is ignore and deny it.

You showed a series of tracks that, at first glance, are mammalian. At a closer look, they're not mammalian at all. You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that they're mammalian - only your gut instinct. And, luckily for the rest of the world, we don't base scientific conclusions on our gut instincts.

These are mammalian footprints, lovey. Why? Because they look just like paw prints and a creationist doesn't need to get out their algorithms, tape measures and fancy nonsense to see it.

Classic. "It looks roughly like a paw, therefore it IS a paw!" You even admit that you Creationists don't even go out and check your hypotheses - you just stick gung-ho to whatever first impression you get.

We once thought there was life on Mars because seasonal ice changes looked like crop plantation. We were wrong, and we modified our theories accordingly. But by your logic, we should still believe in life on Mars because, ahem "a creationist doesn't need to get out their algorithms, tape measures and fancy nonsense".

Nope, first impressions are all a Creationists needs to make conclusions. Those silly evolutionists and their facts and measurements, their quantified results and verifiable data - why bother with all that when you can show a fuzzy picture to a Creationist?

 

[Astridhere]

I think she's hung up on the "full sized" part, not realizing that typically when we leave footprints, especially in soft earth, we leave footprints much larger than our feet, because we don't step straight up and down.

Can everyone see the non plausible rationale and the scurry to fit data in with evolution. Get your tape measures and scans out and start rationalizing. The footprints, are those of either 2 adults or an adult and a child, suggest your scientists. They are only attributed to afarensis because that was the human species in the human line around at the time. As I have also demonstrated afarensis is being challenged as a human ancestor as is Ardi.

Ardi at 4.4myo had ape feet. You do not have to guess this fact as feet were found with this fossil. In around 700,000 years...pooof...human feet are found on a creature that was 3.5ft tall, had curved ape fingers and an ape brain. This is a faniciful non plausible scenario that does not give any theory merit at all. Rather it displays the desperate lengths that evolutionary scientists are prepared to go to in propping up any explanation with straws.

Up until this find your scientists believed bipedal walking evolved 2my later, likely in erectus. Erectus is also being challenged as a direct human ancestor. Stone huts close to 2myo have been attributed to this creature with a lack of sophisticated language demonstrated by a small neural canal also indicating a lack of grey brain matter and a lack of high funtioning reasoning ability. This is yet another possible but non plausible scenario to save TOE. The evidence plainly and clearly suggests modern mankind was alive a well when Afarensis and erectus roamed the earth.

It does not matter anyway, as evolution has been falsified by mammal footprints 395myo. All your arguments, all the data gleened from algorithms and based on current classifications are based on inaccurate insertion values and can only be erraneous and invalid. All the hierarchies are nonsense, all the DNA comparisons between kinds are flawed as mammals dated to this date have not been included in the algorithms.

I can back all of what I claim with evidence from your own biased research. Your refute and others are based on non substantiated opinion. One would have to be blind not see the obvious and clear paw prints, that align with the back and front paw prints of a bear in the photograph.

The bear did not share a common ancestor with a seal, nor does a hippo share a common ancestor with a whale, nor did birds evolve from dinosaurs, nor did mankind evolve from an ape, because mammals were alive and well according to your dating methods 395mya and predate the lot.

Evolution has been falsified yet again, and will require more outlandish non plausible scenarios like 'a clearly defined paw print is not a paw print at all because we said so", to keep a theory without merit alive.

The sad fact for evolutionists is that science supports a creationist paradigm, and only non plausible scenarios and invalid science supports evolution.

Creation=Science, Evolution=Philosophy.

 

[Astridhere]

I think she's hung up on the "full sized" part, not realizing that typically when we leave footprints, especially in soft earth, we leave footprints much larger than our feet, because we don't step straight up and down.

Calnoth you need to have a word with your researchers who say the footprints belong to 2 adults or an adult and a child. They are full sized human foorprints.

While you continue to try to place human feet on afarensis do not forget they are being challenged as direct human ancestors as is Ardi.

Trying to place human feet on a 3.5ft, ape brained, curved fingered creature is truly entertaining and a great display of wildly non-plausible scenarios put up to save a theory without merit.

I have placed mammals at 395 million years ago. The paw print is as plain as day and is validated by required and apparent compresion as verification. It will take a mighty display of ignorance and convoluted non-plausible scenarios to deny it.

Creation=Science, Evolution=Philosophy based on non plausible scenarios.

 

[Psudopod]

suedopod, I have explained the difference between ape and man heaps. Go back and take a look. Hint ..apes do not have sophisticated language, nor higher reasoning capability, nor do they build stone huts, nor do they understand the complex task of fire lighting, nor do 3.5ft apes leave full sized human footprints. Deal with it!

Yet again you try to describe a difference between humans and other apes, yet again you fail to answer the question. It really is quite sad that you do not understand the difference. If you do but cannot answer the question, why not just admit it?

 

[Astridhere]

Indeed, but paw-like structures exist in other animals. Only mammals have hair, but bees have hair-like structures - and I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference from a .jpg of an impression in mud.

Which animals that are not mammals have paws? Regardless, paws are aligned with mammals and what is found is a paw with not a word from these researchers to speak to it as if ignorance is going to save the day
Such as? You wouldn't be referring to the apochryphal Creationist myth of Piltdown man, would you?
I am talking about the majority of your fossil evidence being chards and single bones being reconstructed. If you are not aware of this just say so and I will give you stacks of examples.

Source?
Read the link I supplied and stop asking for the same evidence over and over

You showed a series of tracks that, at first glance, are mammalian. At a closer look, they're not mammalian at all. You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that they're mammalian - only your gut instinct. And, luckily for the rest of the world, we don't base scientific conclusions on our gut instincts.
Oh gobble...what do you mean on a closer look? I have produced evidence they are mammalian because paws belong primarily to mammals and clearly there is a paw print. So it is you that will be grabbing at straws to suggest they are anything else and it is only desperation and blind faith that would make any sighted person suggest they were anything else. These footprints do not just look similar to a bear foot print, they look exactly like bear footprints..

Classic. "It looks roughly like a paw, therefore it IS a paw!" You even admit that you Creationists don't even go out and check your hypotheses - you just stick gung-ho to whatever first impression you get.
Oh what a classic joke! You take a few scattered bones and construct a creature that looks like a crocodile and call it ambulocetus natans and a whale intermediate, then have the hide to to ridicule a creationist suggesting a paw print is just what it appears to be. Is this what evolution does to your brain?
We once thought there was life on Mars because seasonal ice changes looked like crop plantation. We were wrong, and we modified our theories accordingly. But by your logic, we should still believe in life on Mars because, ahem "a creationist doesn't need to get out their algorithms, tape measures and fancy nonsense".
We are not taliking about life on Mars. Desperation is apparent
Nope, first impressions are all a Creationists needs to make conclusions. Those silly evolutionists and their facts and measurements, their quantified results and verifiable data - why bother with all that when you can show a fuzzy picture to a Creationist?
This silly creationist was bright enough to totally falsify evolution...deal with it as you have nothing more than your opinion to put forward and you have not produced one chard of evidence in your defence

All you have offered in refute is your unsubstantiated opinion which is valueless when comparitively, I actually have produced evidence to back my claim.

I have produced a photograph of a clearly defined paw print that looks just like a bears with accompanying paw prints that resemble the back and front paws. The footprints are dated by your researchers at 395mya. It is deperate folly on your part to suggest that this evidence is not just what it appear to be and will take the convolutions of non plausible scenarios and good deal of ignorance to turn this into evidence for evolution.

For a start you can throw your famous tiktaalic in the garbage bin of delusionary irrefuteable evidence for evolution along with the death of LUCA with HGT, dino to bird, human knuckle walking ancestry, brain size tied to bipedalism, junk DNA, the rise of paws in carnivora, and so much more.

I have produced evidence. You have produced opinion. On the basis of that...I win, and evolution remains falsified.