- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,999
- 52,622
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
jerarquía anidadaYou 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...
No it won't. It simply means that airplanes helicopters and boats share a common ancestor.
Again, there is no limit to what random mutation can produce in an organism as per Darwinian doctrine.
Transitionals don't break the nested hierarchy in Darwinism.
An example was already given. No valid reason to go in circles was presented.
Species are within eco-systems
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}
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.
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.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.
You have totally missed the point. Lucy is not human, she is a 3.5ft ape, that left full sized human footprints.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.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.
Psuedopod, I have explained the difference between ape and man heaps.
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!
Can an evolutionist please explain how a mammal paw dated at 395 million years ago lines up with evolution?
These footprints predate tiktaalik by 20my . . .
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.Why can't Australopithecines leave human-like footprints?
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.
You making an assertion does not equal established fact, my dear.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.
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.
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.Paws belong to mammals and there is no escaping that fact either.
Such as? You wouldn't be referring to the apochryphal Creationist myth of Piltdown man, would you?Evolutionists are happy to put a full reconstruction and life story to a single bone,
Source?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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!
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?