Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Loudmouth]

Astridhere,

If you reject the fossils that have been proposed as being intermediate, then please tell us what criteria you are using to determine which fossils are intermediate and which are not. Also, please tell us what features a real transitional would have.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Random mutation.

If it is random why would it reappear?

 

[Incariol]

If it is random why would it reappear?

...why wouldn't it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

...why wouldn't it?

random does not have purpose.

 

[Incariol]

random does not have purpose.

No, it doesn't. That is because it is caused by a transcriptase inserting an incorrect base. Of course it doesn't have "purpose".

 

[Nathan Poe]

random does not have purpose.

Rolling a die is random -- so why is it so odd when you roll the same number twice?

 

[SkyWriting]

poodles = dogs
so
dogs=poodles

Unless you go back and take a remedial logic class?

I understand both the logical flaw and the reason you must avoid the question.

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

humans = apes
so
apes = human
unless there is some difference between the two?
​

All humans are apes, but not all apes are humans. Why is this so hard to understand? The nested hierarchy is one of the most basic concepts in biology, yet creationists continue to get it wrong.

It's clear as day. I'm just illustrating your avoidance of the question because answering my question would clarify your point....but it opposes your agenda and so must be ignored.

 

[Astridhere]

Astridhere,

If you reject the fossils that have been proposed as being intermediate, then please tell us what criteria you are using to determine which fossils are intermediate and which are not. I have! .and many here are going around in circles.You have few that are anything more than single bones. I have spoken to my criteria many times. You appear to be requesting more than you yourself can provide in being clear what's what. Your Java man debarkle, Ardi and Lucy biting the dust etc etc are examples. Maybe, perhaps and outlandish scenarios do not give any theory merit.Also, please tell us what features a real transitional would have. Umm, You may not have realised that I am a creationist. Hence you are requesting that I provide a description of a mythical creature. You have over 100 years of changing theories and reclassifications. How should I describe what a mythical creature should look like? Can you or should you have to describe God or Nephalim for evolutionary theory to be robust?.[/quote]

What is it about this description below that you and others keep missing?

"The stark and obvious difference between mankind and beast is not in the sharing of 4 similar limbs and a head. It is about mankinds highly sophisticated language, superior reasoning ability and perception including the ability to percieve of a Creator and pay homage to a God. No beast has the perceptual ability to give praise to God as only mankind was created in Gods image and given this privelidge."

Here is another. Extreme sexual dimorphism. Homo Erectus dispalys more primitive features than previously thought. Again more evidence that Erectus was a variety of ape, on top of all the ape features listed in this mornings post as well as Erectus' ape head.

New Kenyan Fossils Challenge Established Views On Early Evolution Of Our Genus Homo



Therefore the above data demonstrates Erectus is discontinuous (Baramins, previously discussed) with Mankind and outside the range of variability of humans. The truth does not lie in anyones ability to answer every question. The truth more likely lies in the plausability of possibilities put forward and how they may align with or explain the evidence. I do not need to best guess what the first created ape looked like and you have no idea what the chimp/human common ancestor looked like either. This is your mistake to make unvalidated assumptions that build theories of straw that tumble quickly. Because of evolutionists assumptions they have ended up in the mess they are currently in with virtually no direct human ancestors to speak to. Do not expect me to make similar mistakes by basing criteria on unnecessary assumptions. It is foley.

An example of foley below. Out of Africa..going going gone, and dating methods as clear as mud.

Human ancestor older than previously thought; Finding offers new insights into evolution

It is not about which researcher is right or wrong. It is about your irrefutable evidence for common descent and dating methods being as clear as mud.

Apes are not capable of lighting fires and controlling them. There were no lighters or matches then. It is a complex task that relates to cognitive ability as described above.

I note you conveniently evaded the points I made by posing more questions.

If Ardi and Lucy are no longer direct human ancestors. If Ardi and Lucy had the bipedalism your reseachers purported they had, then are some apes today likely descendant from bipedal apes?

Do you accept the research re Ardi and Lucy not being human ancestors, I posted? If not, please refute it and your own researchers as best you can?

What wildly non plausable scenario do you think your researchers will propose to mop up this mess? I say that if these creatures were bipedal it is possible that the first created ape was somewhat more bipedal before the fall. Then again, if this is recanted, they go back to simply being varieties of apes.

What about my point that these supposed half ape heads, Erectus, worked out how to use flint stone or stick rubbing... did they? I say this is a wild scenario born of desperation as erectus did not have the perceptive ability to light and control fire.

What about my point that a curved fingered, 3ft tall, ape that resembles a Bornean Orang left very human footprints. What say you? Apart from this being another far fetched scenario, I say it demonstrates that mankind and apes coexisted and that's about all.

Ancient footprints show human-like walking began nearly 4 million years ago

So there you have it, science as it supports creation. OR Non plausable philosophies, unfalsifiable theories and scenarios about how the evidence for creation is meant to support evolution.

The evidence clearly supports the creation as it stands, as I have demonstrated. This is science, ...not evolutionists wild and fantastic scenarios proposed to side step the falsification of the theory of common descent.

.

 

[Chalnoth]

If it is random why would it reappear?

Reappear? We're not talking about anything reappearing. We're talking about an old mechanism being used for a different purpose.

 

[Chalnoth]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

humans = apes
so
apes = human
unless there is some difference between the two?
​

It's clear as day. I'm just illustrating your avoidance of the question because answering my question would clarify your point....but it opposes your agenda and so must be ignored.

He did answer your question: it's a bad question. There is a category of animals, defined by a set of common shared characteristics, called apes. These animals each have their own individual characteristics that make them individually unique. All chimpanzees are apes, not all apes are chimpanzees. All humans are apes, not all apes are humans.

 

[Psudopod]

This question, Psudopod, has been asked so many times adnauseum that I do not know why I keep speaking to it.

It's asked so many times because even though creationists assert humans are not apes, none of them ever demonstrate why this is the case. And until you give a satisfactory answer, I'm going to carry on asking you. After all, if it's so obvious, it shouldn't be hard, surely?

I have said there is no use trying to use comparisons to a creature you have no idea of what it looks like. Evolutionists use presumptions all the time and look where it gets you.

But we're not, are we? The definition of ape is strictly defined. You say humans fail to meet this criteria, but yet you have yet to demonstrate what part of that criteria we do not meet.

The stark and obvious difference between mankind and beast is not in the sharing of 4 similar limbs and a head. It is about mankinds highly sophisticated language, superior reasoning ability and perception including the ability to percieve of a Creator and pay homage to a God. No beast has the perceptual ability to give praise to God as only mankind was created in Gods image and given this privelidge.

Many animals have a degree of language use. Look into Washu the chimp for example. Humans have the most sophisticated use of language, but we are not the only one with any use. Much like every trait, there is a degree of specialisation. Our sense of smell is poor, other animals are much better equipped that we are. Same with sight, hearing, endurance, speed etc. Thinking is just what humans are good at. As for whether other animals perceive a creator, how would you know? Just because they don't build churches doesn't mean that if there is a creator other creatures don't worship Him in their own way. Claiming to know the mind of every creature in the world is a little conceited, isn't it?

 

[Astridhere]

It's asked so many times because even though creationists assert humans are not apes, none of them ever demonstrate why this is the case. And until you give a satisfactory answer, I'm going to carry on asking you. After all, if it's so obvious, it shouldn't be hard, surely?

I have spoken to the differences umpteen times, and at length, including yesterday and the day before. ...and YES, the differences are obvious. None of these replies of yours even mention my assertion of discontinuity due to lack of sophisticated language, higher reasoning ability and perception. In what language would you like me to repeat it in? You are trying to deflect out of desperation, a common evolutionists ploy when they are gobsmacked.

I also have no obligation to provide what any evolutionist would consider 'satisfactory', particularly given you have no satisfactory theory that does not evoke the non plausible.

You also have ignored the fact that you do not have to describe nephalim from an opposing view as a basis for evoluion. You are trying to divert atention fron the fact that you have no idea how to speak to my points that demonstrate science in favour of creation.

You are not only going to keep asking me to repeat this you are going to keep ignoring my reply and the fact that the evidence is more supportive of a creationist paradigm.

But we're not, are we? The definition of ape is strictly defined. You say humans fail to meet this criteria, but yet you have yet to demonstrate what part of that criteria we do not meet.

The definition of ape is one derived and defined on the presumption of ancestry then applied as are your classification systems. Please see my reply below demonstrating your researchers have no clue!.

Many animals have a degree of language use. Look into Washu the chimp for example. Humans have the most sophisticated use of language, but we are not the only one with any use. Much like every trait, there is a degree of specialisation. Our sense of smell is poor, other animals are much better equipped that we are. Same with sight, hearing, endurance, speed etc. Thinking is just what humans are good at.and what they require to be in the image of God. As for whether other animals perceive a creator, how would you know? I have never seen my dog praying!
The point is, as you conceded, humans have sophisticted language alone as well as higher reasoning capability, both requirements necessary to communicate with God, understand His Law, discern right from wrong, and pay Him homage. This is the most reliable and distinguishing feature that separates mankind from beast. Mankind alone is created in the image of God.

Just because they don't build churches doesn't mean that if there is a creator other creatures don't worship Him in their own way. Claiming to know the mind of every creature in the world is a little conceited, isn't it? No I am not conceited to think that an ape cannot worship God. What I have is common sense and a dislike for outrageous scenarios proferred that are obviously non plausible. I think you are trying to strain ridiculous asides in desperation. Again, you may split hairs as much as you like however chimps and other primates, cannot give glory to God nor understand God, nor understand religious requirements, nor work out how to use flintstone to light fires!

Perhaps you are a little behind the status quo of your theories around evolution. Here is a good place to start. Wiki speaks in reflection of the body of knowledge that evolutionists have found in their fossil research and molecular clocks dating.

Australopithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I tried to see what answers were out there from an evolutionary standpoint to my points that support creation and are refuted by wild and non plausible evolutionary scenarios. I found a truly vague and contradictory state of affairs.

I have spoken to the fall of Lucy and Ardi, which you have ignored and taken no stance. Wiki also reflects this conundrum. Homo Erectus, it appears, is seriously being challenged as the ancestor of homo sapiens. Scientists are postulating eragaster, and are seeing Turkana Boy as eragaster, conveniently, as well. He can be both it appears, whatever flavour of the month is.


Here is more evidence below that speaks to the confusion of evolutionary fossil evidence.


"According to the Chimpanzee Genome Project, both human (Ardipithecus, Australopithecus and Homo) and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus) lineages diverged from a common ancestor about 5 to 6 million years ago, if we assume a constant rate of evolution. It is theoretically more likely for evolution to happen more slowly, as opposed to more quickly, from the date suggested by a gene clock (the result of which is given as a "youngest common ancestor", i.e., the latest possible date of diversion.) However, hominins discovered more recently are somewhat older than the molecular clock would theorize. Sahelanthropus tchadensis, commonly called "Toumai" is about 7 million years old and Orrorin tugenensis lived at least 6 million years ago. Since little is known of them, they remain controversial among scientists since the molecular clock in humans has determined that humans and chimpanzees had an evolutionary split at least a million years later. One theory suggests that the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged somewhat at first, then some populations interbred around one million years after diverging"


Here again is a non plausable scenario invented to side step falsifiying evolutionary theory.



"Sahelanthropus may represent a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees; no consensus has been reached yet by the scientific community. The original placement of this species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor would complicate the picture of human phylogeny. In particular, if Toumaï is a direct human ancestor, then its facial features bring the status of Australopithecus into doubt because its thickened brow ridges were reported to be similar to those of some later fossil hominids (notably Homo erectus), whereas this morphology differs from that observed in all australopithecines, most fossil hominids and extant humans."
Sahelanthropus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There are a plethora of scenarios presented in the article, and with cited research, to try to address your dilemma. However a contradictory dilemma it remains. Again non plausible scenarios are offered like 1my of speciation and then interbreeding. Your proposed evidence for evolution is no more robust than flavour of the month being offered up as irrefutable evidence for evolution, until next week.

You have Ardi at 4.4myo found with ape feet, then Selam with defined curved fingers at 3.3mya, demonstrating she was arboreal and also human footprints dated in between. So in under 1my (around 700,000 years) ape feet evolved' into human feet, did they? Not plausible. This is on the backdrop scenario that some apes 7mya remained apart for 1my of speciation and still were able to successfully interbreed, meaning they had not speciated at all really.


What you have are footprints dated 3.6myo and older. You have an ape, australopithicus afarensis at 3.3myo. You have Selam, that has curved fingers at 3 years old, meaning she was arboreal, as the curvature become defined in the ape fingers once the child starts climbing! These are obviously apes misrepresented and humanized in desperation. This is the only plausible explanation.

This is definitive evidence for mankind being here around 3.6mya according to your dating methods, while your supposed intermediates were still apes. You have found other apes that predate the human footprint. Clearly apes were created and then mankind was created independently, and this is supported by the evidence.

Creation=Science, Evolution=Philosophy.

 

[Chalnoth]

Uncertainty about the precise details of where Lucy fits in our family tree really doesn't place any doubt whatsoever on the theory of evolution. Your objection here might as well be saying that because some things fall faster than others, our theory of gravity must be wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Reappear? We're not talking about anything reappearing. We're talking about an old mechanism being used for a different purpose.

I don't know if you understand the implications of this discovery. This is a very complex mechanism that was thought to have only been present in land plants. This finding puts nearly one billion years of evolutionary history in a completely different light.

If lignin was indeed attributed to a common ancestor over a billion years ago, that means that something that is suppose to be very simplistic and relatively in the first stages of evolution as responsible for the lignin for both the green and red algae.

The genetic history is buried deep, a billion years or more. So yes, it is reappearing if it just pops up that long after the fact.

 

[Oncedeceived]

...why wouldn't it?

Have you read up on this finding? This is not just a simple atavism or vestigial traits. This goes back as far as a billion years ago. There are only a few evolutionary explanations for this. Each have certain problems.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's because no one had observed lignin in algae before. Now they have.



Are you saying that, in algae, lignin is a vestigial feature?

It would have to be atavism or vestigial, or convergent, or evolved independently. The problem is that this trait would have been present in the simplest organisms, the mechanism for this is very complex.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Rolling a die is random -- so why is it so odd when you roll the same number twice?

I am sure that you feel evolution can do anything it wants as long as you can make up some purpose or need for it to occur. The problem with your analogy is that this is much more complex than simply rolling dice. The mechanism for this example is very complex, the study claims that the algae involved diverged over a billion years ago.

There are only a few ways that this could occur. It is a certainty that using the evolutionary model, the common ancestor for the two algae would have had to be a very simply organism. That causes a serious problem due to the complexity of the mechanics. A primitive organism would, according to ToE would not be able to be this complex. Another possibility is that they evolved independently which the scientists are not wanting to even consider. The other is convergent and there are a set of new problems with that.

So rolling dice is pitifully simple compared to the actual processes for this to happen.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I am sure that you feel evolution can do anything it wants as long as you can make up some purpose or need for it to occur.

I can see your confusion -- you like treating evolution as some sort of intelligent process with a specific goal in mind.

The problem with your analogy is that this is much more complex than simply rolling dice. The mechanism for this example is very complex, the study claims that the algae involved diverged over a billion years ago.

So how is being more complex a problem?

There are only a few ways that this could occur. It is a certainty that using the evolutionary model, the common ancestor for the two algae would have had to be a very simply organism. That causes a serious problem due to the complexity of the mechanics. A primitive organism would, according to ToE would not be able to be this complex.

Why not?

Another possibility is that they evolved independently which the scientists are not wanting to even consider. The other is convergent and there are a set of new problems with that.

Are any of these problems insurmountable?

So rolling dice is pitifully simple compared to the actual processes for this to happen.

And yet the basic premise is the same -- random events can still repeat themselves; you haven't shown how they couldn't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I can see your confusion -- you like treating evolution as some sort of intelligent process with a specific goal in mind.

Actually, I was thinking that was more what you were doing.

So how is being more complex a problem?

One billion years ago was before the Cambrian and complex life forms.

Why not?

It doesn't work.

Are any of these problems insurmountable?

Well do you mean is it going to falsify evolution, no, evolution is not falsifiable.



And yet the basic premise is the same -- random events can still repeat themselves; you haven't shown how they couldn't.[/quote]

It depends on the event.