Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[AV1611VET]

All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.

All humans are apes, but not all apes are humans.

So if a poodle acts like a dog, that's okay; but if a human acts like an ape, it's not okay?

 

[sandwiches]

So if a poodle acts like a dog, that's okay; but if a human acts like an ape, it's not okay?

But we do act like apes. We cannot act like anything else than what we are.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

You have few that are anything more than single bones.

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 have spoken to my criteria many times.

No, you haven't. All you have given us is straight denial without any idea of what a real transitional would look like.

You appear to be requesting more than you yourself can provide in being clear what's what.

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.

So what are your criteria?

Your Java man debarkle, Ardi and Lucy biting the dust etc etc are examples.

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?

Umm, You may not have realised that I am a creationist. Hence you are requesting that I provide a description of a mythical creature.

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?

You have over 100 years of changing theories and reclassifications.

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.

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."

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

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.

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?

Therefore the above data demonstrates Erectus is discontinuous (Baramins, previously discussed) with Mankind and outside the range of variability of humans.

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

The truth does not lie in anyones ability to answer every question.

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.

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.

Then you can not claim that these fossils are not transitional.

Because of evolutionists assumptions they have ended up in the mess they are currently in with virtually no direct human ancestors to speak to.

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

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.

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.

Apes are not capable of lighting fires and controlling them.

Actually, there is one species of ape that is capable of that. They are called humans. You should look into it.

If Ardi and Lucy are no longer direct human ancestors.

They never were. They are transtional, however. Do you understand the difference?

If Ardi and Lucy had the bipedalism your reseachers purported they had, then are some apes today likely descendant from bipedal apes?

There is at least one species that is closely related to those two species. That ape species is H. sapiens.

Do you accept the research re Ardi and Lucy not being human ancestors, I posted?

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?

What wildly non plausable scenario do you think your researchers will propose to mop up this mess?

The only mess here is your understanding of biology.

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.

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.

Also, wouldn't you expect a transitional to have a head with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features?

What about my point that a curved fingered, 3ft tall, ape that resembles a Bornean Orang left very human footprints.

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.

So there you have it, science as it supports creation.

Transitional fossils support creationism? Since when?

 

[AV1611VET]

But we do act like apes. We cannot act like anything else than what we are.

So no one should wonder why Klebold & Harris went bananas?

 

[Loudmouth]

So if a poodle acts like a dog, that's okay; but if a human acts like an ape, it's not okay?

A description of how humans act is a description of how one ape species acts. Humans are apes, so a description of a human is a description of an ape species.

 

[AV1611VET]

A description of how humans act is a description of how one ape species acts. Humans are apes, so a description of a human is a description of an ape species.

Is that a YES or a NO?

(I can tell I made a good point.)

 

[Loudmouth]

So no one should wonder why Klebold & Harris went bananas?

You went bananas a long time ago. Or was that Last Thursday, with all of those previous memories being magicked into our brains?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry apes building huts 1.7mya and apes leaving footprints 3.7mya after Ardi having chimp feet at 4.4mya are both examples of the non plausible.

Why?

Anything is possible, but an ape or half witted human will never build a hut no matter how many times you demonstrate it to them.

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

A curved fingered tree dweller 3ft tall never have left human footprints either, no matter how much they try to humanize afarensis in desperation.

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

Clearly there is evidence of fully functioning mankind present at the time of these apes, which should disprove evolution and give support to creationist paradigms.

Then show us a modern human fossil that dates to 3 million years before present.

 

[AV1611VET]

You went bananas a long time ago. Or was that Last Thursday, with all of those previous memories being magicked into our brains?

 

[Delphiki]

So no one should wonder why Klebold & Harris went bananas?

You're likening humans to some other species of ape. That's the mistake you're making. But, yes, I get your "joke".

 

[Loudmouth]

Is that a YES or a NO?

(I can tell I made a good point.)

Yes, humans act like apes because we are apes. What is so hard to understand?

Do we also act like mammals? Yep, sure do. Do we also act like vertebrates? Yep, we do that too.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is so hard to understand?

Why, when some go bananas, it's treated like a crime.

 

[Chalnoth]

Sorry apes building huts 1.7mya and apes leaving footprints 3.7mya after Ardi having chimp feet at 4.4mya are both examples of the non plausible.

*sigh*

1. This really is completely and utterly irrelevant to the overall picture of evolution.
2. The huts 1.7 mya are considered highly speculative, and many doubt they were actually huts.
3. Ape footprints 3.7 mya are no surprise whatsoever. Why is this even a point?

Clearly there is evidence of fully functioning mankind present at the time of these apes, which should disprove evolution and give support to creationist paradigms.

Only in your wildest dreams. The tools they made use of at that time were far simpler than those produced by the simplest human societies.

For example a curved fingered ape must have left these footprints no matter how ridiculous it sounds and the fact that they thought Lucy should still have apey like feet, because according to TOE humans could not possibly have been around 3.7mya to leave these footprints. So let's pretend she has near human feet, although we have found none, and flogg this off to the public as evidence for evolution!

You do realize that humans are apes too, right? That never quite seems to sink in. And yes, we do have Australopithecus foot bones:
Footprints to Fill: Scientific American

They may not match the apparent footprints (these findings are preliminary), so those footprints were probably made by a different though closely-related species.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why, when some go bananas, it's treated like a crime.

Because it is behavior that we do not like and want to see stopped, which is the very reason that members of other ape communities are punished. If a juvenile male gets out of line in a chimp community he pays the price, sometimes with his life.

 

[Chalnoth]

I see you still haven't bothered to learn how to quote. Apparently you refuse to learn lots of things.

Its a name change that alters the dating to fit your predetermined paradigm. GET IT!

*sigh* You are really really grasping at straws here.

Though I will admit I slightly misunderstood the claimed issue, it really doesn't matter. The boundary between the Jurassic and the Cretaceous is only known to within 4 million years. So when finding a group of fossils, if you can't reliably date them based upon higher or lower layers, it isn't too surprising to get the location off by a couple percent (which translates to a couple million years 146 million years ago).

Saying that a group of fossils fits in the span of time that spread from 151mya to 146mya vs. the span of time from 146mya to 140mya is hardly a complete rewriting of the fossil record. This is nothing whatsoever like finding a mammal in a pre-cambrian rock, which would mean getting the dating off by around 300 million years. It's not going to happen.

 

[Oncedeceived]

a) Where did he say that? What, specifically were his words, and what was the full context?
b) There were swarms of life that led up to the Cambrian.

a. Origins of Species pages 313-330 anyway in there somewhere. I tried to look it up online but couldn't find it.
b. Really and what do you have to back this up?

 

[Nathan Poe]

a. Origins of Species pages 313-330 anyway in there somewhere.

Should we expect to find it "in there somewhere"?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

a) Where did he say that? What, specifically were his words, and what was the full context?
b) There were swarms of life that led up to the Cambrian.

a. Origins of Species pages 313-330 anyway in there somewhere. I tried to look it up online but couldn't find it.
b. Really and what do you have to back this up?

After going through the book, I found nothing within pages 313-330. The earliest mention of the cambrian appears to be around here, is this what you were talking about perhaps?

ON THE SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF GROUPS OF ALLIED SPECIES IN THE LOWEST KNOWN FOSSILIFEROUS STRATA. There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Cambrian and Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Cambrian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, etc., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character.

He go's on about this topic for a while but concludes as follows.

The several difficulties here discussed, namely, that, though we find in our geological formations many links between the species which now exist and which formerly existed, we do not find infinitely numerous fine transitional forms closely joining them all together. The sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in our European formations, the almost entire absence, as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata, are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature. We see this in the fact that the most eminent palaeontologists, namely, Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande, Pictet, Falconer, E. Forbes, etc., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, etc., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But Sir Charles Lyell now gives the support of his high authority to the opposite side, and most geologists and palaeontologists are much shaken in their former belief. Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the geological record as a history of 591the world imperfectly kept and written in a changing dialect. Of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved, and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished or even disappear.

 

[Chalnoth]

a. Origins of Species pages 313-330 anyway in there somewhere. I tried to look it up online but couldn't find it.
b. Really and what do you have to back this up?

a) Fine, I'll look it up. Here it is:
Origin of Species : Chapter X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record : On the sudden appearance of groups of allied species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata by Charles Darwin @ Classic Reader

Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. Here we encounter a formidable objection; for it seems doubtful whether the earth, in a fit state for the habitation of living creatures, has lasted long enough. Sir W. Thompson concludes that the consolidation of the crust can hardly have occurred less than twenty or more than four hundred million years ago, but probably not less than ninety-eight or more than two hundred million years. These very wide limits show how doubtful the data are; and other elements may have hereafter to be introduced into the problem. Mr. Croll estimates that about sixty million years have elapsed since the Cambrian period, but this, judging from the small amount of organic change since the commencement of the Glacial epoch, appears a very short time for the many and great mutations of life, which have certainly occurred since the Cambrian formation; and the previous one hundred and forty million years can hardly be considered as sufficient for the development of the varied forms of life which already existed during the Cambrian period. It is, however, probable, as Sir William Thompson insists, that the world at a very early period was subjected to more rapid and violent changes in its physical conditions than those now occurring; and such changes would have tended to induce changes at a corresponding rate in the organisms which then existed.

A few things are clear here: first, he had no clue whatsoever that there might have been single-celled life, and had precious little knowledge as to how old the Earth actually was. This shouldn't be surprising if you know your history. But he did turn out to be correct that sixty million years is too short a time since the Cambrian, which was in reality closer to 500 million years ago. But he also suspected that at certain times, evolution may proceed more quickly than at other times, due to strong selective pressures.

b) Ediacara biota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oncedeceived]

After going through the book, I found nothing within pages 313-330. The earliest mention of the cambrian appears to be around here, is this what you were talking about perhaps?




He go's on about this topic for a while but concludes as follows.

Thank you for finding it.