Evolution: What The Fossils Say

[mark kennedy]

You mean like the Leakey's?

The Leakeys uncovered some impressive fossils but many of the things they deduced from them are highly questionable. I always willing to hear people out and Louis Leaky's 'Latest News From Oldovia Gorge', was something I took a very serious look at. I still don't buy the Darwinian scenario. I get to make my own mind up with regards to conclusions based on the fossil evidence.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's been explained to him that jungle environments are not conducive to fossilization for years now. Given how immune to correction Creationists are, it's not surprising that he's still repeating it though.

What you can't explain is why chimpanzee fossils like the Taung Child and Lucy are in our lineage when they are far more like chimpanzees.

 

[mark kennedy]

They are criticizing your argument, not you personally.

The vast majority of the remarks are directed to me personally without regard to anything substantive, pure fallacious rhetoric.

 

[mark kennedy]

Is that what you were expecting when you clicked on this thread? I hope not, because I don't know the first thing about fire lakes and souls. Sounds painful!

Oh but it is...

Parsimonious, pusillanimous, pus... not sure which word you meant here?
http://www.dictionary.com/

Don't worry about it, we are so far off topic the details are meaningless.

 

[Speedwell]

What you can't explain is why chimpanzee fossils like the Taung Child and Lucy are in our lineage when they are far more like chimpanzees.

How do the scientists who made those findings explain it? You must be familiar with their reasoning, as set forth in their published work.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What you can't explain is why chimpanzee fossils like the Taung Child and Lucy are in our lineage when they are far more like chimpanzees.

Uh . . . if one goes far enough back in time . . . . and if evolution theory is correct . . . . then there had to be a species in our lineage that looks a lot more like a chimpanzee than us today. So your objection is without merit.

 

[mark kennedy]

I can discern between astronomy / astrology - so did the judge.

I can discern between scientific method / IDcreationism - so did the judge.

Ok, the decision is based on the religious nature of Intelligent Design, nothing more:

we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child (p.24). In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity (p, 26), ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism (p. 31). Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion (p. 46, footnote 7).​

Bottom line:

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)​

Conclusion:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
​

It's out because it's religious and therefore is barred by the Lemon test and the Establishment Clause. Part of the argument was that since the Scientific Revolution science has been limited to exclusively naturalistic causes, thus is fails as science in that sense.

Personally I have never advocated teaching creationism in the public schools, secular institutions are simply an absurd vehicle for such a thing. The decision said one thing that is not true now, Behe did publish an Intelligent Design paper on gene duplication not that it really matters that much:

ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
​

The decision was predictable, perfectly proper and has nothing to do with whether or not God is Creator. It has to do with whether or not Creationism and Intelligent Design are religious and of course they are profoundly religious. Not being scientific or naturalistic doesn't mean something isn't true.

Have a nice day
Mark

​

 

[mark kennedy]

How do the scientists who made those findings explain it? You must be familiar with their reasoning, as set forth in their published work.

That would depend on the work.

 

[mark kennedy]

Uh . . . if one goes far enough back in time . . . . and if evolution theory is correct . . . . then there had to be a species in our lineage that looks a lot more like a chimpanzee than us today. So your objection is without merit.

Or everytime a chimpanzee ancestor is dug up it's automatically one of our ancestors no matter how much it looks like a chimpanzee.

 

[Speedwell]

That would depend on the work.

That's right, but if you were going to criticize their conclusions, that's what you would have to base your critique on--not on what somebody tells you in a chatroom. You mentioned reading Nature articles on the subject; perhaps you could cite one and tell us what fault you found with it.

 

[MasonP]

Or everytime a chimpanzee ancestor is dug up it's automatically one of our ancestors no matter how much it looks like a chimpanzee.

You seem to be allowing your religion to cloud your judgement.
If you break a rock in half and there is a fossil inside how do you think it got there?

 

[Gene2memE]

Or everytime a chimpanzee ancestor is dug up it's automatically one of our ancestors no matter how much it looks like a chimpanzee.

That would be correct, as humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Anything older than this split (roughly between 7 and 11 million years ago), would be the ancestors of both our species.

So beyond a certain point, human ancestors and chimpanzee ancestors are the same thing.

You can count out Taung Child and the other Australopithecus africanus as a chimpanzee ancestor though. Lucy too. The morphology of the skull, hips, thighs and spine is all wrong for a knuckle walker.

 

[mark kennedy]

That would be correct, as humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

Actually that would be incorrect.

Anything older than this split (roughly between 7 and 11 million years ago), would be the ancestors of both our species.

Which tells us nothing about how the brain nearly tripled in size.

So beyond a certain point, human ancestors and chimpanzee ancestors are the same thing.

When obviously we are not.

You can count out Taung Child and the other Australopithecus africanus as a chimpanzee ancestor though. Lucy too. The morphology of the skull, hips, thighs and spine is all wrong for a knuckle walker.

We could if we were going to ignore the fact that they were actually knuckle walkers.

Yet another begging the question of proof. You guys are at least consistent with regards to the fallacious nature of your arguments.

 

[Gene2memE]

Actually that would be incorrect.

What evidence can you supply to support the notion that humans and chimpanzees do not have a common ancestor? Note the operative term: evidence.

Which tells us nothing about how the brain nearly tripled in size.

Which is completely immaterial, and a non sequitur. Brain size has been mentioned once in this thread, by you, in a passing comment describing your own interests.

When obviously we are not.

Please, highlight the obvious for me.

We could if we were going to ignore the fact that they were actually knuckle walkers.

What specific evidence leads you to this conclusion?

Yet another begging the question of proof. You guys are at least consistent with regards to the fallacious nature of your arguments.

You do like mis-identifying statements and labelling things as fallacies, don't you?

Begging the question with regards to that point would be something like: "Taung Child and Lucy walked upright because they weren't knuckle walkers".

What I argued was that the mophology of Taung Child and Lucy shows that they weren't knuckle walkers, which discounts them from being chimpanzee ancestors. Their hips are broader, stronger and flatter indicating an upright position, the spinal column attachments at both the hips and the base of the skull at completely different angles, the spinal column also has the distinctive curve of bipedal animals, seen in humans and other Hominina. In addition, the femurs are angled differently, again providing evidence for upright bipedalism rather than knuckle walking qadrupedalism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Still not saying anything.

Nothing that you want to hear, anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An ape is one of the African Great Apes as they are refereed to, sometime including humans which is little more then semantics.

No, not semantics.
Rather, simple anatomy and genetics.

Humans are mammals, for the exact same reason. Not "semantics". Not "arbitrary classifications".

A big hairy guy could be ape like, but humans are not apes not that calling them that makes any difference

Again, humans are apes/primates just like humans are mammals.

You'ld have to engage in special pleading, in order to create a "special" category just for humans. Now that would be a semantic, arbitrary classification.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes we are mammals because of how the young feed.

That's not the only thing that defines a "mammal", but okay.

We are animals because we are composed of Animalia cells

Okay. So, if you understand why we are mammals and why we are animals, what is the big deal in also acknowledging that we are apes/primates for the exact same reasons?

. Still nothing about fossils, now I remember how I got so board with this forum.

You want fossils of humanoid evolution?
A simple google will do wonders:

There are literally hundreds, thousands, of them spread out in museums around the world. It's not like they are that hard to find.......

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This post is a classic ad hominem

No, it's not.

Seriously, learn how to identify logical fallacies. Because you haven't been succesfull even once.

And no, it is not an ad hom to say that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yea generally humans are associated with the African Great Apes as they are called. We really don't fit into any other category so its more for convience then anything else. I like taxonomy to, just don't put a lot of stock in semantics.

Again, not semantics.

Just like it's not semantics to state that humans are mammals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes Dover rejected Intelligent Design because the Designer had to be God

No, that's not the reason why.

The reason is that ID, in general, has been exposed as not being a proper and valid scientific model. It doesn't fit any of the required criteria in order to be a valid scientific model.

In fact, in order to be able to call it a "scientific theory", they had to redefine what a "scientific theory" is in such a way, that even astrology fits that definition. Yes, horoscopes are scientifically valid, in that "new" definition.

All that was before "god" even came up.

In fact, the whole ID movement is pretty loud about "the designer could be anyone! it doesn't have to be the god I happen to believe in!". They can't shout that loud enough. This was necessary in order to keep up the deception. Because they wanted to distance themselves from creationism. Not that they were very succesfull in doing that, hence the term cdesign proponentsists.

It seems you fell for it, though.

Everyone has moved on

You didn't, apparantly, cause here you are: defending that exact model...