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.
Easy, Taung isn't a chimpanzee because as I pointed out to you years ago the foreman magnum is not that of a chimpanzee. As far as Lucy goes, I have a graphic on my computer at work that renders the claim that she was a chimpanzee ridiculous.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.
Check the cranial capacity and ask yourself, how do highly conserved brain related genes surrender functional constraint. I would have expected better from you considering how long you have been doing this but considering the way you approach the subject it's typical.Easy, Taung isn't a chimpanzee because as I pointed out to you years ago the foreman magnum is not that of a chimpanzee. As far as Lucy goes, I have a graphic on my computer at work that renders the claim that she was a chimpanzee ridiculous.
I got no problem with anphibians, the transitions are wildly exaggerated but adaptive evolution causes no problem for me as a Creationist. See I happen to know that tion is a phenomenon while Darwinism is an a priori assumption. Anyway, my thing is human evolution in general and the brain in particular.
Now this amphibian is interesting, not unlike transitional between robust and glacial skulls. Read a really interesting paper on evolution from dinosaurs to birds, apparently a transition from diaphragm to belo type lungs is unlikely.
You see there is a problem, evolving digits, color, texture are all one thing. Its pretty standard Mendilion stuff. Evolving internal organs is something else entirely.
So what was that. At least ten ad hominem, two begging the question and a length equivocation argument. This is like post 80 and the first time an actual fossil is mentioned.
Have a nice day,
Mark
Check the cranial capacity
and ask yourself, how do highly conserved brain related genes surrender functional constraint.
I would have expected better from you considering how long you have been doing this but considering the way you approach the subject it's typical.
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.
Yeah, we get it. This is the same tired shtick you've been trying to present as an argument years now. As has been noted numerous times, your personal incredulity doesn't change the fact that Australopithicenes weren't chimpanzees.
Again, this is nothing but personal incredulity. There's no magical constraint on conserved regions to undergo accelerated evolution. And has been pointed out, we know of several mutations responsible for increasing human cranial capacity, brain density and neocortex development (MYH-16, SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B). The evolution of the human brain is not the mystery you keep trying to make it out to be.
Your passive-aggressive flaming is nearly as boring as your tired "I can't believe it" shtick.
I haven't studied the amphibians for some time but I never seen anything in those bones to question creation. I don't reject evolution just have a much shorter timeline and recognize warriors beyond which things cannot evolve. See my signature.You don't even know what an ambulocetus is, do you? Hint: it's not an amphibian.
First of all who are you talking to? Secondly I've been making the point that a dozen ad hominem, six begging the question and two to four equivocation fallacies have been the main topic, not fossils. I don't know who you are performing for but if you want to have a conversation try not talking to me in the third person.I'm still waiting for mark, a man who claims to want to talk about fossils, to actually comment on the fossils that show the evolution of the ambulocetus to modern whales which along with the body shape becoming more streamlined, show:
- that the hind limbs shrink through lack of us,
- the fingers elongate to form flippers,
- the tail flukes to provide better propulsion through water,
- and the nose shifts position from the front of the snout to near the the top of the head.
I haven't studied the amphibians for some time but I never seen anything in those bones to question creation. I don't reject evolution just have a much shorter timeline and recognize warriors beyond which things cannot evolve. See my signature.
All very interesting, but understand I've been doing this from my cell phone and my thing is human evolution in general and the brain in particular. I can't read your mind and so far see nothing that earth shaking here. It a whale ancestor of so what.An ambulocetus is not an amphibian, as you are so incorrectly referring to it. It is an early cetacean, a proto-whale if you like, that lived during the Early Eocene over 40 million years ago. It was a mammal.
All very interesting, but understand I've been doing this from my cell phone and my thing is human evolution in general and the brain in particular. I can't read your mind and so far see nothing that earth shaking here. It a whale ancestor of so what.
At least I have an actual argument
Right there is no such thing as functional constraint or deleterious effects Brain related genes do not have variant alleles which is why thy are called coserved
Two begging the question and the inevitable ad hominem.
Have a nice day
Mark
No, you have "I don't believe it" and nothing more.
Yeah, we been seeing for years that you know more about genetics that actual geneticists. Or at least that's what you think. Do you have anything of substance to say about MYH-16, SRGAP2C or ARHGAP11B or are you just going to repeat your mantra over and over like you have for years?
Yet another shameless ad hominem and notice they are getting smaller like a downward spiral getting smaller and smaller.
Lets see, you list three genes and say nothing about them.
We're ready for that argument now. The suspense is killing us.At least I have an actual argument, I'm not just begging the question of proof on my hands and knees.
Right there is no such thing as functional constraint or deleterious effects Brain related genes do not have variant alleles which is why thy are called coserved
Two begging the question and the inevitable ad hominem.
Have a nice day
Mark
You really don't understand what ad hominem means and, per the part in blue, apparently lack a sense of irony.
Ummm,
>> And has been pointed out, we know of several mutations responsible for increasing human cranial capacity, brain density and neocortex development (MYH-16, SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B). <<
Who needs an argument for this? A fallacy is an argument that never happened and who the heck is we? Its looks to me like it's just you in the weeds.We're ready for that argument now. The suspense is killing us.
That's the MYS16 gene Ucog. mentioned. Its a comparison of the two genes in the human and chimpanzee genomes.I seem to recall an article in SciAm several years back, and there was some evidence that as homnids jaws got smaller, our brains got bigger.
Here is a fantastic primer for creationists/id'ists/cdesign proponentsists.
Fossil evolution 101. It's a bit long, but one of the best synopsis of fossil evolution on the tube.
Enjoy!
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?