Evolution: What The Fossils Say

[USincognito]

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.

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

You don't even know what an ambulocetus is, do you? Hint: it's not an amphibian.

 

[USincognito]

Check the cranial capacity

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.

and ask yourself, how do highly conserved brain related genes surrender functional constraint.

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.

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.

Your passive-aggressive flaming is nearly as boring as your tired "I can't believe it" shtick.

 

[USincognito]

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.

I love the whole "Lucy was a chimpanzee shtick". It's even better when they pair it with Owen Lovejoy correcting the shape of her pelvis (I've never seen Mark do this, but I'm making a larger point). When they do that I ask:

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

At least I have an actual argument, I'm not just begging the question of proof on my hands and knees.

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.

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

Your passive-aggressive flaming is nearly as boring as your tired "I can't believe it" shtick.

Two begging the question and the inevitable ad hominem.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

You don't even know what an ambulocetus is, do you? Hint: it's not an amphibian.

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

by saying "so what" does that mean you tacitly accept the fact of whale evolution from land animals?

 

[USincognito]

At least I have an actual argument

No, you have "I don't believe it" and nothing more.

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

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?

Two begging the question and the inevitable ad hominem.

Have a nice day
Mark

Thank you for your service.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, you have "I don't believe it" and nothing more.

Yet another shameless ad hominem and notice they are getting smaller like a downward spiral getting smaller and smaller.

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?

Lets see, you list three genes and say nothing about them. Me on the other hand you have flaming personal remarks. Unlike you I took some time and learned the subject matter. I didn't just waste all my time hurling idle personal remarks while pandering to an elite status quo that has long since lost interest.

There's just you on an a dusty stage performing your satirical rant for nobody. Except for me of course in the balcony eating popcorn and throwing milk duds.

 

[USincognito]

Yet another shameless ad hominem and notice they are getting smaller like a downward spiral getting smaller and smaller.

You really don't understand what ad hominem means and, per the part in blue, apparently lack a sense of irony.

Lets see, you list three genes and say nothing about them.

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). <<

So Mark, you going to address them or just keep ironically making personal attacks as you complain about personal attacks?

 

[HitchSlap]

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

We're ready for that argument now. The suspense is killing us.

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

You really don't understand what ad hominem means and, per the part in blue, apparently lack a sense of irony.

I'm the subject of every post without reference to anything substantive and I'm the one who doesn't understand what an ad hominem is. No the irony isn't lost on me.

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). <<

So Mark, you going to address them or just keep ironically making personal attacks as you complain about personal attacks?[/QUOTE]

We're ready for that argument now. The suspense is killing us.

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

That's the MYS16 gene Ucog. mentioned. Its a comparison of the two genes in the human and chimpanzee genomes.

 

[Chriliman]

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!

Evolution is not an explanation for origins of life on earth, it is an explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

God forming heaven and earth and life on earth is an explanation for origins of life on earth.

Common misunderstanding.