Evolution??!

[USincognito]

Did anyone actually read all that he wrote. That was a lot. Im not a big reading fan. And i don't like sitting here waisting like 10 mins reading one post.

I'll summarize the thread for you. Apenman's buddy wrote an error filled critique of evolution and I pointed out the errors and illogic in it. I'm still waiting for the original author to respond.

 

[McCravey]

Sorry, I don't grade on a curve.

Your like some of the teachers I work with...lol.

I grade on very generous curves.

 

[mark kennedy]

Apeman,

I really liked it, especially part B. I'm going to do a little research and see if I can track down some of the particulars but your friend has the right idea. The only real criticism that I have is that evolution as it is defined in biology is really not that bad. The change in gene frequencies over time doesn't reflect any bias at all, where the modern Darwinian shows his true colors is the knee jerk reaction that comes when you suggest that perhaps we did not descend from apes, fish or protoorganisms. I am begining to develop an interest in fossils since the Darwinian likes to shy away from them.

All in all a good essay, I'll give the particulars a little closer look and let you know what I come up with.

Hey! If your an apeman maybe you are my avatar's ancestor. I call him Ug, since that is the extent of his vocabulary.

 

[jgarden]

Charroux Robert. 1972 The Mysterious Unknown Corgi edition 1973 London :Transworld Publishers Ltd.

Chick Jack T. 1972Big Daddy? 055-W Chino California :Chick Publications

Gish Duane T. Ph.D. 1978 EVOLUTION? The Fossils Say NO! Public School Edition San Diego,: Creation-Life Publishers

Gore Rick 1976 The Awesome Worlds Within a Cell National Geographic September 1976 Washington D.C.

Leakey Richard E. 1973 Skull 1470 National Geographic June 1973 Washington D.C.

Morris Henry Dr. Scientific Creationism 1988? Edition date Place of Publication ublisher

Ripkin Jeremy (with Ted Howard) 1980 Entropy: A New World View Bantam Edition 1981 New York N.Y. :Viking Press

Sisson Robert F. 1980 Deception: Formula for Survival National Geographic March 1980 Washington D.C.

Däniken Erik Von 1977 Von Däniken’s Proof Bantam edition, Great Britain: Souvenir Press

Weaver Kenneth F. 1985 The Search for Our Ancestors National Geographic November 1985 Washington D.C.

Scientific Creationism. By Dr. Henry Morris. Pg. 64 Quoting Marcel J.E Golay

IBID.

IBID. page 47

National Geographic September 1976 page 390

Entropy: Jeremy Ripkin page 43

National Geographic March 1980, page 400

Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology, Volume 2, page 299, 1987 ed.

IBID., Volume 12, pg. 212.

Time magazine, March, 25, 1991, Special add insert.

Discover, April 1990, page 58

The Mysterious Unknown by Robert Charroux Page 54.

Discover, September, 1989, page 14.

Von Danikens Proof, Erik Von Daniken. page 206.

Scientific Creationism, page 66

IBID., Page 172.

IBID. &, Evolution the Fossils Say No, 100-103.

National Geographic November 1985, Pages 568-573.

National Geographic June, 1973, page 819

IBID. Page 819, 820, 824.

National Geographic November, 1985, page 571.

IBID. Page 6

QUESTION: Why are your sources limited to the 70's and 80's? Your most recent source is 13 years old, that's an eternity scientifically. National Geographic and Creation-Life Publishers are used at an introductory level, and some are 32 years old. Maybe these are the best sources available to you, but the internet should have more recent data.

SUGGESTION: Keep you comments short and sweet without getting buried in too many details - more is not necessarily better.

 

[apenman]

QUESTION: Why are your sources limited to the 70's and 80's? Your most recent source is 13 years old, that's an eternity scientifically. National Geographic and Creation-Life Publishers are used at an introductory level, and some are 32 years old. Maybe these are the best sources available to you, but the internet should have more recent data.

SUGGESTION: Keep you comments short and sweet without getting buried in too many details - more is not necessarily better.

It isn't my paper.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I am begining to develop an interest in fossils since the Darwinian likes to shy away from them.

Another falsehood from the creationist camp. Hell it makes me want to spit.

 

[mark kennedy]

Another falsehood from the creationist camp. Hell it makes me want to spit.
[/size][/color][/font]

The wretched infidel creationist dares slander the secular cleric with such falsehoods. Take him to the dungeon, thus to all infidels who profane the temple of natural history. Ug says the caveman defiantly of A. afarensis , Ug to the Turkana Boy, Ug to the homo habilis handyman, Ug to the walking whales. Ug, and again I say Ug!

But seriously,

"The position of A. afarensis in the phylogeny of early humans is under debate. Many feel that it is ancestral to the east African "robust" early humans, and possibly to all robust forms. Additionally, A. afarensis is proposed as the ancestor to later Homo. Yet, research now suggests that A. africanus might be ancestral to later Homo."

The phylogeny of this fossil is not clearly demonstrated in fact its skull(430cc) is not that different from the modern chimpanzee. "From this, it is clear that there are many significant difference between A. afarensis and its ape predecessors, one of which is crucial to later human evolution, bipedality."

The crucial demonstration here has to be the bipedality, here is how they determined that a transition was underway. It is actually a composite of three specimans, "composite reconstruction based on several specimens, the famous Laetoli footprints, and the AL 129".

Bidedality was the key to esatblishing this as a human ancestor, the Turkana Boy was thought to prove bipediality because of where the spine goes into the skull. This was due to the fact that the age of the speciman explaned the anatomy in no uncertain terms, this was a juvenile chimp, like any other. This was dismissed only to re-emerge with the Leaky find that pieced together a bipedal, chimplike creature that may or may not have existed from multiple specimans including a footprint. This is based on questionable phylogeny and peicemeal forensics.


The more you get into these fossils the thinner this descent from a universal common ancestor fantasy becomes. I have no idea why every Christian Bible College in the country isn't teaching paleontology, its the death of Darwinism if people ever learn the truth.

Don't take my word for it, look at the actual evidence and use you own best judgement.


http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/afar.html

But wait there's more...

"The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales."


It is important to understand that, in calling these creatures a “series of transitional fossils,” the evolutionist does not mean that they form an actual lineage of ancestors and descendants. On the contrary, they readily acknowledge that these archaeocetes “cannot be strung in procession from ancestor to descendant in a scala naturae.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp

The generally accepted order of the archaeocete species, in terms of both morphological (primitive to advanced) and stratigraphical (lower/older to higher/younger) criteria, is Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Indocetus, Protocetus, and Basilosaurus (see note 16). One problem for this tidy picture is that the stratigraphical relationships of most of these fossils are uncertain
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp#b22

Ug says the caveman of the bone puzzles, and he means it.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So. Mainstream scientists go looking for fossils. They describe them. They publish their findings. And Mark Kennedy thinks it's honest to say they "shie away from" them?

You wouldn't know honesty if it got up and bit you on the backside, would you?

Now, let's take a look at what's being presented here...

[Sarcastic contentless bovine egesta deleted]

But seriously,

"The position of A. afarensis in the phylogeny of early humans is under debate. Many feel that it is ancestral to the east African "robust" early humans, and possibly to all robust forms. Additionally, A. afarensis is proposed as the ancestor to later Homo. Yet, research now suggests that A. africanus might be ancestral to later Homo."

So. We're not sure whether Fred was Bill's uncle or his father. Would you like to explain what a big hairy deal this is?

The phylogeny of this fossil is not clearly demonstrated in fact its skull(430cc) is not that different from the modern chimpanzee.

And skulls are just capacities?

Australopithecus:

Chimpanzee:

Yes, so very alike.

"From this, it is clear that there are many significant difference between A. afarensis and its ape predecessors, one of which is crucial to later human evolution, bipedality."

Do you know why the Australopithecus skull demonstrates bipedality?

The crucial demonstration here has to be the bipedality, here is how they determined that a transition was underway. It is actually a composite of three specimans, "composite reconstruction based on several specimens, the famous Laetoli footprints, and the AL 129".

All that quote is saying is that evidence for a complete reconstruction of the species was gained from more than one specimen. How is that bad?

Bidedality was the key to esatblishing this as a human ancestor, the Turkana Boy was thought to prove bipediality because of where the spine goes into the skull.

Ah. We do know about it.

This was due to the fact that the age of the speciman explaned the anatomy in no uncertain terms, this was a juvenile chimp, like any other.

Do explain. Anyway, here's Turkana Boy's skull.

Does it look like the Australopithecus or the chimp one above? Someone's telling you porkies, aren't they? Not least by ignoring the fact that Turkana boy is a Homo ergaster, not an australopithecine.

This was dismissed only to re-emerge with the Leaky find that pieced together a bipedal, chimplike creature that may or may not have existed from multiple specimans including a footprint. This is based on questionable phylogeny and peicemeal forensics.

No, it's based on details of the skeleton. You do know that as well as skull attachment the human pelvis has specific adaptations for bipedalism, shared by Australopithecus, don't you?

The more you get into these fossils the thinner this descent from a universal common ancestor fantasy becomes. I have no idea why every Christian Bible College in the country isn't teaching paleontology, its the death of Darwinism if people ever learn the truth.

Probably because they know how deceptive and untrustworthy creationist sources on palaeontology are.

Don't take my word for it, look at the actual evidence and use you own best judgement.

Do, please. You'll see how the posts Mark has made above are complete garbage.


http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/afar.html

"The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales."

Whales are mammals. No serious scientist has claimed the possibility of a reptilian ancestry, save that common to all mammals. I'd want a reference to something so unlikely. More likely, your source is lying to you, AGAIN.

It is important to understand that, in calling these creatures a “series of transitional fossils,” the evolutionist does not mean that they form an actual lineage of ancestors and descendants. On the contrary, they readily acknowledge that these archaeocetes “cannot be strung in procession from ancestor to descendant in a scala naturae.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp

Quite correct. As I said before, we can't be sure if a given species is a father or uncle. Big whoopy do. What you need to cope with is the fact that these intermediate archocetes exist at all.

The generally accepted order of the archaeocete species, in terms of both morphological (primitive to advanced) and stratigraphical (lower/older to higher/younger) criteria, is Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Indocetus, Protocetus, and Basilosaurus (see note 16). One problem for this tidy picture is that the stratigraphical relationships of most of these fossils are uncertain
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp#b22

And, of course, the fact that you can find American graves from 1750, and European graves from 1950 proves that Americans are not descended from Europeans.

Ug says the caveman of the bone puzzles, and he means it.

"Ug" says the professional creationist. "Rank and file creationists know nothing about science, me pull wool over their eyes easy!"

 

[USincognito]

Bidedality was the key to esatblishing this as a human ancestor, the Turkana Boy was thought to prove bipediality because of where the spine goes into the skull. This was due to the fact that the age of the speciman explaned the anatomy in no uncertain terms, this was a juvenile chimp, like any other. This was dismissed only to re-emerge with the Leaky find that pieced together a bipedal, chimplike creature that may or may not have existed from multiple specimans including a footprint. This is based on questionable phylogeny and peicemeal forensics.

This is a joke right? Or did you make a mistake confusing Taung Baby with Turkana Boy. I posted a photo of Turkana Boy's skeleton on page 2 of this thread. There's no way he can be considered not bipedal.

Here it is again you the National Museum of Natural History page.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html

And he's the page for Taung Baby.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/taung1.html

Neither of these fossils were found by Louis, Mary or Richard Leaky btw.