Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[xianghua]

Well, let's discuss this. First of all, can you define "kind"?

kind can be a group of creatures that were able to interbreed in their initial creation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So we've had people arguing that kind is the same thing as genus, now you are arguing that kind means species.

Because genus is not supported. See Deuteronomy 14:12 -16. The genus Aves has many Kind within it...

See also Leviticus 11:22 for several Kinds of the genus melanoplus.

So which is it? How can we take you seriously when you can't even agree among yourselves?

So how can we take you seriously when they can't even agree among themselves what a species is?????

Species problem - Wikipedia

"there are at least 26 recognized species concepts"

And your complaining because we might have two, or even three..... lol....

Hmmm, seems that argument is a two edged sword that cuts deeper on the backswing.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL. that's your evidence?

Africanus is slightly different to Afarensis so Australopithecines devolved into chimpanzees? Really?

Didn't you mean slightly more ape-like?????

Ahhh, I see. So when the evidence is the opposite of your belief, conclusions can't be drawn, but when it requires huge leaps and splitting into two or more despite no evidence, it's fact....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"The A. afarensis skeleton A.L. 288-1 (‘Lucy’) is geologically older (3.18 Ma) than that of the A. africanus skeleton Sts 14 (2.4–2.8 Ma.). Thus, if the age of each is
accurately established and evolution from apes to humans had occurred, we would expect that the later A. africanus specimens would be more human-like than
A. afarensis. However, the opposite is true. A. africanus has a more apelike limb proportion than A. afarensis....

...Certain aspects of the A. africanus pelvis are also more chimp-like than A. afarensis. So rather than becoming more human (the evolution model) these (once originally more complex) apes are degenerating towards their current position (becoming more ape-like. I realize this sounds like a contradiction in terms for an ape to become more ape-like, but I mean this in the respect that they are degenerating into what we consider ape like (extant) qualities).)"

So I'm not sure you actually read it all, beyond the first few paragraphs where you thought it had made your point.....

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't think you did, since the conclusion was indeed that:

"The A. afarensis skeleton A.L. 288-1 (‘Lucy’) is geologically older (3.18 Ma) than that of the A. africanus skeleton Sts 14 (2.4–2.8 Ma.). Thus, if the age of each is
accurately established and evolution from apes to humans had occurred, we would expect that the later A. africanus specimens would be more human-like than
A. afarensis. However, the opposite is true. A. africanus has a more apelike limb proportion than A. afarensis....

...Certain aspects of the A. africanus pelvis are also more chimp-like than A. afarensis. So rather than becoming more human (the evolution model) these (once originally more complex) apes are degenerating towards their current position (becoming more ape-like. I realize this sounds like a contradiction in terms for an ape to become more ape-like, but I mean this in the respect that they are degenerating into what we consider ape like (extant) qualities).)"

So I'm not sure you actually read it all, beyond the first few paragraphs where you thought it had made your point.....

Not sure I read it? I just told you I read it three times before I posted it. I even deliberately quoted part of the article that alluded to the authors creationist view point. It did make my point though didn't it, as you suddenly changed your tune about Lucy being bipedal.

Anyway, whether I did or didn't read it is irrelevant as that would have no bearing on whether or not it's accurate or another fanciful creationist just so story. I'm glad that I originally cited the article though, as you have found something new to talk about other than huskies, it's a refreshing change.


I'll humor you though, maybe you'd like to explain how other early hominin fit into your "theory? Homo Hablis? Homo Naledi? Australopithecus Sediba? You aren't going to ignore them surely, I know how youhave a thing about people ignoring evidence.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not sure I read it? I just told you I read it three times before I posted it. I even deliberately quoted part of the article that alluded to the point. And it did make my point didn't it, as you suddenly changed your tune about Lucy being bipedal.

Anyway, whether I did or didn't read it is irrelevant as that would have no bearing on whether or not it's accurate or another fanciful creationist just so story. I'm glad that I originally cited the article though, as you have found something new to talk about other than huskies, it's a refreshing change.


I'll humor you though, maybe you'd like to explain how other early hominin fit into your "theory? Homo Hablis? Homo Naledi? Australopithecus Sediba? You aren't going to ignore them surely, I know how youhave a thing about people ignoring evidence.

No, no. My “tune” as you put it was against using bipedalism for implying Lucy was a human ancestor....

If you want to imply he was a chimp ancestor that sometimes walked bipedially, more power to you.

That is easily acceptable being what we know of deleterious mutations. In fact doesn’t contradict what I believe at all, since on many occasions we have discussed degeneration fits the evidence not things getting better.

Well then, if you want to switch your tune to it now suddenly not being reliable, then how’s that affect your claims it supported you?

Ahhh, just that part was reliable, right, wink, wink....

The rest? Either human ancestors or ape ancestors, mixed up as all the rest.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, no. My “tune” as you put it was against using bipedalism for implying Lucy was a human ancestor....

If you want to imply he was a chimp ancestor that sometimes walked bipedially, more power to you.

That is easily acceptable being what we know of deleterious mutations. In fact doesn’t contradict what I believe at all, since on many occasions we have discussed degeneration fits the evidence not things getting better.

Well then, if you want to switch your tune to it now suddenly not being reliable, then how’s that affect your claims it supported you?

Ahhh, just that part was reliable, right, wink, wink....

The rest? Either human ancestors or ape ancestors, mixed up as all the rest.

I just re-read my first paragraph and it is worded terribly, apologies for that. Although you appear to have got the gist of it I will go back and edit it later so it makes more sense.

 

[Heissonear]

Common descent and the ToE is a description of physical reality, not a "belief". Religion is belief.

Evolution is based on conjecture. People have to accept evolution by belief.

 

[VirOptimus]

Evolution is based on conjecture. People have to accept evolution by belief.

No they dont. And no, the ToE is not based on conjecture. Its a incredibly robust description of physical reality supported by data and research.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

Thread cleaned due to
Flaming And Goading
Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
Please do not accuse CF members of lying.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Kylie]

Apparently so, according to that link.
Not at all.

Whatever a genus can do, a kind can do.

So a male of one kind can interbreed with a female of another kind and produce offspring?

Tell me, do you think a sparrow can interbreed with a shark?

 

[Kylie]

kind can be a group of creatures that were able to interbreed in their initial creation.

A rather meaningless answer, as we have no way of determining whether two animals were able to interbreed in their initial creation.

But I notice you completely ignored the rest of my post. Can you tell us how we can figure out if two different animals are of the same kind or not?

 

[Kylie]

Because genus is not supported. See Deuteronomy 14:12 -16. The genus Aves has many Kind within it...

See also Leviticus 11:22 for several Kinds of the genus melanoplus.

Wow, for something which is apparently such a basic concept, it seems to be very confusing. I guess God could have been a little bit clearer about it, huh?

So how can we take you seriously when they can't even agree among themselves what a species is?????

Species problem - Wikipedia

"there are at least 26 recognized species concepts"

And your complaining because we might have two, or even three..... lol....

Of course, science is able to admit that there is a problem, and much of the trouble only comes up in limited situations. And the article that you posted itself says that different definitions work best in different situations, so there's not really a situation where there are two competing and contradictory definitions at once, is there.

Of course, the same can't be said for the Biblical definition of "kind".

 

[DogmaHunter]

kind can be a group of creatures that were able to interbreed in their initial creation.

"can be"?
So, it doesn't have to?

You're gonna need a defenition that's a wee bit more bulletproof.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, no. My “tune” as you put it was against using bipedalism for implying Lucy was a human ancestor....

I was under the impression that you were criticizing Lovejoy's reconstuction, implying that he was attempting to make it appear bipedal. You also posted pictures of Hovind's exhibit showing Lucy as a quadruped, what are people supposed to think?

If you want to imply he was a chimp ancestor that sometimes walked bipedially, more power to you.

Obviously I don't believe that, as I said earlier. But sure, if you've got evidence that such a thing happened I'm willing to listen.

That is easily acceptable being what we know of deleterious mutations. In fact doesn’t contradict what I believe at all, since on many occasions we have discussed degeneration fits the evidence not things getting better.

So you claim.

I hope you realize how ironic it is that you actually promoting the gradual process of speciation through accumulated mutations.

Well then, if you want to switch your tune to it now suddenly not being reliable, then how’s that affect your claims it supported you?

How am I changing my tune? The article served it's purpose in providing an excellent explanation of Lovejoy's reconstruction. I'm not obliged to agree with the parts of the article that veers off into wild speculation.

hhh, just that part was reliable, right, wink, wink....

LOL, it's a bit rich for you to be playing that card. But sure, the author offered an excellent explanation of Lovejoy's reconstruction which is entirely consistent with the scientific consensus didn't he?

The rest? Either human ancestors or ape ancestors, mixed up as all the rest.

LOL. What a cop out.

Ancestors that appear more human-like the more recent they are, entirely consistent with current explanations of human evolution and completely contrary to your weird bipedal apes (d)evolving into quadrupedal chimps nonsense.

Let's pick one at a time.. How about Australopithecus Sediba? More recent than A Afarensis or Africanus and more homo-like.

Australopithecus sediba

Details of the teeth, the length of the arms and legs, and the narrow upper chest resemble earlier Australopithecus, while other tooth traits and the broad lower chest resemble humans. These links indicate that Au. sediba may reveal information about the origins and ancestor of the genus Homo. Functional changes in the pelvis of Au. sediba point to the evolution of upright walking, while other parts of the skeleton retain features found in other australopithecines. Measurements of the strength of the humerus and femur show that Au. sediba had a more human-like pattern of locomotion than a fossil attributed to Homo habilis. These features suggest that Au. sediba walked upright on a regular basis and that changes in the pelvis occurred before other changes in the body that are found in later specimens of Homo. The Australopithecus sediba skull has several derived features, such as relatively small premolars and molars, and facial features that are more similar to those in Homo. However, despite these changes in the pelvis and skull, other parts of Au. sediba skeleton shows a body similar to that of other australopithecines with long upper limbs and a small cranial capacity. The fossils also show that changes in the pelvis and the dentition occurred before changes in limb proportions or cranial capacity.

Mmmm, it definitely contradicts your Australopithicus > chimp evolution model. How do you explain it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wow, for something which is apparently such a basic concept, it seems to be very confusing. I guess God could have been a little bit clearer about it, huh?



Of course, science is able to admit that there is a problem, and much of the trouble only comes up in limited situations. And the article that you posted itself says that different definitions work best in different situations, so there's not really a situation where there are two competing and contradictory definitions at once, is there.

Of course, the same can't be said for the Biblical definition of "kind".

Of course there are. Those finches are mating right in front of their noses, so what contradictory and competing definition are they using at once to call them separate species?????

What competing definition that works less well than their mating under their noses do you suggest????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I was under the impression that you were criticizing Lovejoy's reconstuction, implying that he was attempting to make it appear bipedal. You also posted pictures of Hovind's exhibit showing Lucy as a quadruped, what are people supposed to think?




Obviously I don't believe that, as I said earlier. But sure, if you've got evidence that such a thing happened I'm willing to listen.



So you claim.

I hope you realize how ironic it is that you actually promoting the gradual process of speciation through accumulated mutations.



How am I changing my tune? The article served it's purpose in providing an excellent explanation of Lovejoy's reconstruction. I'm not obliged to agree with the parts of the article that veers off into wild speculation.



LOL, it's a bit rich for you to be playing that card. But sure, the author offered an excellent explanation of Lovejoy's reconstruction which is entirely consistent with the scientific consensus didn't he?



LOL. What a cop out.

Ancestors that appear more human-like the more recent they are, entirely consistent with current explanations of human evolution and completely contrary to your weird bipedal apes (d)evolving into quadrupedal chimps nonsense.

Let's pick one at a time.. How about Australopithecus Sediba? More recent than A Afarensis or Africanus and more homo-like.

Australopithecus sediba

Details of the teeth, the length of the arms and legs, and the narrow upper chest resemble earlier Australopithecus, while other tooth traits and the broad lower chest resemble humans. These links indicate that Au. sediba may reveal information about the origins and ancestor of the genus Homo. Functional changes in the pelvis of Au. sediba point to the evolution of upright walking, while other parts of the skeleton retain features found in other australopithecines. Measurements of the strength of the humerus and femur show that Au. sediba had a more human-like pattern of locomotion than a fossil attributed to Homo habilis. These features suggest that Au. sediba walked upright on a regular basis and that changes in the pelvis occurred before other changes in the body that are found in later specimens of Homo. The Australopithecus sediba skull has several derived features, such as relatively small premolars and molars, and facial features that are more similar to those in Homo. However, despite these changes in the pelvis and skull, other parts of Au. sediba skeleton shows a body similar to that of other australopithecines with long upper limbs and a small cranial capacity. The fossils also show that changes in the pelvis and the dentition occurred before changes in limb proportions or cranial capacity.

Mmmm, it definitely contradicts your Australopithicus > chimp evolution model. How do you explain it?

Stop trying to place humans in the chimp lineage....... you won’t have to try so hard to find ancestors to link man and ape, since they exist only in your own mind.

Ardipithecus - Wikipedia

“Originally described as one of the earliest ancestors of humans after they diverged from the chimpanzees, the relation of this genus to human ancestors and whether it is a hominin is now a matter of debate.”

They ain’t even sure it’s a hominin, so why are they presenting it as if it were????????

Ahh, because theory trumps facts any day, right?

And no, no, no. Why do you think I am promoting gradual speciation?????

What is your problem with understanding the variation we see in dogs yet knowing they are one species??? It is you that thinks Lucy is a separate species from her ape relatives, not me. I got actual evidence variation does not equal speciation, you just got claims those variants are separate species....

But theory trumps facts any day, right?

Right?????

I mean we got finches mating right in front of their noses and double-talk is all I hear to ignore that. So I’m not surprised something in the past is even more easily mistaken as a separate species....

 

[Heissonear]

No they dont. And no, the ToE is not based on conjecture. Its a incredibly robust description of physical reality supported by data and research.

What is the proof that Evolution is real and happened on Earth?

It is the fossils.

The fossil record does not show evolution happened once.

There are zero fossils to be found that shows one creature evolved into another creature.

The base of evolution does not exist.

Only conjecture like you post.

 

[Heissonear]

Stop trying to place humans in the chimp lineage....... you won’t have to try so hard to find ancestors to link man and ape, since they exist only in your own mind.

Ardipithecus - Wikipedia

“Originally described as one of the earliest ancestors of humans after they diverged from the chimpanzees, the relation of this genus to human ancestors and whether it is a hominin is now a matter of debate.”

They ain’t even sure it’s a hominin, so why are they presenting it as if it were????????

Ahh, because theory trumps facts any day, right?

And no, no, no. Why do you think I am promoting gradual speciation?????

What is your problem with understanding the variation we see in dogs yet knowing they are one species??? It is you that thinks Lucy is a separate species from her ape relatives, not me. I got actual evidence variation does not equal speciation, you just got claims those variants are separate species....

But theory trumps facts any day, right?

Right?????

I mean we got finches mating right in front of their noses and double-talk is all I hear to ignore that. So I’m not surprised something in the past is even more easily mistaken as a separate species....

You are correct, bro.

 

[Heissonear]

I was under the impression that you were criticizing Lovejoy's reconstuction, implying that he was attempting to make it appear bipedal. You also posted pictures of Hovind's exhibit showing Lucy as a quadruped, what are people supposed to think?




Obviously I don't believe that, as I said earlier. But sure, if you've got evidence that such a thing happened I'm willing to listen.



So you claim.

I hope you realize how ironic it is that you actually promoting the gradual process of speciation through accumulated mutations.



How am I changing my tune? The article served it's purpose in providing an excellent explanation of Lovejoy's reconstruction. I'm not obliged to agree with the parts of the article that veers off into wild speculation.



LOL, it's a bit rich for you to be playing that card. But sure, the author offered an excellent explanation of Lovejoy's reconstruction which is entirely consistent with the scientific consensus didn't he?



LOL. What a cop out.

Ancestors that appear more human-like the more recent they are, entirely consistent with current explanations of human evolution and completely contrary to your weird bipedal apes (d)evolving into quadrupedal chimps nonsense.

Let's pick one at a time.. How about Australopithecus Sediba? More recent than A Afarensis or Africanus and more homo-like.

Australopithecus sediba

Details of the teeth, the length of the arms and legs, and the narrow upper chest resemble earlier Australopithecus, while other tooth traits and the broad lower chest resemble humans. These links indicate that Au. sediba may reveal information about the origins and ancestor of the genus Homo. Functional changes in the pelvis of Au. sediba point to the evolution of upright walking, while other parts of the skeleton retain features found in other australopithecines. Measurements of the strength of the humerus and femur show that Au. sediba had a more human-like pattern of locomotion than a fossil attributed to Homo habilis. These features suggest that Au. sediba walked upright on a regular basis and that changes in the pelvis occurred before other changes in the body that are found in later specimens of Homo. The Australopithecus sediba skull has several derived features, such as relatively small premolars and molars, and facial features that are more similar to those in Homo. However, despite these changes in the pelvis and skull, other parts of Au. sediba skeleton shows a body similar to that of other australopithecines with long upper limbs and a small cranial capacity. The fossils also show that changes in the pelvis and the dentition occurred before changes in limb proportions or cranial capacity.

Mmmm, it definitely contradicts your Australopithicus > chimp evolution model. How do you explain it?

There are peoples professions that rely on what information you posted. The stream of news and claims from them continue.

You may what to examine the claims more critically.

So far a lot of socalled historical claims. Some get famous at their work in such arena of claims and finds.