Evolution's Brick Wall

[inquiring mind]

Well this is why 99% of scientists accept evolution.

True but:

"The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public.'[1]"
(Wikipedia)

Maybe science should take a hike... before trying to come between the majority of people in the U.S. and the Kingdom of God.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have continued to lay down how evolution lacks historic proof- yet like your comment - zero fossil record evidence showing evolution actually happened on Earth.

It has been put up the evidence- but all I get is silence.

You and every paleontology text have zero physical evidence proving one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time in the fossil record.

How can this be except evolution never happened once.

This is very hard for those with academic knowledge-base in Earth Science to face. Very hard.

I faced up. How about you?

Has your walk in pure conjecture gone far enough? Or are you fixed by conjecture in bias towards evolution?

It is time for those promoting evolution to face up before people of the world that evolution of life on Earth is faith and conjecture based, with zero strata-based proof.

Ive heard the silence to, it speaks volumes.

 

[mark kennedy]

You published these results where?

That's the best you got Steve, an argument from credulity. I would expect better then that with a scattergram and fallacious rhetoric from you but I guess I shouldn't be suprised. That's all Darwinians ever come up with anyway, because that's all they have.

 

[mark kennedy]

Feel free to elaborate

Sahelanthropus is of a pre homo genus, but is considered a common ancestor or man and chimp.

It sounded like you were interested in a " transitional leading up to the emergence of the genus Homo"[/QUOTE]
Again feel free to elaborate.

 

[Job 33:6]

True but:

"The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public.'[1]"
(Wikipedia)

Maybe science should take a hike... before trying to come between the majority of people in the U.S. and the Kingdom of God.

I hate to say it, but nearly half of americans also voted for president trump. So, im not sure that the general public are the most suitable when it comes to complex topics in science.

And dare i look up statistics on how many americans are young earthers?

 

[Job 33:6]

Again feel free to elaborate.

Assuming you are in fact interested in a "transitional leading up to the emergence of the genus homo", sahelanthropus would fit the bill. As that is...what it is. It being aged within 2-3 million years of other transitional hominids.

Would you like me to elaborate on the fossil itself and its traits? Or on something else?

 

[Job 33:6]

@mark kennedy
@inquiring mind

Sahelanthropus tchadensis- dated at 7 million years old.

Human-like Traits:
small canine teeth
shortened C shaped palate
foraman magnum focal point is positioned for a vertical spinal column

Non-Human Ape-like Traits:
small brain capacity, roughly 1/4 of modern man
large brow ridges
elongated skull

Other traits:
somewhat sloped face, too flat to be a greater ape, too sloped to be human

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

This genus predates the homo genus, but is also in-line with genetic predictions as to when mankind came to be.

And actually, biologists argued that the human-chimpanzee split occurred around this time (7 million years ago), before the discovery of sahelanthropus, based on protein studies and rates of evolution derived from biological traits. And there were paleontologists who had 10 million year old fossils who disagreed.

But, as mentioned earlier, with each new fossil discovery, the succession becomes more and more fine tuned, and the paleontologists were ultimately demonstrated to be incorrect in light of additional fossil discoveries, including that of sahelanthropus.

 

[mark kennedy]

Assuming you are in fact interested in a "transitional leading up to the emergence of the genus homo", sahelanthropus would fit the bill. As that is...what it is. It being aged within 2-3 million years of other transitional hominids.

Would you like me to elaborate on the fossil itself and its traits? Or on something else?

By all means, I'm always interested in something substantive on the hominids.

 

[Job 33:6]

By all means, I'm always interested in something substantive on the hominids.

see above.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ultimately, we dont find hominids in any other period of the 600 million years worth of time of complex multicellular fossiliferous bedding. There is no proverbial cambrian bunny.

The succession is here, and its real. And the most plausible explanation for it, is what biologists suggest, ie evolution and common descent. And mankind is no exception in its presence in the fossil succession.

We arent an exception to the rule of common descent.

For some people, this can be a hard pill to swallow. Particularly for non scientists who might be religious.

But it is what it is. The sooner we can accept the fact that we descended from more primitive apes (among other things such as fish, reptiles and amphibians), the sooner we can move forward with our research and considerations of the meaning of life.

 

[mark kennedy]

see above.

You posted as I was making my comments, it happens. This looks like a big monkey to me, why should I be impressed?

 

[mark kennedy]

Ultimately, we dont find hominids in any other period of the 600 million years worth of time of complex multicellular fossiliferous bedding. There is no proverbial cambrian bunny.

The succession is here, and its real. And the most plausible explanation for it, is what biologists suggest, ie evolution and common descent. And mankind is no exception in its presence in the fossil succession.

We arent an exception to the rule of common descent.

For some people, this can be a hard pill to swallow. Particularly for non scientists who might be religious.

But it is what it is. The sooner we can accept the fact that we descended from more primitive apes (among other things such as fish, reptiles and amphibians), the sooner we can move forward with our research and considerations of the meaning of life.

That's not unreasonable but you still are not dealing with a couple of critical points. First, the skull is a quarter the size of humans, how does this giant leap of evolution occur since the line leading up to higher primates is sketchy at best. So maybe we have the common ancestor for man and ape, and that's a big maybe. How did the chimpanzee line disappear after that?

 

[doubtingmerle]

By all means, I'm always interested in something substantive on the hominids.

Because it has some humanlike features early.

 

[mark kennedy]

Because it has some humanlike features early.

Perhaps, and we can talk about that but did you miss the part where the brain is 1/4 the size of modern humans? To say nothing of the fact that chimpanzee ancestors are nonexistent.

 

[mark kennedy]

Alleles are variations of genes, not traits.

They are both.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's not unreasonable but you still are not dealing with a couple of critical points. First, the skull is a quarter the size of humans, how does this giant leap of evolution occur since the line leading up to higher primates is sketchy at best. So maybe we have the common ancestor for man and ape, and that's a big maybe. How did the chimpanzee line disappear after that?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16136135/

It didn't disappear at all. We are in a time in which it is being uncovered.

Or did you think that chimpanzees were just beamed down from space?

It looks like the above article discusses how humans and chimps have lived in different environments in Africa. Chimps being in more forested areas with higher acidity in soils (less conducive for fossilization) while mankind being in more semi arid, as being a potential reason for many human fossils with fewer chimp fossils.

 

[juvenissun]

Creationism is not likely route even if the theory of evolution is wrong.

If evolution is wrong, then creation must be right.
There is no other option.

 

[mark kennedy]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16136135/

It didn't disappear at all. We are in a time in which it is being uncovered.

Or did you think that chimpanzees were just beamed down from space?

It looks like the above article discusses how humans and chimps have lived in different environments in Africa. Chimps being in more forested areas with higher acidity in soils (less conducive for fossilization) while mankind being in more semi arid, as being a potential reason for many human fossils with fewer chimp fossils.

Didn't get to read the article but it looks like the one that was published in Naure when the Chimpanzee Genome paper was unveiled. The poster sfs, btw, was on staff for that paper. Anyway, it comes down to three, maybe four teeth and that's it for seven million years of evolution. Except the Taung Child and Lucy are nearly identical to Chimpanzees, funny how that worked out.

 

[mark kennedy]

If evolution is wrong, then creation must be right.
There is no other option.

Their both right, God created life and it evolved from there.

 

[Astrophile]

The fossil record lacks the evidence that evolution happened. The foundation for proving evolution occurred is missing. There is not even one fossil sequence showing one lifeform morphologically changing into another lifeform over time.

Evolution is based on conjecture.

The fossil record shows evolution never happened.

Grand central group-think has pronounced any view except evolution is unacceptable.

The chief or Elite controllers all state evolution is derived by modern Earth science. But the primary scientific foundation to claim such is missing.

Zero times have people found evidence from strata showing evolution actually happened in the past, with evidence from the past in hand and displayed in paleontology texts. Zero times.

Modern biological sciences have zero real world examples to their claims. Only more conjecture.

You are a stratigrapher. You must know that each rock formation has its characteristic fossils, and that fossils are used to correlate sedimentary rocks across thousands of kilometres, and even between continents. You must also know that there is a succession of fossils, that sedimentary rocks of different ages have different fossil assemblages; for example, Upper Ordovician trilobites are different from Lower Ordovician trilobites, and that Middle Jurassic ammonites are different from both Lower Jurassic and Upper Jurassic ammonites. As a stratigrapher, you must be familiar with the successions of microfossils, such as foraminifera and radiolarians, and with their use in exploration for fossil fuels. Since you do not accept evolution, how do you explain these facts?