- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
The source is not clear. It seems to have been cut up
and reframed a lot.
Here is a bit more info....
Upvote
0
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.
Ya know...this is the second or third time someone's posted this thing, but what are they all? What is each one from A-L? Anyone can put together a bunch of skulls. Us "non-science believing" Creationists need a bit more info....
Assuming a common origin based on perceived similarities is bad science.
The source is not clear. It seems to have been cut up
and reframed a lot.
Here is a bit more info....
[making the sound of thinking] actually I personally think that someone is designing everything that we see in creation.
I doubt I will ever accept the natural selection process.
The thing that gets me about creationists is that they often refuse to accept the very evidence they ask for. My post above has a picture with various hominid transitionals, for your perusal.
Because we are the only species to have evolved a big enough and smart enough brain to do so. In fact, the fossil record shows a transition in brain size. Here is a chart of brain size (normalized to body weight) vs. time.
It starts with Australopithecines on the left, and modern humans on the right. Worth noting, the Australopithecine brain is nearly the same size as a chimp brain, for comparison.
Evolution doesn't make decisions.
Evolution no more decided that chimps wouldn't talk than it decided that humans would. It just so happened that the right mutations happened at the right time and right environment to drive our species towards big brains that were capable of speech.
What was the determining factor involved in the evolution of jaw muscle-to bone structure-to cranial volume? Why didn't the brain get smaller when the jaw muscles did? Why did the cranial bones become thinner?One of the initial adaptations may have been weaker jaw muscles, strangely enough. A weaker jaw muscle does not require as much bone to anchor to. This allowed the cranial bones to be thinner, and the cranium to be larger in volume.
Nature. 2004 Mar 25;428(6981):415-8.
Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage.
Stedman HH1, Kozyak BW, Nelson A, Thesier DM, Su LT, Low DW, Bridges CR, Shrager JB, Minugh-Purvis N, Mitchell MA.
Powerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatus--traceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology--shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. Using the coding sequence for the myosin rod domains as a molecular clock, we estimate that this mutation appeared approximately 2.4 million years ago, predating the appearance of modern human body size and emigration of Homo from Africa. This represents the first proteomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record.
Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the huma... - PubMed - NCBI
I didn't single out evolutionists at all. I said "the thing that gets me about evolution" implying the concept, which is what this OP was about. And quite frankly, you don't have enough evidence for me to accept anything.
Nice pic, btw...I also have a picture of Jesus. Wanna see?
Brain size determines intelligence?
"It just so happened"? Why? How? When?
What was the determining factor involved in the evolution of jaw muscle-to bone structure-to cranial volume? Why didn't the brain get smaller when the jaw muscles did? Why did the cranial bones become thinner?
What causes things to increase in size? Why was the human brain the only one to "get bigger and smarter"?
There is enough of each skull for you to tell us what criteria you use to determine if a fossil is transitional, and if any of these fossils fit those criteria.
By creationist standards there are no transitional fossils, just an amazing variation off the original created kinds.
By Scientific standards, there are no "original kinds" to transition between and every fossil is "transnational."
To help you understand this concept can you explain to me why the common designer of mammals and birds could not produce a species with a mixture of mammal and bird features?
What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with apes?
It is my contention that no amount of evidence will change your mind. Am I wrong?
Call me when you have fossils of Jesus. What I showed you are not just pictures. They are real fossils. All you are demonstrating is your unwillingness to address the evidence.
In primates, the ratio of brain size to body mass is what largely determines intelligence.
I just showed you a scientific paper with a why, how, and when.
It is right there in the abstract. Read it. Focus on the part where it says, "frameshifting mutation".
Trick question? I'm missing the trick.
By what criteria? What are the physical characteristics in fossils that support this position?
How do you determine what an original kind is?
Evidence of what, exactly?
....of what?
By that logic, we should have tall, large people with incredible intelligence while short, stocky people exhibit severe learning disability. How does one explain this issue?
How do I support the observation of variation?
I don't imagine specifics about past events that are
not thoroughly documented in writing.
If I can't reproduce the event, then it is outside
of scientific examination.
I was actually gonna post the very same thing, myself...figured it was way too easy tho...
Trick question? I'm missing the trick.
You are making CLAIMS about nature. Namely, you are claiming that none of those fossils are transitional. What evidence supports this claim?
Categories are all man made. Nature does not create labels.
It is common for MAN to use breeding as a dividing line between species
but the categorization is arbitrary.
Obviously, you have missed it.
Is it your contention that the bill of the platypus should have more in common with a duck than a human?
Would a common designer of the platypus, human, and duck make the platypus jaw more like a duck, or a human? What are your answers?
Evidence of shared ancestry between humans and chimps, in the form of genetic evidence.
Evidence of morphological transitionals between humans and a common ancestor with other apes, in the form of fossils. My question before still stands.
What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with apes?
Bigger, taller people tend to have larger brains which means that the weight to brain size is similar between small and big people.
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?