For Rize - the evidence

[kaotic]

Originally posted by Lanakila
So because they don't believe in evolution whatever they have to say is not true, huh? You might as well believe in the Great Pumkin then seesaw, because true science does question, and you are accepting it without question, it appears.

Your right, true science doesn't question, and try to falsify but guess people have been trying to falsified evolution for almost 200 years and no one has ever came close. Lucy hasn't been falsified, and the Neanderthal man hasn't been falsified they are accept through the science community it's mostly IMO crackpots that deny them.

I'm accepting it because of the data/evidence that backs up Lucy, and Neanderthal man, and evolution. You are denying it because you think it goes against your religion and it doesn't.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Jerry the first creature on your list is debated still.

What, precisely, is debated about A africanus? Is the cranial capacity of some fossil specimens in question? Not from the article you gave. As a matter of fact, the the only "debate" I noticed in your first link was the debate over how the various australopithecines were related to one another, and which of them should be considered the proper human ancestor. This has nothing to do with my post.

You mention Lucy, but I did not mention her specifically. She is one specimen of A afarensis. Your second link makes much of the fact that A afarensis was a "knuckle-walker" - (that its bipedalism is facultive, rather than obligate)... while true, this doesn't change the fact that A afarensis was bipedal by habit, unliker her quadruped cousins.

 

Here is an article about Neanderthal man from AIG too: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3171.asp

I didn't read this one. If you would like to discuss this article, tell us what seems important to this discussion that is in there & then post a link to back you up. Tell us what part of that article seems to bear on the discussion, and what it leads you to believe about Neanderthal. I've already pointed out that Neanderthal isn't a human ancestor. 

Here is an article by Dr Duane Gish about the supposed Homind trail: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-171.htm

Thank you Lanakila... Rize, remember when I said something about creationists and "hand-waving dismissals" of the evidence? Here's a good example. Gish as much as tells us that the australopithicenes are pretty much just apes, then, from the other side of his mouth, he pretends it is a problem that they "appear without any trace of an ancestor."

He talks about the features of various Homo species and Australopithecines that  are ape-like, and neglects to mention the parts that are increasingly human-like - for instance, the steady increase in skull size that I was discussing, or that the earlies fossils routinely classified as Homo were obligate bipeds.

All in all, nothing he said effectively counters anything that paleontologists claim makes these critters transitional between apes and humans. So what is he doing? His tactic is to distract from evidence that doesn't look good for creationism. And remember, from the chart that I linked to in my point, Gish seems to disagree with other creationists about whether many fossils are not transitional because they have too many ape characteristics and must be considered 100% ape, or because they have too many human characteristics and must be considered 100% human.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Jerry the first creature on your list is debated still. Here is an article at AIG about it: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0416news.asp another article on Lucy: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n2_knuckle_walker.asp

Here is an article about Neanderthal man from AIG too: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3171.asp

Here is an article by Dr Duane Gish about the supposed Homind trail: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-171.htm

The websites give a very clear picture of creationist tactics.&nbsp; For instance, the first one is claiming A. afarensis can't be a human ancestor because supposedly Lucy knuckle-walked.&nbsp; From the website "Regardless of the status of Lucy’s knee joint, new evidence has come forth that Lucy has the morphology of a <B>knuckle-walker</B>,<A href="]ttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n2_knuckle_walker.asp#r4"><SUP>4</SUP> which is a distinctly quadrupedal specialization characteristic of some living apes and is quite different than walking upright."

It has a quote from a Science article: ""I walked over to the cabinet, pulled out Lucy, and--shazam!--she had the morphology that was classic for knuckle walkers."

But the very next sentence in the article says "Lucy herself wasn't a knuckle walker, notes Richmond; rather, these wrist traits are a leftover from her knuckle-walking ancestors."

Do you see why we get very frustrated at the violations of the 9th commandment by creationists?&nbsp; What the articles state is that Lucy has traits that you would expect of an evolutionary sequence from a knuckle-walking ape to bipedality.&nbsp; The knee is bipedal, but the wrists retain features left over from the knuckle-walking ancestor.

There is no debate that A. afarensis exists.&nbsp; Nor is there any real debate that A. afarensis is our direct ancestor.&nbsp; OH 13, 14, and 24 are intermediate between A. afarensis and H. habilis.

Now, the other article discusses a new skull&nbsp;that resembles EMR 1470.&nbsp; This skull was placed in a new species -- H. rudolfensis.&nbsp; It was a contemporary of H. habilis, even lived in the same neighborhood, and had a bigger&nbsp;brain than H. habilis.&nbsp; It appears to be an evolutionary offshoot, one of those branches on the bush.&nbsp; I have not seen any&nbsp;fossils connecting H. rudolfensis to H. erectus, like there are fossils&nbsp;connecting H. habilis to H. erectus.

The neandertal site simply focusses on noses.&nbsp; The evidence&nbsp;that says&nbsp;neandertals were a separate species is varied --&nbsp;lack of intermediate neandertal to sapiens fossils, different mtDNA, the fact that the last neandertal fossils are the "most" neandertal, etc.&nbsp; No&nbsp;anthropologist disputes that neandertals were intelligent, tool users, and even had the beginnings of culture.&nbsp; That would be expected if neandertals and sapiens both have H. erectus as our common ancestor.&nbsp; The differences would be slight.&nbsp; But the DNA evidence shows that there are no DNA sequences in modern humans that are older than 100,000 years.&nbsp; If neandertals had contributed to the sapiens gene pool, then there would be genes&nbsp;300,000 years old -- when the first neandertal fossils appear.

The Gish article is over 15&nbsp;years&nbsp;old. New data trumps old ideas.&nbsp; Always.

Gish: "All of the species of <I>Australopithecus</I> and <I>Homo habilis</I> had long curved fingers and long curved toes. Creatures with such anatomical features use them for only one purpose—swinging from branch to branch in the trees. So much for the supposed human-like upright locomotion of <I>Homo habilis</I> and <I>Australopithecus</I>, including "Lucy." "

This is just deceptive. Several articles, including Oxnard's that Gish cites, describe the adaptations in the feet of afarensis and habilis that indicate bipedalism.&nbsp; Oxnard's paper, when actually read, leaves no doubt that Lucy walked upright.&nbsp; The gait wasn't quite like modern humans, but then, if we are talking evolution in gradual stages, then it can't be.&nbsp;

Gish does indeed touch on a reality:

"Louis Leakey discovered fossils of creatures in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania which he claimed were more "advanced" than the australopithecines—sufficiently advanced to place them in the same genus as man. He designated these creatures <I>Homo habilis</I> ("handy man"), believing that they had formed primitive tools. <SUP>3</SUP> Many paleonanthropologists argue, however, that these creatures were simply variants of the australopithecines. "

What Gish doesn't realize is that this type of argument over nomenclature is exactly what you expect if evolution is true.&nbsp; Because of the gradual transformations, there are going to be arguments about when exactly the changes are "enough" to warrant placing them in a different taxa -- genus in this case.&nbsp; The typology that Gish advocates, however, would have always distinct taxa since there are no intermediates.

In the case of afarensis and habilis, the&nbsp;argument was reinforced by the intermediate fossils OH 13, 14, and 24. Were they afarensis or habilis? They are so in-between that it is impossible to say.&nbsp; Then there were the transitionals at Olduvai blending H. habilis to H. erectus.&nbsp; The transition was so rapid and continuous from afarensis to erectus that it is very difficult to find a "type" fossil for H. habilis.

I'm glad you guys are trying to bring up data, but you have to look just as critically at creationist sources as the creationists look at evolution.&nbsp; Are Gish's claims valid? Did they quote the articles so that they got the real intent of the authors, or did they pick quotes that only supported their position?

&nbsp;

 

[Lanakila]

This is why I don't post on here much guys. Do you all enjoy chasing away all the creationists? I give up, you win, control the boards. That does not mean you are right, but that I am not a scientist so I give up.

 

[Jerry Smith]

FYI, Lanakila, I am not trying to chase anyone away. There are those creationists who seem to be open-minded and willing to review the evidence - and I hope to give them enough reason to change their mind about creationism, not chase them away.

What don't you like about lucaspa's or my own reply to your post? Really, all you did was post some links without discussing what points you hoped to make. Is it so unfair that we reply to your post? Or do you not like it that we don't just dismiss the evidence on your sources' collective say-so? What about our replies makes us feel you are being "chased away"?

 

[Lanakila]

I felt like it was dismissed rather quickly. I am sorry Jerry but I don't see the transition from ape to human that you see in those fossils. I have reviewed the evidence, read many many books on this topic. Taken Biology ect, so I am not stupid. But, this place is pretty much unfriendly territory to Creationists as far as I can see.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Lanakila It is your right to remain unconvinced. All I can do is try to make the presentation and to discuss the evidence. Maybe you can check back on this thread after I have added the molecular evidence, and the anatomical evidence. It is, after all, a cumulative case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the fossil post, the fossil transitions are good evidence, but not necessarily compelling in a vaccuum. The general evidence goes with the paleontological evidence, the molecular evidence, and the anatomical evidence.

 

[Rize]

Lucaspa, I'm a fundie not a presb... can't spell it

And the point of AiG is that there is no reason not to clasify lucy among the various types of ape.&nbsp; At least, no reason that they'll agree to.&nbsp; Biological classifications are merely a human invention anyway.

 

[Lanakila]

The molecular evidence is what convinces me evolution on the grand scale that you sugest is impossible. Remember what I wrote on here last year about increase of information? That is the clincher for me. DNA does not and cannot change the way it has to to create all the life on this planet. I have studied this Jerry, have you? Especially from the Creationist side, because I know you read the evolutionist side.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
There is no requirement to respond, but if you are skeptical or uncertain about any of this (because of what someone else has written, or whatever), you are welcome to ask questions for clarification.

Your statement that debating evolution is "pointless" because you believe in God regardless is, on the one hand very wise. On the other hand, it isn't necessarily true. If you started out thinking that the debate over evolution had some real importance to theology, then you are correct to realize that it does not. But that doesn't mean it has no importance. Science is a worthwhile endeavor, and is interesting in its own right - apart from its impact on theology. For that reason, you might well have a motivation to continue discussing it. You may have other reasons as well: remember that creationism is a liability to Christianity. Creationists in the church, making it appear to many people that science and Christianity are irreconcilable, and therefore making Christianity more unattractive to potential converts.

Again, creation/evolution is not an issue for most people.&nbsp; And for those whom it is an issue, they'll read the creationist literature and simply believe it.&nbsp; For those who are more inclined to see things scientifically, theistic evolution is also an option.

I don't have the ability to conclusively decide who is right in this regard, so I'm not going to worry about it or attack one side or the other (as far as attacking creationism because it makes Christianity "unattractive" to potential converts).

For myself, I'm holding to the creationist position.&nbsp; A liberal view of the Bible does not sit well with me at this time.&nbsp; Every thing written at AiG could be wrong for all I care, but I'm still sticking with a literal creation that is very different from the picture painted by evolutionists.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Lanakila
This is why I don't post on here much guys. Do you all enjoy chasing away all the creationists? I give up, you win, control the boards. That does not mean you are right, but that I am not a scientist so I give up.

Giving correct information and showing the failures of creationism is "chasing away all the creationists"?

Look if you have questions about the science, ASK.&nbsp; If we can't give a reasonable answer to a reasonable question, then we are in trouble.

You should see that I took the time and effort to read the web sites you posted.&nbsp; And commented specifically on them.&nbsp; All in an attempt to give you correct information.

If all you want is confirmation of creationism, then I'm sorry, you aren't going to get it. Scientists don't reject creationism because they feel like it, but because it is wrong.&nbsp; Creationism is simply contradicted by the data.&nbsp; And we care too much about you and about science to let you think creationism is correct.

 

[Lanakila]

Thank you for taking the time to read the links I posted. Sorry, I got frustrated. I read things at AIG and ICR that I think are great and you basically chewed it up and spit it out.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Lanakila
The molecular evidence is what convinces me evolution on the grand scale that you sugest is impossible. Remember what I wrote on here last year about increase of information? That is the clincher for me. DNA does not and cannot change the way it has to to create all the life on this planet. I have studied this Jerry, have you? Especially from the Creationist side, because I know you read the evolutionist side.

I have studied this from both sides, and it was Dembski that provided the clincher that evolution increases information. In fact, natural selection can't do anything other than increase information.

DNA does indeed change.&nbsp; For instance, gene and chromosome duplication are quite effective at making new DNA. I have also found dozens of papers via a PubMed search where mutations have resulted in new traits/activities in organisms that were never there before.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Thank you for taking the time to read the links I posted. Sorry, I got frustrated. I read things at AIG and ICR that I think are great and you basically chewed it up and spit it out.

Yes, I did, didn't I? But think. Could I really have done that if they were chew-proof?&nbsp; Or look at the inverse.&nbsp; If I really look to try to "chew up and spit out" ideas, then don't you think I've tried the same thing on evolution? And failed.

No one is more critical of science than scientists. We argue about everything possible to argue about.&nbsp; If you are frustrated here, try going to a scientific meeting sometime. Makes this look like a love-fest.

When scientists agree on an idea, it is because the data is overwhelming and we have no choice.

What frustrates me is that professional creationists feed some&nbsp;very good and honest people like you a lot of misinformation. They also play on your fears and continually portray evolution as atheism.&nbsp; I don't like this anymore than I would like to see you taken in by an unscrupulous used-car salesman.&nbsp; YOU end up screwed in the end by both.

Creationism is simply wrong. God simply didn't create that way.&nbsp;&nbsp; God created by evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rize
Lucaspa, I'm a fundie not a presb... can't spell it

And the point of AiG is that there is no reason not to clasify lucy among the various types of ape.&nbsp; At least, no reason that they'll agree to.&nbsp; Biological classifications are merely a human invention anyway.

There are other ways to be a Christian than a fundie. The point was that accepting evolution does not mean giving up Christianity.&nbsp;

The key here is "no reason that they'll agree to."&nbsp; This says something about AiG people as people, but nothing about Lucy.

Lecture time.&nbsp; Pierre Duhem showed in 1905 that you, as a person,&nbsp;could always refuse to accept falsification of your theory by simply rejecting the underlying hypotheses.&nbsp; Or rejecting the data.&nbsp;This does not mean that the hypothesis&nbsp;isn't falsified, but&nbsp;that you could always find reasons for&nbsp;accepting that the hypothesis was falsified.

There are reasons not to classify Lucy among the apes.&nbsp; You can see Lucy at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and see them for yourself.&nbsp; The knee joint, the teeth, the wrist joints, the pelvis, the shape of the skull.&nbsp; Not an ape, but not&nbsp;modern human, either.&nbsp;&nbsp;The knee, pelvis, and feet show Lucy&nbsp;did not walk like apes but was bipedal.&nbsp; That alone is enough to show that Lucy is not like apes.

Of course, you are correct that classifications above species are somewhat&nbsp;arbitrary.&nbsp; So whether we class Lucy as an ape or hominid is irrelevant to the fact that Lucy is between apes and modern humans, with features of both. The features don't go away by trying to put Lucy with the apes.&nbsp; In doing that, creationists are simply playing a game with names, not looking at the data.

 

[Lanakila]

New traits possibly. Fish fins becoming legs is another thing entirely. Dembski didn't prove that in the book I read by him, can you site the source for that, because from what I read of his work I get the polar opposite of what you just stated.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Lanakila
The molecular evidence is what convinces me evolution on the grand scale that you sugest is impossible. Remember what I wrote on here last year about increase of information? That is the clincher for me. DNA does not and cannot change the way it has to to create all the life on this planet. I have studied this Jerry, have you? Especially from the Creationist side, because I know you read the evolutionist side.

I am familiar with the most common arguments of both, but I have to admit that some of the technical aspects lose me. I've run across arguments that information can't increase many times. I've never seen them as compelling. Depending on how "information" is defined, it is quite clear that it can increase by mutation and natural selection. If "information" by your definition cannot increase through evolution, then that sort of information is probably not necessary for common descent of all life.

Hang around. The only way the creationists can beat the evolutionists is by providing the best evidence and arguments. The only way the evolutionists can beat the creationists is by providing the evidence and arguments. Everybody wins - one wins the debate, and the other corrects false ideas and learns something new. It's a win-win situation for everybody, even if some guys take the gloves off from time to time.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by Lanakila
New traits possibly. Fish fins becoming legs is another thing entirely. Dembski didn't prove that in the book I read by him, can you site the source for that, because from what I read of his work I get the polar opposite of what you just stated.

Well fins into legs ins't another thing; the Hox gene shows that it's possible. I had a link that went into a lot of detail but I can't find it now.

 

[kaotic]

I couldn't find the link I was looking for but I think this might do.

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/99/mahowald/limb-evol.html

 

[Lanakila]

Ain't gonna happen. Just by accepting creationism, creationists also accept by default that the entire scientific community is either stupid, or lying about the truth, or both. Clearly common sense and reason are the first things to go.

Livefreeordie wrote this on another thread and its downright insulting. I don't believe all scientists are ignorant or lying. I think their bias that evolution has to be true, has&nbsp;to cloud how they view exactly the same evidence.