- Jan 2, 2006
- 6,762
- 1,269
- 69
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
That’s not true.
Some do, sorry you haven't read that.
Upvote
0
That’s not true.
Just compare marine life like whales versus fish. There are fundamental structural differences in those types of organisms that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective (different evolutionary pathways), but don't make any sense from a design perspective.
We already know this isn't true given the sheer number of alleles (gene variations) identified, along with identification of specific mutation and in some cases the specific origins of said mutations.
I don’t believe I’ve done such a thing.
I didn’t howl, behave yourself. I don’t disagree with What Davies said.
Of course he never actually said that did he?
No, scientific papers or articles are fine if the information presented can be verified.
Have you finished Coyne's book Why Evolution is True, yet?And many commonalities as well!
Well so far all your side has produced is four supposed "positive" mutations. You still haven't shown the mutations for scales to feathers and that is supposedly a fact! Also I wonder how many gene variations are not simply due to Mendellian Inheritance. I haven't seen anyone research on this as a cause for years!
Anyone ever show you Caucasian couples who have had Caucasian relatives for many generations, produce jet black babies?
And luminescence genes seem to attach and function in many different genus and family!
Large stretches of the process has been confirmed. None of it has been disconfirmed. That's pretty much as good as it gets with scientific theories, which are basically provisional works in progress. You can't ever expect to get to "absolute truth."Well when did they verify random mutations over eons of times building one upon another in a slow fashion took us from goo to you?;
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory explaining that fact. Learn to tell the difference. Scientific theories are discourses of inductive logic. They are confirmed, not proven. Only discourses of deductive logic are proven.We have a forest of trees declaring Darwinian Evolution a fact and proven and verified and validated!
Would you go and look if we told you?So where have they hidden the evidence????
Wrong. That’s the point, it wouldn’t have worked in it’s crushed state.
A deer, where did he say that?
It didn’t fit perfectly, it was misshapen. But so what?
A YEC wouldn’t do it, because it they very rarely do anything apart from writing dishonest articles.
And many commonalities as well!
Well so far all your side has produced is four supposed "positive" mutations.
You still haven't shown the mutations for scales to feathers and that is supposedly a fact!
Also I wonder how many gene variations are not simply due to Mendellian Inheritance. I haven't seen anyone research on this as a cause for years!
Anyone ever show you Caucasian couples who have had Caucasian relatives for many generations, produce jet black babies?
And luminescence genes seem to attach and function in many different genus and family!
your info about Lucy’s pelvis is incorrect . Shaped like that original fossil, the pubic bones would have crossed if both halves were shaped the way the pelvis was originally found and Lucy wouldn’t have been able to walk . Upright walking can be determined by looking at the base of the skull in Hominidae The spine inserts into the skull directly underneath .Look at the video again! IN the supposed crushed state it fit perfect and the video shows it!
And you find nothing wrong with hacking off not an insignificant portion of pelvic bone to show it an upright walker (sawing changed the trajectory of the pelvis) How does taking away8 original bone do anything other than show fraud!
Listen to the video again- He proposed a deer. So how does removing original bone matter show how the pelvis was? It takes away what was there so there is less there don't you get that.
Fossilized bone don't get mishaped by something stepping on it- Odds are given the amount of silicate that went into the bone by then- It is doubtful a deer could crush the bone.
this just shows you have allowed others to suck IQ out of your brain by their mindless ad-hominems.
So I guess we get to have a buffet of choices to decide what we want! Here is an article from an evolutionist:
Taken from this article in AIG: answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/did-lucy-walk-upright/
"This seems like strong evidence that these supposed early ancestors, including Lucy, actually were knuckle-walkers and hence did not walk upright. But no, the authors assume that the previous evidence for bipedalism is sound, and that these ancestors only retain knuckle-walking features from a previous ancestor. It is true that there are some morphological features for knuckle walking that are missing in Lucy,6 but these features are not always present in living knuckle-walkers either, so that researchers cannot rule out that Lucy was a knuckle-walker.5 The researchers are almost forced to reject that Lucy was a knuckle-walker, otherwise it would have adaptions for walking upright, climbing trees (based on the long arms and fingers) and knuckle walking. This presents an evolutionary difficulty in how Lucy can have three fairly distinct behavioural characteristics. Furthermore, it makes it difficult to determine which of these characteristics are related to its lifestyle and which are no longer functional but are carryovers from its previous ancestry.7"
Richmond and Strait, Ref. 3, pp. 382–385.
5Richmond and Strait, Ref. 3, p. 383.
6 Stokstad, E., Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked, Science 287(5461):2131, 2000.
Also from RSR's List of Problems with "Lucy" as an Upright Walker | KGOV.com
* Lucy's Non-Upright Walking Chimp-like Features: The infamous "human ancestor" who allegedly walkedupright had features that, like her sloping skull, evolutionists downplay or simply don't share with the museum-going public. For, Lucy had:
- "locking wrists" for knuckle-walking
- an inner ear, for balance, oriented like knuckle-walking chimps
- the skull attachment for the inner ear like knuckle-walking chimps
- curved hands surprisingly (to some) similar to tree-climbing chimps
- long and curved toe bones, even by ape standards
- a sloping chimp-like face fronting a chimp-sized brain
(and finally, from our you-just-can't-make-this-stuff-up file)
- a 2016 autopsy that reports death by falling 46 feet out of a tree!
7 Collard, M. and Aiello, L.C., From forelimbs to two legs, Nature 404(6776):340, 2000.
Once again- removing huge sections of bone to make it appear like it was supposed???? C'mon man!
Nobody said that. What I quoted was that Todd Wood recognizes that the theory of evolution is a legitimate scientific theory, that it is useful and that there is a lot of evidence to support it.
That is not the same thing as claiming he supports common ancestry or that he is not a creationist. Those were your claims.
He's a YEC with enough sense to realize that the theory of evolution is not just a worldwide atheistic conspiracy to deny the Bible.Well hire is the last line from the link that was given here from his blog
"I also believe that there is legitimate evidence for evolution (including universal common ancestry), but I'll develop that theme some other time. Stay tuned!"
See I didn't make it up! I will stay tuned to see how he works this dichotomy out! But I am glad He is a y8ec creationist with a wierd quirkiness toward evolution and common ancestry.
Well hire is the last line from the link that was given here from his blog
"I also believe that there is legitimate evidence for evolution (including universal common ancestry), but I'll develop that theme some other time. Stay tuned!"
See I didn't make it up! I will stay tuned to see how he works this dichotomy out! But I am glad He is a y8ec creationist with a wierd quirkiness toward evolution and common ancestry.
Can you even name one intelligent design group that isn’t based in the United States? I’m not aware of any, though I admit, I haven’t looked too hard.YOu are terribly wrong on that. CRS has thousands of signatories from over 100 hundred countries!
Look at the video again! IN the supposed crushed state it fit perfect and the video shows it!
So I guess we get to have a buffet of choices to decide what we want!
Taken from this article in AIG: answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/did-lucy-walk-upright/
"This seems like strong evidence that these supposed early ancestors, including Lucy, actually were knuckle-walkers and hence did not walk upright. But no, the authors assume that the previous evidence for bipedalism is sound, and that these ancestors only retain knuckle-walking features from a previous ancestor. It is true that there are some morphological features for knuckle walking that are missing in Lucy,6 but these features are not always present in living knuckle-walkers either, so that researchers cannot rule out that Lucy was a knuckle-walker.5 The researchers are almost forced to reject that Lucy was a knuckle-walker, otherwise it would have adaptions for walking upright, climbing trees (based on the long arms and fingers) and knuckle walking. This presents an evolutionary difficulty in how Lucy can have three fairly distinct behavioural characteristics. Furthermore, it makes it difficult to determine which of these characteristics are related to its lifestyle and which are no longer functional but are carryovers from its previous ancestry.7"
Richmond and Strait, Ref. 3, pp. 382–385.
5Richmond and Strait, Ref. 3, p. 383.
6 Stokstad, E., Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked, Science 287(5461):2131, 2000.
Also from RSR's List of Problems with "Lucy" as an Upright Walker | KGOV.com
* Lucy's Non-Upright Walking Chimp-like Features: The infamous "human ancestor" who allegedly walkedupright had features that, like her sloping skull, evolutionists downplay or simply don't share with the museum-going public. For, Lucy had:
- "locking wrists" for knuckle-walking
- an inner ear, for balance, oriented like knuckle-walking chimps
- the skull attachment for the inner ear like knuckle-walking chimps
- curved hands surprisingly (to some) similar to tree-climbing chimps
- long and curved toe bones, even by ape standards
- a sloping chimp-like face fronting a chimp-sized brain
(and finally, from our you-just-can't-make-this-stuff-up file)
- a 2016 autopsy that reports death by falling 46 feet out of a tree!
7 Collard, M. and Aiello, L.C., From forelimbs to two legs, Nature 404(6776):340, 2000QUOTE]
Are you just going to copy and paste from apologetics sites and expect me to address every point, because I really can’t be bothered.
Tell me how anything you’ve pasted about AAfarensis casts doubt on the fact that it exhibits features of a transitional stage between bipedal and quadrapedal locomotion because nothing you’ve posted suggests otherwise.
Once again- removing huge sections of bone to make it appear like it was supposed???? C'mon man!
Once again, you have conveniently ignored the fact that the reconstruction matches exactly other specimens of australopithecus pelvis finds.
You creationists can’t seem to grasp the fact that Lucy is not the only australopithecus fossil we have.
Listen to the video again- He proposed a deer
No he didn’t. Show me any quote of Lovejoys that say that.
“When I placed a cast of the unrestored ilium next to the sacrum, the distorted auricular surface forced the ilium into an anatomically incorrect position (figure 5). It is rotated to a right angle of where it should be no matter what the posture of this individual was (biped or quadruped). No animal alive or dead has a pelvis orientated this way, and this was clearly not its position during life, and no other australopithecine has this problem. It is clearly a case of post mortem distortion in this specimen (A.L. 288-1)”
Can you even name one intelligent design group that isn’t based in the United States? I’m not aware of any, though I admit, I haven’t looked too hard.
Stating there is evidence for something is not the same thing as accepting it.