Intermediate fossils

[pyro214]

I noticed you never commented on the photos of Turkana Boy I posted back on page 13.
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30805216&postcount=127

no hands/ feet, and head is seperated from spine. Not really all that convicing for me sorry. People said that tests can be done to see if the head fits the bones....this may be true shortly after death, but after millions of years wouldnt they be pretty banged up anyways?
I asked earlier why pictures of skulls from preivous "human types" were not complete, someone replied saying that its because they wernt put in a vaulte to keep them safe....i say same goes for bones when it comes to being able to examine if they were together.

is there any othre pictures that show otherwise...or maybe have a write-up of the comparison between the spinal cord and head.

it seems thats people struggle to find these pictures, ive heard excuses that conditions have not always been appropriate for fossilization....is this true?

 

[pyro214]

You do realize it's not going to be all in one generation, and that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, it's not monkeys -> humans.

yep, although i think humans came from a generation of somthing before humans, but not after monkeys. This inbetween stage is what id like a body fossil picture of.
(may take several to show the transition properly.)

Heck, even the clue that we are both mammals ought to clue you in to the fact there's a common ancestor there.

lots of animals are mammals, personally i like your DNA comparison more.

. Plus our DNA being about 98% similar is another huge clue.

we also share 50% of the same DNA as a bannanas, and someone mentioned in another thread we share 83% the same DNA as watermelons...
i wont turn it down as somewhat of a clue though, i will have to agree that, that is pretty close...we do look alike, i wouldnt imagine it to be otherwise. The remaining 2% is alot bigger then many give it credit for.

 

[USincognito]

no hands/ feet, and head is seperated from spine. Not really all that convicing for me sorry. People said that tests can be done to see if the head fits the bones....this may be true shortly after death, but after millions of years wouldnt they be pretty banged up anyways?
I asked earlier why pictures of skulls from preivous "human types" were not complete, someone replied saying that its because they wernt put in a vaulte to keep them safe....i say same goes for bones when it comes to being able to examine if they were together.

is there any othre pictures that show otherwise...or maybe have a write-up of the comparison between the spinal cord and head.

it seems thats people struggle to find these pictures, ive heard excuses that conditions have not always been appropriate for fossilization....is this true?

Hah. I'm sorry, but your objections are laughable. You have nothing but your bias and desperation for rejecting the photo since you don't have any real reason to suspect the head is any different from the rest of the body.

It only took me 15 seconds to find this abstract for an article that analyzed the bones and teeth of the entire body otherwise I wouldn't do any more homework for you since you're probably not going to read the full article anyway.
Full article linked in the upper right hand corner. Where it says "interservice."

 

[flatworm]

we also share 50% of the same DNA as a bannanas, and someone mentioned in another thread we share 83% the same DNA as watermelons...
i wont turn it down as somewhat of a clue though, i will have to agree that, that is pretty close...we do look alike, i wouldnt imagine it to be otherwise. The remaining 2% is alot bigger then many give it credit for.

Don't forget that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. This is a smoking gun demonstrating common ancestry. The "design re-use" argument fails to explain telomeres in the middle of a chromosome, nor the second, deactivated centromere.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Don't forget that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. This is a smoking gun demonstrating common ancestry. The "design re-use" argument fails to explain telomeres in the middle of a chromosome, nor the second, deactivated centromere.

Oh but design explains that too, the designer was drunk and forgot to remove the extra bits when he cobbled the two together.

Don't you know by now design can explain anything.

 

[flatworm]

Oh but design explains that too, the designer was drunk and forgot to remove the extra bits when he cobbled the two together.

Don't you know by now design can explain anything.

Well, of course it would be at this point that the "mysterious ways" chestnut is trotted out.

For Pyro's benefit, though, I would like to point out the following:

1. Any time you invoke a miracle to support a hypothesis, you are admitting the physical impossibility of that hypothesis.

2. Any time you claim something is beyond human understanding, you are admitting that thing is logically absurd.

 

[pyro214]

Hah. I'm sorry, but your objections are laughable. You have nothing but your bias and desperation for rejecting the photo since you don't have any real reason to suspect the head is any different from the rest of the body.

It only took me 15 seconds to find this abstract for an article that analyzed the bones and teeth of the entire body otherwise I wouldn't do any more homework for you since you're probably not going to read the full article anyway.
Full article linked in the upper right hand corner. Where it says "interservice."

i dont really appreciate how you disrespect my logic but it makes sense...if you see a picture that looks fake, why not say so until further evidence is provided. The head isnt connected to the body....and skull can be put above a human body if its not connected, not sure why you find it so funny that i came up with that thought?

Ive been asking for this, analyzation, throughout the whole thread and its finally been posted, thanks.

 

[USincognito]

i dont really appreciate how you disrespect my logic but it makes sense...if you see a picture that looks fake, why not say so until further evidence is provided.

Because your logic isn't really logic. It's a knee jerk reaction to something you can't explain so you just say "oh it's fake" or whatever. In fact you can't even provide a better attempt to justify your claim that the photo is fake or the fossils are fake or whatever you're claiming since you only supposed reason is missing vertebra. It's an act of desperation, not logic.

The head isnt connected to the body....and skull can be put above a human body if its not connected, not sure why you find it so funny that i came up with that thought?

Why are you still focused on the photo? Did you not take the link I provided for you above? I knew you wouldn't read it so I don't mind wasting 15 seconds looking it up for you, but if you're not going to read it, it's best to stop responding than to continue talking about the photo rather than evidence showing the skull and body belong together.

If you want some very brief details, again, a fools hope on my part. Check out this Page from the Smithsonian.

 

[pyro214]

Because your logic isn't really logic. It's a knee jerk reaction to something you can't explain so you just say "oh it's fake" or whatever. In fact you can't even provide a better attempt to justify your claim that the photo is fake or the fossils are fake or whatever you're claiming since you only supposed reason is missing vertebra. It's an act of desperation, not logic.

heres an example of what happened when [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Hominids cross bread with horses:


whats the first thing that comes to your mind?
now your thinking like i was at the time, until i proove that head was attached to the spine it is logical to think otherwise.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Why are you still focused on the photo? Did you not take the link I provided for you above? I knew you wouldn't read it so I don't mind wasting 15 seconds looking it up for you, but if you're not going to read it, it's best to stop responding than to continue talking about the photo rather than evidence showing the skull and body belong together.

"that i came up with that thought?"
Its called past tense. I was explaning my thought process at the time, to reply to your ridicule.
At the time you had no link of proof justifying it to be real....how am i supposed to know otherwise?

the reply was ment to be more of an explanation of my logic in the past, and a simple thanks for finally proving the picture to be real....instead you take it offensivly?

 

[FishFace]

Don't forget that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. This is a smoking gun demonstrating common ancestry. The "design re-use" argument fails to explain telomeres in the middle of a chromosome, nor the second, deactivated centromere.

Detailed article: http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

That's damn interesting - thanks for telling me something I didn't know, flatworm!

 

[FishFace]

Pyro, you linked to an imageshack-hosted photo-combination of a differently coloured ape skull and a horse or something.

The photo in question, if it is manipulated, is firstly of a better quality. Secondly, you have the article posted to show the techniques involved. Thirdly, you haven't given a legitimate reason against the skull sequence posted previously and fourthly, there's still a whole lot of other evidence.

Evolution can withstand substantial amounts of refuted evidence, because there would still be so much left!

 

[pyro214]

Pyro, you linked to an imageshack-hosted photo-combination of a differently coloured ape skull and a horse or something.
The photo in question, if it is manipulated, is firstly of a better quality. Secondly, you have the article posted to show the techniques involved. Thirdly, you haven't given a legitimate reason against the skull sequence posted previously and fourthly, there's still a whole lot of other evidence.

Evolution can withstand substantial amounts of refuted evidence, because there would still be so much left!

fish, i think your a little lost on why i posted it. I currently have nothing against the ape like skull/ human like body....the reason i posted that pic is because USincognito thought it was funny of me to think that it could possibly be a fake (this was before any links were given to show that it was real). And as far as them being differnt colors, i could of done a better job Were talking about when he first posted it. Also i would like to see this mass majority of other evidence, it intreges me.

his post from before:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30805216&postcount=127
just a picture, no evidence backing it up... (until today).

its becoming a bigger deal then it really should, anyways...going to bed, ill check in tommorow for all the pics supporting evolution.

 

[imind]

its becoming a bigger deal then it really should, anyways...going to bed, ill check in tommorow for all the pics supporting evolution.

roflmao. you'll come back for more 'pictures'? how any of you have put up with this for some 20 pages is beyond me. send him to talk origins, or any other site, and have him do his own homework.

he'll come back for more pictures! ha! and i thought american kids were poor students.




i cannot believe i've waded througth this entire thread.

edited to add: fossilization is an exceptionally rare phenomenon, given that conditions must be perfect for it to be even considered, and evolution stands firmly, even dismissing the fossil record altogether.

 

[USincognito]

{snip inanity}

whats the first thing that comes to your mind?
now your thinking like i was at the time, until i proove that head was attached to the spine it is logical to think otherwise.

Do you even understand fossilization? Do you have any idea how amazing it is that we have as much of Turkana Boy as we do? For now, until we see how much of Little Foot can be extracted, Turkana Boy is the most complete fossil hominid ever unearthed. For you to quibble over missing vertebra tells me you know absolutely nothing about fossilization.

"that i came up with that thought?"
Its called past tense. I was explaning my thought process at the time, to reply to your ridicule.
At the time you had no link of proof justifying it to be real....how am i supposed to know otherwise?

the reply was ment to be more of an explanation of my logic in the past, and a simple thanks for finally proving the picture to be real....instead you take it offensivly?

i dont really appreciate how you disrespect my logic but it makes sense...if you see a picture that looks fake...

You call this logic? You've never explained how you concluded the photo "looked fake" other than the fact that it's not a 100% complete skeleton. If it's just your ignoranace that not all skeletons are 100% fossilized or recoverable that's one thing, but to call a photo fake you need to have some justification.

And if you want to talk about "logic," I've got almost 13,000 posts on CF and have been posting here for over 3 years. If I was a liar who would post a fake photo don't you think that would be well known around here by now? Maybe if you'd used a little logic and thought about whether someone who has been around a long time and said a lot would post a fake photo or not instead of grasping at a straw for a conclusion about the photo.

 

[Mystman]

I actually have to side with pyro here for a bit.

Pictures on the internet mean nothing. The accompanying article does ofcourse, but just a picture gives 0 "evidence points".

If I asked for a picture of something that I don't believe exists (say... Bigfoot or something), and someone provided a picture, I would also ask for the accompanying scientific article detailing the picture's genuineness. Maybe it would be better form to ask for the article to begin with, but still.

As for the "I have a lot of posts"-argument: John (the one and only that can't be named for policy reasons ) has a lot of posts. And sure, he has a bad reputation HERE. But if he posts a pic for some newb at the Origins Theology Creationism subforum, the newb would be better of still doubting the picture, even though everyone else on the forum may love whatever John has to say (assuming for a bit that he posts there..

 

[USincognito]

I actually have to side with pyro here for a bit.

Pictures on the internet mean nothing. The accompanying article does ofcourse, but just a picture gives 0 "evidence points".

If I asked for a picture of something that I don't believe exists (say... Bigfoot or something), and someone provided a picture, I would also ask for the accompanying scientific article detailing the picture's genuineness. Maybe it would be better form to ask for the article to begin with, but still.

I will concede your point but...

As for the "I have a lot of posts"-argument: John (the one and only that can't be named for policy reasons ) has a lot of posts. And sure, he has a bad reputation HERE. But if he posts a pic for some newb at the Origins Theology Creationism subforum, the newb would be better of still doubting the picture, even though everyone else on the forum may love whatever John has to say (assuming for a bit that he posts there..

John, AV, dad, etc. will post things and have CFers call them out in it immidiately as both being wrong and a source of things that are wrong. I, despite having posted here as long as I have, won't be because I'm not known in these parts as someone who is full of it. (Actually, I am, just not regarding the serious discussion of C&E).

And while I do concede your point about image files on the Internet, I stand by my contention that pyro's objection (being the vertebae are missing in that particular photo/fossil) are meritless since he doesn't explain (as have no other Creationists other than Mark's desperate attempt to say Turkana's cranium is "normal") why the apish skull has the foramen magnum at the base.

I'm sorry but a noob to this forum telling someone who has been here a long time that he thinks a photo is "fake" because he's unsatisfied with it doesn't raise to the level of a warrented objection in my book.

 

[pyro214]

I actually have to side with pyro here for a bit.

Pictures on the internet mean nothing. The accompanying article does ofcourse, but just a picture gives 0 "evidence points".

If I asked for a picture of something that I don't believe exists (say... Bigfoot or something), and someone provided a picture, I would also ask for the accompanying scientific article detailing the picture's genuineness. Maybe it would be better form to ask for the article to begin with, but still.

As for the "I have a lot of posts"-argument: John (the one and only that can't be named for policy reasons ) has a lot of posts. And sure, he has a bad reputation HERE. But if he posts a pic for some newb at the Origins Theology Creationism subforum, the newb would be better of still doubting the picture, even though everyone else on the forum may love whatever John has to say (assuming for a bit that he posts there..

thank you for seeing my point of view then somthing other then a form of "noobish behavior"

I'm sorry but a noob to this forum telling someone who has been here a long time that he thinks a photo is "fake" because he's unsatisfied with it doesn't raise to the level of a warrented objection in my book.

from personal experiance i know that alot of time at one forum as well as alot of posts may make you feel like you should be trusted more then others. I agree, i sholud have given you more credit then i did...although i will not say that it was wrong of my to ask for a source of proof (maybe i wanted it to show to others). Ive actually been debating fossils for over 2 months, on the forums were this took place im placed in the top 5 for most posts, and have been there several years.

Anyways, thank-you for putting up my defensive opinions. imind vbmenu_register("postmenu_30881534", true); immaturley pointed out that i should go look up my own fossils, and i will take his advice.

I will keep an eye on this thread but i have no current intentions to ask any further questions right now.

 

[Loudmouth]

And while I do concede your point about image files on the Internet, I stand by my contention that pyro's objection (being the vertebae are missing in that particular photo/fossil) are meritless since he doesn't explain (as have no other Creationists other than Mark's desperate attempt to say Turkana's cranium is "normal") why the apish skull has the foramen magnum at the base.

This is the most important point. Whether or not the skull belongs to that skeleton, the skull is still intermediate. The skull is evidence by itself. Larger cranium than in extant apes, foramen magnum consistent with obligate bipedalism, and reduced brow ridge are all intermediate features found in the skull alone.

In this light, the claim of mistaken identity is even more proposterous. What are the chances that an intermediate skull would roll alongside a very human like (with some small differences) skeleton? According to creationists, the intermediate skull should not exist in the first place.

 

[imind]

I actually have to side with pyro here for a bit...

thank you for seeing my point of view then somthing other then a form of "noobish behavior"

your point of view, in this instance, is not worth viewing, and i will not side with you here, as any of the answers you have sought on this board are available, voluminously, elsewhere online, and your inability to 'find' anything beyond creationist material is inexcusable.

here is a good place for you to begin...

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

 

[pyro214]

In this light, the claim of mistaken identity is even more proposterous. What are the chances that an intermediate skull would roll alongside a very human like (with some small differences) skeleton?

good point to take into consideration now that we know its not a fake.

According to creationists, the intermediate skull should not exist in the first place.

some, even though creationism and evolution can co-exist. The origin of life is were creationists are strict.

your point of view, in this instance, is not worth viewing, and i will not side with you here, as any of the answers you have sought on this board are available, voluminously, elsewhere online, and your inability to 'find' anything beyond creationist material is inexcusable.

here is a good place for you to begin...

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

lets keep on track here, spamming is never a good thing
thanks.

I started this thread, if you dont like me/ the way i discuss then feel free not to post/ view the thread.
i dont really know why you started posting in the first place, you missed the entire discussion and come in at the last second to start up a little flame fest (at age 32...).