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.
To me a picture paints a thousand words. Australopithecus afarensis or (Lucy) looks like a chimp or gorilla. It is said to be an extinct ape like a pygmy chimp.
Then explain why the pelvis looks more like a modern human pelvisn than a chimp pelvis.
Author Summary
I don't know of anyone who could honestly look at those bones and try to claim that Au. afarensis is more like P. troglodytes than Homo sapiens.
Steve's not going to bother commenting on that figure even though he claims "a picture paints a thousand words." I guess the words being painted are in a language he doesn't read.
The picture you posted was a illustration and I am always dubious of that as they can add a little poetic license to make things look a little more transitional. We have seen this time and time again with docos and pictures in books where they fill the flesh on bones to make things look the way they want to present. They even have a statue of Lucy in a museum where she has human feet. The curator knew this but refused to change them saying we know she is a transitional so what does it matter.But when using the real skulls you can see that its a breed of ape right away as the experts have said it was.Yes, lets continue to ignore the rest of the skeleton... except for the fact that the ilium bone is "oriented like a chimpanzee," of course.....
Of course, that jaw is nothing like a chimp's or a gorilla's, but let's ignore that too!
Who said anything about creationism. Scientists also dispute these findings. But what you are accusing creationists of doing is exactly what people say evolutionist do but even more so. Anyone who is truthful will look at Lucy and Australopithecus Afarensis and see that they are apes straight away. Thats what they look like and thats what they are. But evolutionists will do exactly what you saying try to find the one or two ting similarities to humans. But they are 95% plus ape like. You can find a similarity or two in all creatures if you look hard enough even unrelated ones on darwins tree of life. Thats because they are all made from the same blue print just like cars are made from the same basic design even though they are all different.Steve and other creationists play what I call the "all or nothing" game. For example, they will focus on one notch on Lucy's pelvis, and point how it is more similar to other apes than it is modern humans. Just one iliac notch. They will ignore the rest of the pelvis. Why? It doesn't tell the story they want to hear. They would require the pelvis to be 100% human with no ape features in order for Lucy to be transitional. Their view of evolution has a fully modern human having a 100% chimp-like mother. That is the model of evolution that they are using.
First off, black people don't look like apes. Don't be racist.The picture you posted was a illustration and I am always dubious of that as they can add a little poetic license to make things look a little more transitional. We have seen this time and time again with docos and pictures in books where they fill the flesh on bones to make things look the way they want to present. They even have a statue of Lucy in a museum where she has human feet. The curator knew this but refused to change them saying we know she is a transitional so what does it matter.But when using the real skulls you can see that its a breed of ape right away as the experts have said it was.
When you cite the jaw being nothing like an apes but then overlook the rest being very ape like how do you know that is not just a feature of variation within the apes. Diet, disease and just the possibility of a vast variance can allow for this. We have humans with jaws that stick out like apes. We have humans with brow ridges and low foreheads. How do you know Lucy wasn't a extinct species of ape that was different to other apes. The thing is you cite the one or two features that maybe human like but then overlook the 100 that are ape like. To me 1 or 2 features doesn't make a transition. As many of the experts have said it comes within the normal variance of the species.
If you look at the skulls found in Georgia the five skulls had all the variance of brow ridges, prominent jaws and then human like features which covered many of the separate species that evolutionists wanted to make separate species and therefore transitionals to build a chain of links showing the evolution of man. But now they are classed as all from the one species homo erectus. This has wiped out several links in the chain that was built by evolution. Now this has left gaps where there are large jumps of variance between the skulls. Of that picture that evolution likes to use showing all the different skulls and their gradual varying change from ape to human you can just about take out the entire bottom row and place it in the one species that shows all that variation now.
This is a chimp
This is Lucy.
This is anOrangutan Skull
Heres are some modern humans with ape like features So if modern humans can display some features like apes why cant apes display some features like humans just as a variation within they kind. Disease and diet can also affect the features and give off these features as well.
Who said I was being racists. I am merely pointing out that humans can have some features that are similar to apes and nothing derogatory was implied. The point is I am not referring that the whole person looks like an ape but only a feature or two. Hense one pic with the jaw and one with the brow in which I pointed out. I could have found Caucasians with similar features if I wanted but these were the first that came up. Besides I keep hearing evolutionists say we are apes and we should be proud of it. The thought of being racists didn't even enter my head until you mentioned it. This is purely a anatomical point and these sort of pics are on science sites for this very reason.[serious];67048491 said:First off, black people don't look like apes. Don't be racist.
Second, the pelvic image is not some artists interpretation, but a scan of the actual bone. Your dismissal of the evidence presented is premature and based on faulty assumptions
Who said anything about creationism. Scientists also dispute these findings.
Anyone who is truthful will look at Lucy and Australopithecus Afarensis and see that they are apes straight away. Thats what they look like and thats what they are.
But evolutionists will do exactly what you saying try to find the one or two ting similarities to humans. But they are 95% plus ape like. You can find a similarity or two in all creatures if you look hard enough even unrelated ones on darwins tree of life.
Thats because they are all made from the same blue print just like cars are made from the same basic design even though they are all different.
The fact is different species can have a couple of features that are similar to each other without building a evolutionary tree and linking them all back to a common ancestor. The fact is when the features dont fit the picture that evolution wants they will quietly ignore those contradictory ones and focus on the ones they want to emphasize.
The picture you posted was a illustration and I am always dubious of that as they can add a little poetic license to make things look a little more transitional.
Who said anything about creationism. Scientists also dispute these findings. But what you are accusing creationists of doing is exactly what people say evolutionist do but even more so.
If the evidence was so solid then whey do scientists dispute that evidence. An example is the discovery of the 5 skulls at Georgia. They found variation among those 5 skulls that covered several species that had been named in the past as intermediates. Because the skulls were found together the variations between them came from the same species. So this is an example how evolutionists had eagerly labelled skulls found as new species and intermediates to fill in the gaps for evolution of humans based on the features of those skulls. So they had mistaken the natural variation within a species as similar features which linked species. So a species can have variation that can be similar to another species.The evidence is so solidly on the side of evolution that you have to ignore it. This is what I mean by creationists being dishonest. They will not discuss the evidence because the evidence is inconvenient.
No one has posted a picture of Lucy's pelvis in illustration or otherwise.
If the evidence was so solid then whey do scientists dispute that evidence. An example is the discovery of the 5 skulls at Georgia. They found variation among those 5 skulls that covered several species that had been named in the past as intermediates.
Because the skulls were found together the variations between them came from the same species.
I dont think believers ignore the evidence I just think you interpret it as ignoring because they are disagreeing.
You see things one way I see it another. But because I disagree you automatically think I'm wrong and then think I'm either ignoring, dishonest, stupid, delusional ect.
Yet if we begin to take the transitional support and spread it across the whole of all creatures the evidence isn't there.
There are many gaps and even Darwin himself stated that we dont see a blending of creatures but individual ones with fully formed bodies.
I could say that based on some of the recent discoveries that some people who believe in evolution are ignoring the truth as well. So it can cut both ways.
You refuse to talk about these discoveries. I have begged you to present the peer reviewed papers, and you refuse to.
Its hard to tell anything from this picture. But I have been studying the so called evolution of bipedal apes. There isn't any definite evidence that apes developed biped motion which in turn evolved into humans walking. Yes Australopithecus afarensis has some similarities to a human pelvis which may show it could stand upright and walk in an awkward way. But much of the other things needed such as a curved spine and the placement of joints and therefore supporting muscles are not really evident to go with this human like trait. The same as the [FONT="]foramen magnums position for balanced walking.[serious];67052474 said:
All you had to do was ask.
It depends what view you are coming at it from and the assumptions that have been made. Evolution paints a picture of how life evolved from a common ancestor like a micro organism or bacteria. So life would go from that simple form to more complex. Yet we see in the Cambrian explosion all the complex forms of life appear suddenly. Those designs were every bit as complex as what we see today. They were just ancients and different. We often see species disappear out of the column only to reappear suddenly. Each time without any traces of where they came from. Even as Darwin himself said where is the gradual blending of forms if they are evolving one to another.That is not true. What scientists disagree upon are details, which does not support your criticism or analogy. What Loudmouth, Split Rock, and Serious have been showing you is what the "scientific consensus" shows, not just what a few scientists say.
Nevertheless, a day or so ago I asked you a specific question which has yet to be addressed by you. I'll pose it again and would appreciate an honest response expressed in your own words. If you wish to provide any citations (references) that will be fine, but please, no copy/paste.
Here it is: "Can you explain why we don't find fossils of all forms of life in all layers of geologic strata? How did they get distributed in such a manner as to represent what we would expect to see with evolution?"
Of course it is a "breed of ape," so are we. When you look at the "real skull" you do see it has jaws intermediate between us and other great apes. Your compatriot showed us that.The picture you posted was a illustration and I am always dubious of that as they can add a little poetic license to make things look a little more transitional. We have seen this time and time again with docos and pictures in books where they fill the flesh on bones to make things look the way they want to present. They even have a statue of Lucy in a museum where she has human feet. The curator knew this but refused to change them saying we know she is a transitional so what does it matter.But when using the real skulls you can see that its a breed of ape right away as the experts have said it was.
We are also have features of "variation within the apes." I am not the one overlooking "the rest," you are. That's why you concentrated on the "orientation of the ilium," and ignored the rest of the pelvis. There are multiple features that are transitional, not just one or two.When you cite the jaw being nothing like an apes but then overlook the rest being very ape like how do you know that is not just a feature of variation within the apes. Diet, disease and just the possibility of a vast variance can allow for this. We have humans with jaws that stick out like apes. We have humans with brow ridges and low foreheads. How do you know Lucy wasn't a extinct species of ape that was different to other apes. The thing is you cite the one or two features that maybe human like but then overlook the 100 that are ape like. To me 1 or 2 features doesn't make a transition. As many of the experts have said it comes within the normal variance of the species.
How does it matter if we classify a bunch of transitionals as one species or more than one? That range of variation is still there and it is still intermediate between us and other apes. "Species" are a human creation.. nature doesn't make them, and neither did your god.If you look at the skulls found in Georgia the five skulls had all the variance of brow ridges, prominent jaws and then human like features which covered many of the separate species that evolutionists wanted to make separate species and therefore transitionals to build a chain of links showing the evolution of man. But now they are classed as all from the one species homo erectus. This has wiped out several links in the chain that was built by evolution. Now this has left gaps where there are large jumps of variance between the skulls. Of that picture that evolution likes to use showing all the different skulls and their gradual varying change from ape to human you can just about take out the entire bottom row and place it in the one species that shows all that variation now.
Hilarious! None of the photos show a human jaw anything like Lucy's jaws. Yes, there is variation in human jaws, but not anything like what Lucy had. The photo on the right doesn't even look unusual... it is of an African man, though.... nice racist touch!This is a chimp
This is Lucy.this is also Lucy above.
This is anOrangutan Skull
Heres are some modern humans with ape like features So if modern humans can display some features like apes why cant apes display some features like humans just as a variation within they kind. Disease and diet can also affect the features and give off these features as well.
Finally you admit that the pelvis of Lucy's species had features of both humans and non-human apes!!! It was like pulling teeth, though... wasn't it? Is the truth so scary to you?I have seen Lucy's pelvis anyway. It has some similar features to both apes and human but that doesn't mean it makes Lucy transitional.
Except for the teeth, jaws, foramen magnum, angle of the legs, etc...The rest of Lucy is very ape like.
Lucy did not walk exactly like we do. That doesn't mean she was awkward.But Lucy would have found it hard to get around upright and without the many other features that go along with bipedal living it would have been a battle to function. Besides why would she have every other feature so primitively ape like and then one supposed modern like feature without all the other functions needed to go with it to survive and keep that feature.
Reference, please. Most mammals have a vestibular apparatus. Also, what is wrong with Lucy being able to both walk erect and also climb trees? We can even do both today. Oh and the savannas were spreading at this time, so there were fewer trees.But never the less there would need to be many gradual stages showing many of the transitions towards humans. For example the first signs of the vestibular apparatus is with homo erectus. So are we to say that Lucy's kind was stumbling around for a million years or so trying to balance themselves when they had much better movement already in the trees where it was safer.
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?