Lines of Evidence

[Loudmouth]

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.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

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.

 

[stevevw]

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!

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 also Lucy above.

This is an

Orangutan 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.

​

 

[stevevw]

 

[stevevw]

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.

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.

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.

 

[[serious]]

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 an

Orangutan 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.

​

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

 

[stevevw]

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 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.

No one has posted a picture of Lucy's pelvis in illustration or otherwise. I was referring to the illustrated skull pics that were posted. 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. The rest of Lucy is very ape like. There is other evidence that points to her and the Australopithecus afarensis being tree dwellers and knuckle walkers. They didn't have any vestibular apparatus so she would have been very unbalanced and all over the place for walking. There is no reason why an ape can have a pelvis similar to a human for occasional upright standing and movement. She may have been another type of ape that is now extinct.

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.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who said anything about creationism. Scientists also dispute these findings.

As your posts have shown, this isn't the case. You pretend as if H. erectus fossils are being classified as H. sapiens, and you conflate the terms "ancestor" and "transitional".

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.

How can you look at those pelvises and still claim that? Who could honestly say that the pelvis of A. afarensis is more ape-like than human-like?

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.

Again, you make claims that you simply can't back up.

You admit that A. afarensis has a mixture of human features not found in other apes, and ape features not found in modern humans. How is that not transitional?

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.

For the millionth time, cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does.

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.

Then what should a transitional look like?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

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.

 

[RickG]

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.

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?"

 

[stevevw]

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.

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.

So how do they tell whether that similar feature is not a natural variation within that one species. How do you know that an ape can have a similar pelvis to a human with natural variation. The fact that the rest of its features were so ape like it says that the one or two features were just a natural variation. If the pelvis was a transitional stage of becoming a human then it has gone ahead without other key features that would be needed to sustain that pelvis for upright walking. Thats where I think it can come down to personal interpretation and there's no backup evidence besides someone saying I think this features matches this and that feature matches that. The genetic evidence is now showing that its not such a straight forward thing. Creatures that were matched together through observations are now being pulled apart and distant creatures who dont have similar features are being linked. So this is another piece of evidence that is saying that the observations made in the past may not be correct.

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. Anything but possibly being correct. 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.

 

[[serious]]

No one has posted a picture of Lucy's pelvis in illustration or otherwise.

All you had to do was ask.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

THEY ARE STILL INTERMEDIATES.

This is what I mean. You don't know what you are talking about.

Because the skulls were found together the variations between them came from the same species.

They came from the intermediate species known as H. erectus.

I dont think believers ignore the evidence I just think you interpret it as ignoring because they are disagreeing.

Then address the CAT scans of real pelvises found in this paper:

Author Summary

If a mixture of ape and human features is not transitional, THEN WHAT WOULD BE TRANSITIONAL?

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.

You do more than disagree. You call the evidence a fake, and refuse to even address it.

You also refuse to list the criteria you use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. You do more than disagree. You refuse to allow the evidence to guide your conclusion. You cling to the same religious dogma no matter what the evidence is.

Yet if we begin to take the transitional support and spread it across the whole of all creatures the evidence isn't there.

What features are these fossils missing that a real transitional would have?

How many times have you refused to answer this simple question?

There are many gaps and even Darwin himself stated that we dont see a blending of creatures but individual ones with fully formed bodies.

Why wouldn't a transitional be a fully formed species? Were there only half-formed dogs between wolves and chihuahuas? Is the mudskipper half formed because it doesn't have fully formed limbs?

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.

 

[RickG]

You refuse to talk about these discoveries. I have begged you to present the peer reviewed papers, and you refuse to.

He ignores my questions as well.

 

[stevevw]

All you had to do was ask.

thankyou, I vill examine it with a fine tooth comb.

 

[stevevw]

All you had to do was ask.

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=&quot]foramen magnum’s position for balanced walking.

There are also evidence for [/FONT]Australopithecus’ afarensis living in trees as well. So the evidence can go both ways. But just because the pelvis may have some similarities to humans doesn't mean that apes evolved into man. The evidence is still to patchy and fragmented. It is the same for other creatures. We should see a blending of all this across the board not bits and pieces of similar features that can be attributed to variations. Certianly there is still a lot of debate about all this and we will have to wait and see if more definite evidence can be found.

One thing I am interested in is what happened before the Australopithecus’ afarensis pelvis became more human like. As you can see a fair difference in the apes and humans pelvis where are all the transitional changes. the illiac itself on the humans is very short and wide and the apes is very long and narrow. But the difference could not have occurred in one go. There would have had to have been several stages for this. Yet there doesn't seem to be any evidence before hand showing the gradual changes. Then why would the ape have such a modern looking pelvis and yet still very ape like structures for mostly everywhere else. It seems out of place to have such an evolved pelvis yet all the supporting structures that would make that pelvis work well not there like the spine and hips ect. It would seem a waste of effort.

How do chance mutations evolve a human like pelvis and not all the other associated things that will help make that pelvis work well for upright stance and walking. Its like it is so close but yet so far. Maybe there wasa breed of ape that could stand upright a little more for how it lived. This will explain why it is still so ape like despite its pelvis being more closely aligned to humans. It seems strange that it had a good working pelvis for being biped yet never had the balance, backbone and all the other needed things to go along with it.

 

[stevevw]

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?"

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.

There are many forms of life that have remained the same for millions of years and there are living fossils. There are many forms of life like the giant wombats and kangaroos that have remained the same but have only become smaller which is not the type of Darwinian evolution that is needed to create all life from a common ancestor. There is a form of evolution that can change size and color or add hair or adapt a organism to become resistant to anti biotics for example. But this all happens within the existing genetics they have or through HGT. There have been a lot of creatures that have gone extinct with different and strange shapes. There have been others that seem similar to our modern shape animals but are bigger or smaller. They have similar features in one way or another so we dont know if they are just a variation of the original creature. Variations within a kind of animal can be misinterpreted and mistaken as evolution and new species which has been shown by the evidence.

For all we know all the genetic ability was already there in the genomes of these original basic animals and life has grown out from this. There is a form of evolution going on but it is limited. But it still has a great capacity to change animals and even make it seem that they have evolved from one different creature and adding new genetic material through mutations so that it turns into another. This is where some disagree. The genetics of the original forms of life had much of the ability to form many different shapes and sizes. This was so that animals could adapt and morph with their environments because they are a part of their environments and their ecosystems are living things and changing just like they are.

But there is no magical mutations that can account for the vast complexity of life. That to me takes more faith than God. Mutations are basically an error that needs to be fixed. It doesn't create the amazing complexity we see. Especially now that scientists are finding out that our genomes are way more complex than they thought. They will find ability and function way beyond what any naturalistic random and chance process can create. It reeks of intelligence and design. Darwinian evolution is just a way of trying to put a man made and naturalistic explanation on Gods design. So I guess it comes down to how you see things and what you believe.

Darwinian evolution can indoctrinate people just as much as what people say religion does. I have seen the liberty some take in adding the flesh to the bi=ones of the evolutionary story. They make assumptions like they are facts when they tell the story of how life evolved. It is basically looking back into a past that we can go back to and trying to piece togther what happens. But there is also a lot of personal interpretation involved from which we have sen proven wrong so many times. It can be tested in a lab and no one has proven it in a lab. The genetic evidence is what will show what life is made up of. In recent times it is contradicting what the observational evidence that was used for evolution in the past. So I guess the jusy is still out and we will have to wait and see.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

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.

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.

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.
1. size and shape of the jaws
2. size of the canine teeth
3. Shape of the pelvis
4. location of the foramen magnum
5. angle of the leg bones
That's just off the top of my head.

Oh, and there are no humans that have jaws that stick out like Lucy's did.

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.

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.

This is a chimp

This is Lucy.

this is also Lucy above.

This is an

Orangutan 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.

​

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!

 

[Split Rock]

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.

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?

The rest of Lucy is very ape like.

Except for the teeth, jaws, foramen magnum, angle of the legs, etc...

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.

Lucy did not walk exactly like we do. That doesn't mean she was awkward.

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.

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.