Lines of Evidence

[Loudmouth]

Yet we see in the Cambrian explosion all the complex forms of life appear suddenly.

No, we don't. In the Cambrian, there are no . . .

trees
grasses
flowers
jawed fish
amphibians
reptiles
birds
dinosaurs
insects
mammals

. . . just to name a few.

Those designs were every bit as complex as what we see today.

Remember you said that. This is the closest organism we can find to a modern vertebrate in the Cambrian.

It is called Haikouella. It has no bones, barely has a brain, no lungs, no limbs, no jaw, and no complex internal organs. Are you saying that this organism is as complex as humans? Are you saying that you have no problem with all vertebrates evolving from Haikouella since it would not require an increase in complexity?

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.

Who said that the evolution of kangaroos and wombats from a common ancestor also explains the evolution of all life?

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.

No, it doesn't. For example, the evolution of dark fur in pocket mice required the random mutation of the mc1r gene.

"We conducted association studies by using markers in candidate pigmentation genes and discovered four mutations in the melanocortin-1-receptor gene, Mc1r, that seem to be responsible for adaptive melanism in one population of lava-dwelling pocket mice."
The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

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.

Just as humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are all variations of our common ancestor. That is what evolution does, produce variation over time.

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.

Are you saying that haikouella had all of the DNA needed to make everything from sharks to humans?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

This is the "all or nothing" fallacy that I was talking about earlier. You require evolution to evolve everything all at once. You require a transitional to be exactly like humans in every way. Why is that?

You said before that these fossil species are "fully formed", but now you are saying that Australopithecines have adaptations for bipedality in their pelvis, but lack other adaptations in their spine and joint placement. Do you consider this to be "fully formed"? If so, it would seem to be a meaningless description.

There are also evidence for [/FONT]Australopithecus’ afarensis living in trees as well. So the evidence can go both ways.

Here we have a species that has adaptations for bipedality and living in trees. Isn't that exactly what we would expect to see in a lineage transitioning between trees and walking on land?

But just because the pelvis may have some similarities to humans doesn't mean that apes evolved into man.

Why aren't transitional fossils evidence for human evolution? Please explain.

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.

Why shouldn't we see a patchy fossil transition if the fossil record is patchy?

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.

Why ask for more if you won't accept the ones we do have?

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.

That's strange. You try to discount Australopithecines as being transitional because they lacked the other joint and spine adaptations seen in humans. You expected those adaptations to come about in one go.

You really need to find some consistent arguments. As it is, you are contradicting yourself all over the place.

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.

Can you show us a sinlge mutation between chimps and humans that could not evolve through random mutations and natural selection?

 

[RickG]

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.

Thank you for responding stevevw, I appreciate your comments. In my question to which you responded, I am purposely moving away from biology, genetics, etc., with respect to common ancestors or missing links. I openly admit that biology is not my field of expertise, thus I will leave that type of discussion to those who are more educated and experienced in that area than me, and not address some of your comments addressing that.

With respect to the Cambrian Explosion, I think it is important to understand that geologically speaking, the Cambrian Explosion is was not a sudden as a layman may expect. In fact, the explosion occurred over a period of some 20 million years. What is important to understand about the Cambrian Explosion is understanding the why. The oldest known fossils date back in excess of 3.5 Ga (billion years). The reason life forms did nor evolve or become more complex in a more timely fashion is due to the earth's atmosphere and oceans. Just to briefly mention a few of those things, there was little to no oxygen on earth until about 2.3 Ga when the first Great Oxidation Event (GOE) occurred, actually about 5 stages in all, the largest just prior to the Cambrian Period. Thus, life before then was anoxic. Also prior to the Cambrian Period, there were three major "snowball earth" events. So, with the Cambrian Period we for the first time have conditions favorable for the diversity of life.

Now on to what I want to ask you. Explain the way life (fossils) is distributed through out the geologic column. If all life, plant and animal, was appeared (created) at one time, would we not expect to find fossils of all life forms distributed evenly throughout the geologic column? Why do we not have any rabbit fossils in Cambrian strata? Why do we not have any dinosaur fossils in Devonian strata, why do we not have any human fossils in Triassic strata? How did all those fossilized life forms get distributed through out the geologic column in such a way to demonstrate evolution without evolution? Did they just pop into existence over a period of some 3.5 Ga at just the right time and place as to mimic evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

With respect to the Cambrian Explosion, I think it is important to understand that geologically speaking, the Cambrian Explosion is was not a sudden as a layman may expect.

Another common mistake that I see creationists make is that they think the Cambrian is made up of only marine deposits. They often forget that the Cambrian is a time period, not a type of environment. They hear that fossils are only found in marine deposits during the Cambrian, and they twist that around in their head to mean that all Cambrian deposits are marine. The truth of the matter is that the terrestrial deposits are devoid of life except for algal or bacterial mats.

Of course, that doesn't stop them from making the rather strange claim that all the types of life emerged in the Cambrian.

 

[Split Rock]

Another common mistake that I see creationists make is that they think the Cambrian is made up of only marine deposits. They often forget that the Cambrian is a time period, not a type of environment. They hear that fossils are only found in marine deposits during the Cambrian, and they twist that around in their head to mean that all Cambrian deposits are marine. The truth of the matter is that the terrestrial deposits are devoid of life except for algal or bacterial mats.

Of course, that doesn't stop them from making the rather strange claim that all the types of life emerged in the Cambrian.

The latter misconception is due to the fact that the major phyla all appeared in the Cambrian Period. What they don't understand is that it didn't include dogs, cats, mice, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, fish, birds, etc. As Loudmouth pointed out, the chordates (non-vertebrate at this point) are represented only by very simple forms like Haikouella and Pikaia.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

No, it doesn't. For example, the evolution of dark fur in pocket mice required the random mutation of the mc1r gene.

"We conducted association studies by using markers in candidate pigmentation genes and discovered four mutations in the melanocortin-1-receptor gene, Mc1r, that seem to be responsible for adaptive melanism in one population of lava-dwelling pocket mice."
The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

Another example is the evolution of resistance to glyphosate (Roundup) in goosegrass. It is due to a single point mutation in the target gene. Glyphosate-Resistant Goosegrass. Identification of a Mutation in the Target Enzyme 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-Phosphate Synthase

 

[stevevw]

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 hadn't really seen the pelvis that much nor the rest of Lucy until recently. I am researching this mostly as I go along. The point I was making is observational evidence alone is never completely reliable. There have been many occasions where people have made connections based on observations only to be found wrong later.

If you use the method of similar features between animals as the way to show how they evolved from each other then you have to use the dissimilarities. Sometimes those animals can have a similarity with an animal that is not on its evolutionary path. The genetic evidence is showing contradictory connections as well. So there is more to it than using this method of showing transitions for evolution.

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

Like I said these are up for interpretation. The teeth can thin through wear, diet and disease. There can be a natural variation with the teeth that can cross into the transitional as well. Modern humans can show a jaw that juts out. The jaw of Lucy is ape like and its teeth are ape like. The evidence for the foramen magnum showing bipedibility is up in the air as well. All this is open to interpretation. The variation of these features can be great within apes. It is possible for a species of an extinct ape to have some of these features as well. The point is there is little evidence showing a solid transitional progression fro ape to humans. The evidence is open to interpretation and patchy.

However, recent work suggests that foramen magnum orientation is not a good indicator of the orientation of the neck during habitual locomotion because foramen magnum orientation is not significantly correlated with basicranial flexion, orbital axis orientation, the orientation of the head relative to the neck, or the size of the cerebellum relative to the posterior basicranium.

There is a considerable amount of overlap in the measures between Pan and modern humans.
Foramen Magnum Placement | CARTA

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

It is all up for interpretation. Scientist are trying to work out how a creature may have walked or moved by their bone structures and the position of certain joints and associated anatomy connected to those bones. The evidence may suggest a creature had some sort of walk and movement by it doesn't mean it proves they were a transitional to humans in their walk. All this is based on the assumption that apes evolved into humans in the first place. There is also evidence against this.

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.

Lucy and her kind never had a vestibular apparatus like a humans which was needed to maintain balance when walking upright. Yet her pelvis is cited as being so much like a humans which would indicate she could walk similar. The difference between apes and humans is vast for how they balanced on their feet. All the associated positions of hips, shoulders, legs, head as well as the need for the vestibular apparatus to be positioned like a human to keep balance and agility for having all their weight on such a small area of their feet. The apes center of gravity is not designed for upright balanced walking or movement.

So though Lucy's pelvis shows some similarities with a humans many of the other features needed were not there. Scientists will pull out one or two similarities and use this for showing transition but not acknowledge all the other differences. Like I said we dont know if those similarities can be found in the normal variation of a species as well. There may have been some species in the past who could have had some of these features.

Using high-resolution computed tomography, Spoor, et al., were able to generate cross-sectional images of the bony labyrinth that comprised the inner ear. They wrote: “Among the fossil hominids, the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semicircular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes” (1994, 272:645). With that single declaration, Spoor and his colleagues have drawn a line which unequivocally states that all fossils prior to Homo erectus have ape-like morphology that allowed them to climb trees, swing from branches, or walk hunched over on their knuckles.
http://www.rae.org/apewalk.html

 

[stevevw]

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 hadn't really seen the pelvis that much nor the rest of Lucy until recently. I am researching this mostly as I go along. The point I was making is observational evidence alone is never completely reliable. There have been many occasions where people have made connections based on observations only to be found wrong later.

If you use the method of similar features between animals as the way to show how they evolved from each other then you have to use the dissimilarities. Sometimes those animals can have a similarity with an animal that is not on its evolutionary path. The genetic evidence is showing contradictory connections as well. So there is more to it than using this method of showing transitions for evolution.

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

Like I said these are up for interpretation. The teeth can thin through wear, diet and disease. There can be a natural variation with the teeth that can cross into the transitional as well. Modern humans can show a jaw that juts out. The jaw of Lucy is ape like and its teeth are ape like. The evidence for the foramen magnum showing bipedibility is up in the air as well. All this is open to interpretation. The variation of these features can be great within apes. It is possible for a species of an extinct ape to have some of these features as well. The point is there is little evidence showing a solid transitional progression fro ape to humans. The evidence is open to interpretation and patchy.

However, recent work suggests that foramen magnum orientation is not a good indicator of the orientation of the neck during habitual locomotion because foramen magnum orientation is not significantly correlated with basicranial flexion, orbital axis orientation, the orientation of the head relative to the neck, or the size of the cerebellum relative to the posterior basicranium.

There is a considerable amount of overlap in the measures between Pan and modern humans.
Foramen Magnum Placement | CARTA

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

It is all up for interpretation. Scientist are trying to work out how a creature may have walked or moved by their bone structures and the position of certain joints and associated anatomy connected to those bones. The evidence may suggest a creature had some sort of walk and movement by it doesn't mean it proves they were a transitional to humans in their walk. All this is based on the assumption that apes evolved into humans in the first place. There is also evidence against this.

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.

Lucy and her kind never had a vestibular apparatus like a humans which was needed to maintain balance when walking upright. Yet her pelvis is cited as being so much like a humans which would indicate she could walk similar. The difference between apes and humans is vast for how they balanced on their feet. All the associated positions of hips, shoulders, legs, head as well as the need for the vestibular apparatus to be positioned like a human to keep balance and agility for having all their weight on such a small area of their feet. The apes center of gravity is not designed for upright balanced walking or movement.

So though Lucy's pelvis shows some similarities with a humans many of the other features needed were not there. Scientists will pull out one or two similarities and use this for showing transition but not acknowledge all the other differences. Like I said we dont know if those similarities can be found in the normal variation of a species as well. There may have been some species in the past who could have had some of these features.

[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]Here we report a systematic attempt to reconstruct the locomotor behaviour of early hominids by looking at a major component of the mechanism for the unconscious perception of movement, namely by examining the vestibular system of living primates and early hominids. High-resolution computed tomography was used to generate cross-sectional images of the bony labyrinth. Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semicircular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes. [/FONT]
Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Moving on: LINES OF EVIDENCE: (PART 1: ERVs)

 

[Split Rock]

If you use the method of similar features between animals as the way to show how they evolved from each other then you have to use the dissimilarities. Sometimes those animals can have a similarity with an animal that is not on its evolutionary path. The genetic evidence is showing contradictory connections as well. So there is more to it than using this method of showing transitions for evolution.

Similarities are used to determine genetic relationships, not dissimilarities. The dissimilarities show we are different species. The similarities show we are related species.

Like I said these are up for interpretation. The teeth can thin through wear, diet and disease. There can be a natural variation with the teeth that can cross into the transitional as well. Modern humans can show a jaw that juts out. The jaw of Lucy is ape like and its teeth are ape like. The evidence for the foramen magnum showing bipedibility is up in the air as well. All this is open to interpretation. The variation of these features can be great within apes. It is possible for a species of an extinct ape to have some of these features as well. The point is there is little evidence showing a solid transitional progression fro ape to humans. The evidence is open to interpretation and patchy.

What evidence would you accept that showed a "solid transitional progression" from ape to human? Please note that not all features are required to evolve at the same rate.

However, recent work suggests that foramen magnum orientation is not a good indicator of the orientation of the neck during habitual locomotion because foramen magnum orientation is not significantly correlated with basicranial flexion, orbital axis orientation, the orientation of the head relative to the neck, or the size of the cerebellum relative to the posterior basicranium.

There is a considerable amount of overlap in the measures between Pan and modern humans.
Foramen Magnum Placement | CARTA

According to the paper cited:

The foramen magnum position has been cited as evidence of bipedal locomotion (a hominin characteristics), so fossil hominins are classified based on evidence of an anteriorly placed foramen magnum, as is the case for Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus. The positions of biporion (line between porion points at the midpoint of the external margin of the external auditory/acoustic meatus) and bicarotid (line between carotids points at the center of the carotid foramen at the intersection of the maximum anteroposterior and mediolateral diameters) relative to basion (point where anterior margin of the foramen magnum is intersected by the mid-sagittal plane) have been used as a measure for distinguishing hominins from non-hominins. There is a considerable amount of overlap in the measures between Pan and modern humans, but the basion to bicarotid measure when used alone or bivariately with the basion to biporion measure can be used to identify distinguish Plio-Pleistocene hominins. The basion to biporion measure alone does not distinguish Pan from Plio-Pleisotcene hominins and modern humans. Other cranial base measurements have not been able to differentiate hominins from non-hominin apes. Based on these measures, Ardipithecus is clearly a hominin, but the hominin status of Sahelanthropus is unclear.​

So, in other words, one has to make the proper measurements in order to use the foramen magnum position to determine bipedality. In this case, they were differentiating between two species of apes farther away from humans than Lucy was. Therefore, the objection you are making does not apply.

It is all up for interpretation. Scientist are trying to work out how a creature may have walked or moved by their bone structures and the position of certain joints and associated anatomy connected to those bones. The evidence may suggest a creature had some sort of walk and movement by it doesn't mean it proves they were a transitional to humans in their walk. All this is based on the assumption that apes evolved into humans in the first place. There is also evidence against this.

No assumption.. it is the conclusion that all the physical evidence leads, not just the fossil record.

Lucy and her kind never had a vestibular apparatus like a humans which was needed to maintain balance when walking upright. Yet her pelvis is cited as being so much like a humans which would indicate she could walk similar. The difference between apes and humans is vast for how they balanced on their feet. All the associated positions of hips, shoulders, legs, head as well as the need for the vestibular apparatus to be positioned like a human to keep balance and agility for having all their weight on such a small area of their feet. The apes center of gravity is not designed for upright balanced walking or movement.


So though Lucy's pelvis shows some similarities with a humans many of the other features needed were not there. Scientists will pull out one or two similarities and use this for showing transition but not acknowledge all the other differences. Like I said we dont know if those similarities can be found in the normal variation of a species as well. There may have been some species in the past who could have had some of these features.

Using high-resolution computed tomography, Spoor, et al., were able to generate cross-sectional images of the bony labyrinth that comprised the inner ear. They wrote: “Among the fossil hominids, the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semicircular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes” (1994, 272:645). With that single declaration, Spoor and his colleagues have drawn a line which unequivocally states that all fossils prior to Homo erectus have ape-like morphology that allowed them to climb trees, swing from branches, or walk hunched over on their knuckles.
http://www.rae.org/apewalk.html

Again we have the problem that you do not recognize that a transitional species should have features of both groups it is transitional between. Show me any reference that claims Lucy and her species could not walk erect because they had an ape-like vestibular apparatus. Mind you, no one is claiming they walked just like we do.

 

[stevevw]

Similarities are used to determine genetic relationships, not dissimilarities. The dissimilarities show we are different species. The similarities show we are related species.

Its all subjective and open to interpretation as well. Similarities with a variation of the same species can be mistaken for a transition. Similarities with different species is said to be convergent. Yet some have similar genetics as well. Some which have different features are linked closer by genetics. So it doesn't all fall into a nice neat line as evolutionists say. There are a lot of incongruent matches on the tree of life as well.

What evidence would you accept that showed a "solid transitional progression" from ape to human? Please note that not all features are required to evolve at the same rate.

Thats the problem neither I nor evolutionists can be confident about what would make a transition beyond doubt. There is to much variability involved.

According to the paper cited:

The foramen magnum position has been cited as evidence of bipedal locomotion (a hominin characteristics), so fossil hominins are classified based on evidence of an anteriorly placed foramen magnum, as is the case for Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus. The positions of biporion (line between porion points at the midpoint of the external margin of the external auditory/acoustic meatus) and bicarotid (line between carotids points at the center of the carotid foramen at the intersection of the maximum anteroposterior and mediolateral diameters) relative to basion (point where anterior margin of the foramen magnum is intersected by the mid-sagittal plane) have been used as a measure for distinguishing hominins from non-hominins. There is a considerable amount of overlap in the measures between Pan and modern humans, but the basion to bicarotid measure when used alone or bivariately with the basion to biporion measure can be used to identify distinguish Plio-Pleistocene hominins. The basion to biporion measure alone does not distinguish Pan from Plio-Pleisotcene hominins and modern humans. Other cranial base measurements have not been able to differentiate hominins from non-hominin apes. Based on these measures, Ardipithecus is clearly a hominin, but the hominin status of Sahelanthropus is unclear.​

So, in other words, one has to make the proper measurements in order to use the foramen magnum position to determine bipedality. In this case, they were differentiating between two species of apes farther away from humans than Lucy was. Therefore, the objection you are making does not apply.

The thing is there are many cross overs with apes and humans. They can both have some aspects of each others features naturally. Modern apes have been know to walk and stand upright. The pygmy apes which were said to be like Lucy are known to walk upright. There are many features that Lucy's type didn't have that go with walking upright such as the feet and balance. Their proportions were not centered for good upright walking. So Lucy could have been a type of ape that happened to walk upright but also walk on all fours and climb trees. So its hard to tell as there are many overlapping features that both humans and apes have within their own kinds.

The Prancing Papio: Apes Walking Upright: That's Just How They Roll (or Walk).

No assumption.. it is the conclusion that all the physical evidence leads, not just the fossil record.

When it comes down to it there is little evidence for transition from ape to human. Evolutionists can make a lot out of some of the features but like I said they dont conclusively show that we come from apes. It just shows us and apes have some similarities as separate kinds. But if you used the same type of logic when comparing other animals and their related species you dont get the same likeness as we see with apes and humans. So the pattern doesn't follow. Here are some animals that are unrelated yet look very similar.
Dog and the Tasmanian Wolf (marsupial)
Porcupine and the Echidna (marsupial)
Groundhog and the Wombat (marsupial)
Shrew and the Elephant Shrew (DNA not related)

Again we have the problem that you do not recognize that a transitional species should have features of both groups it is transitional between. Show me any reference that claims Lucy and her species could not walk erect because they had an ape-like vestibular apparatus. Mind you, no one is claiming they walked just like we do.

But non related animals have similar features of each other as well. Natural variations of features that are associated with a species can be mistaken for transitions. The modern human has some ape like features now within their variations. Some apes walk now as a variation with the modern ape. How do you tell the difference between a natural variation and a transition. The skulls found at Georgia had great variation with the one species that covered several other species. So this meant that evolutionists had been to quick to label some discoveries as new species and transitions when they were just a variation of the one species homo erectus. So already we have evidence that evolutionists get it wrong when pointing out transitions.

 

[RickG]

Its all subjective and open to interpretation as well. Similarities with a variation of the same species can be mistaken for a transition. Similarities with different species is said to be convergent. Yet some have similar genetics as well. Some which have different features are linked closer by genetics. So it doesn't all fall into a nice neat line as evolutionists say. There are a lot of incongruent matches on the tree of life as well.

And I accept that as an opinion from one who has no professional or even academic exposure to paleontology and taxonomy. That is understandable. However, I have previously asked you a couple of times already to explain the distribution of fossils throughout the geologic column without evolution. No evolution would show all species (kinds) of fauna and flora in all layers of the geologic column. An answer to my question would be appreciated.

 

[Split Rock]

Its all subjective and open to interpretation as well. Similarities with a variation of the same species can be mistaken for a transition. Similarities with different species is said to be convergent. Yet some have similar genetics as well. Some which have different features are linked closer by genetics. So it doesn't all fall into a nice neat line as evolutionists say. There are a lot of incongruent matches on the tree of life as well.

Everything in life is "subjective and open to interpretation." You guys like to use that to claim that whatever we find to support common descent should be disregarded out of hand. As far as convergent evolution is concerned the similarities you are referring to are analogous, not homologous. They are developmentally and structurally different, but look similar or function similarly. Examples include a bird, a bat and a Pterosaurs' wings. These are clearly identifiable as different.

Thats the problem neither I nor evolutionists can be confident about what would make a transition beyond doubt. There is to much variability involved.

There is no "beyond doubt" in science. We base our conclusions based on what is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. You base your conclusions on religious dogma, and what you want to be true. You accept nothing as transitional, because you will not accept anything as transitional.

The thing is there are many cross overs with apes and humans. They can both have some aspects of each others features naturally. Modern apes have been know to walk and stand upright. The pygmy apes which were said to be like Lucy are known to walk upright. There are many features that Lucy's type didn't have that go with walking upright such as the feet and balance. Their proportions were not centered for good upright walking. So Lucy could have been a type of ape that happened to walk upright but also walk on all fours and climb trees. So its hard to tell as there are many overlapping features that both humans and apes have within their own kinds.

The Prancing Papio: Apes Walking Upright: That's Just How They Roll (or Walk).

Because Lucy walked upright and had more human like jaws and pelvis, etc., we consider her transitional.

When it comes down to it there is little evidence for transition from ape to human. Evolutionists can make a lot out of some of the features but like I said they dont conclusively show that we come from apes. It just shows us and apes have some similarities as separate kinds. But if you used the same type of logic when comparing other animals and their related species you dont get the same likeness as we see with apes and humans. So the pattern doesn't follow. Here are some animals that are unrelated yet look very similar.
Dog and the Tasmanian Wolf (marsupial)
Porcupine and the Echidna (marsupial)
Groundhog and the Wombat (marsupial)
Shrew and the Elephant Shrew (DNA not related)

1. You have gone from "there is no transitional beyond doubt" to "there is little evidence of transitionals." That is quite a jump you made there. I agree with the former, but not with the latter.

2. The examples of convergent evolution you gave are all easily distinguishable because the similarities are analogous not homologous. The similarities with Lucy and humans are homologous, not analogous. In most of these examples, you are comparing placental mammals to marsupial mammals. Also, while the structures look similar, they are developmentally and structurally different.

But non related animals have similar features of each other as well. Natural variations of features that are associated with a species can be mistaken for transitions. The modern human has some ape like features now within their variations. Some apes walk now as a variation with the modern ape. How do you tell the difference between a natural variation and a transition. The skulls found at Georgia had great variation with the one species that covered several other species. So this meant that evolutionists had been to quick to label some discoveries as new species and transitions when they were just a variation of the one species homo erectus. So already we have evidence that evolutionists get it wrong when pointing out transitions.

Humans have ape-like features because we are apes. Whether there is one H. erectus species or more than one is not relevant to the transitional nature of these organisms.

I suppose you will also claim that H. erectus is not a transitional either. So, which conflicting creationist claim will you make concerning H. erectus? Will you claim it was "just a human," or "just an ape?" Your professional creationist peers can't seem to come to a consensus. I wonder why that is......hmmm.....

 

[RickG]

There is no "beyond doubt" in science. We base our conclusions based on what is supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

Just to add a bit to that, if those folks would actually read through some of the scientific literature we cite, they would see that that literature quite prominently states other views and admits any limitations to their findings.

 

[Loudmouth]

Similarities with a variation of the same species can be mistaken for a transition.

If you don't use similarities between species, then how in the world do you determine if a fossil is transitional or not? What are you looking at to determine if a fossil is transitional? Are you using a crystal ball?

Similarities with different species is said to be convergent. Yet some have similar genetics as well. Some which have different features are linked closer by genetics. So it doesn't all fall into a nice neat line as evolutionists say. There are a lot of incongruent matches on the tree of life as well.

We need references and examples.

Thats the problem neither I nor evolutionists can be confident about what would make a transition beyond doubt. There is to much variability involved.

Why can't a species be both variable and transitional? None of the individuals in the H. erectus species are within modern human variability. So why do you keep claiming that there is "too much variability"?

The thing is there are many cross overs with apes and humans.

The human pelvis does not cross over with any of the other living ape species. Neither do the other features that we have been discussing.

The pygmy apes which were said to be like Lucy are known to walk upright.

Show us the pelvis from a pygmy chimp and show hot Lucy's pelvis is more like the pygmy chimp than it is a human. I bet you won't do it. Am I right?

The thing is you keep making claims that are simply false. This is one of them. Let's just focus on this one aspect, and see if you can honestly present the evidence. Show us a pelvis from a human, austalopithecus, and pygmy chimp. Show us how the australopithecine pelvis is more like the chimp pelvis than the human pelvis.

 

[JacksBratt]

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?


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


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


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.

It should be noted that they only have 47 bones to build Lucy from. Out of 207 or 208 bones that make up a human, that's about 22% of the bones and many of these are fragmented.

Any extrapolation of this creature, based on 22% of the data, could be argued by any other extrapolation.

 

[Loudmouth]

It should be noted that they only have 47 bones to build Lucy from. Out of 207 or 208 bones that make up a human, that's about 22% of the bones and many of these are fragmented.

Any extrapolation of this creature, based on 22% of the data, could be argued by any other extrapolation.

We don't have to have the left big toe in order to demonstrate that Lucy's pelvis is more like humans than the pelvis found in any other ape. Like most creationists, you ignore the fossil evidence. Creationists are not using the same evidence that real scientists are because creationists run away from the evidence.

 

[Split Rock]

It should be noted that they only have 47 bones to build Lucy from. Out of 207 or 208 bones that make up a human, that's about 22% of the bones and many of these are fragmented.

Any extrapolation of this creature, based on 22% of the data, could be argued by any other extrapolation.

You are ignoring the fact that Lucy had bilateral symmetry, just like us. In other words, the left and right sides are mirror images. Therefore, you don't need 208 bones, you need a little more than half. That brings your percentage up to about 40%. You are also ignoring the fact that we have other fossil specimens representing her species that add to that data.

 

[JacksBratt]

We don't have to have the left big toe in order to demonstrate that Lucy's pelvis is more like humans than the pelvis found in any other ape. Like most creationists, you ignore the fossil evidence. Creationists are not using the same evidence that real scientists are because creationists run away from the evidence.

Ah yes, the pelvis. Let's see what professionals, not you or me of course, had to say about "Lucy's" pelvis:

Contrary to Sts 14 [designation for a specific A. africanus fossil—[SIZE=-1]BH/BT[/SIZE]], delivery [of a baby—[SIZE=-1]BH/BT[/SIZE]] in AL 288-1 would have been more complicated than in modern humans, if not impossible, due to the protruding promontorium.... Consequently, there is more evidence to suggest that AL 288-1 was male rather than female. A female of the same species as AL 288-1 would have had a pelvis with a larger sagittal diameter and a less protruding sacral promontorium.... Overall, the broader pelvis and the more laterally oriented iliac blades of AL 288-1 would produce more favourable insertion sites for the climbing muscles in more heavily built males.... It would perhaps be better to change the trivial name to “Lucifer” according to the old roman god who brings light after the dark night, because with such a pelvis “Lucy” would apparently have been the last of her species (29:380, emp. added).

Also, if you have 40% of the evidence it still means you are making up 60% of the rest.

Still, Lucy does not show that her species came from anything different or went on to become something different. It is fossil of a creature that is static. You cannot even tell if she had children, or if Lucy is a male, whether he fathered children. It may just be a member of a clan of a species that existed and then died and became extinct. The rest is extrapolation.

Lucy was named because of the Beatles song "Lucy in the sky with diamonds", more like pie in the sky wishful thinking and hoping.

 

[JacksBratt]

You are ignoring the fact that Lucy had bilateral symmetry, just like us. In other words, the left and right sides are mirror images. Therefore, you don't need 208 bones, you need a little more than half. That brings your percentage up to about 40%. You are also ignoring the fact that we have other fossil specimens representing her species that add to that data.

Maybe these words of knowledge will bring more truth to the debate:

The most well known australopithecine is ‘Lucy’, a 40% complete skeleton found by Donald Johanson in Ethiopia in 1974 and called Australopithecus afarensis.7 Casts of Lucy’s bones have been imaginatively restored in museums worldwide to look like an apewoman, e.g. with ape-like face and head, but human-like body, hands and feet. However, the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones! Several other specimens of A. afarensis do have the long curved fingers and toes of tree-dwellers, as well as the restricted wrist anatomy of knuckle-walking chimpanzees and gorillas.8,9,10 Dr Marvin Lubenow quotes the evolutionists Matt Cartmill (Duke University), David Pilbeam (Harvard University) and the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard University):

‘The australopithecines are rapidly sinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes … .’11