Lines of Evidence

[Loudmouth]

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).

I am still waiting for the discussion where the pelvis of australopithecines are more like other apes than they are humans. We are saying that the pelvis is transitional because it is much more like the pelvis of humans than it is of other living apes. Do you have anything to counter this?

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

The evidence we have is transitional. With just Lucy, we have the ape features in the brow ridge, jaw, longer arms, and conical chest. In the pelivis and femurs what we have is a human like pelvic girdle.

The problem is that you ignore the 40%.

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.

How so? What did Lucy's ancestors and descendants look like? Where is the evidence for your claims?

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.

Transitional does not mean ancestral. This has been explained several times now.

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even if Lucy does not have a living descendant, she is still proof that there were populations with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features, just as there should have been during that time period. That is why Lucy is evidence for evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

It's as if you just ignore our previous posts. We have more than one australopithecine fossil. Here is a nearly complete skull.

https://afarensis99.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/know-your-hominin-a-l-822-1/

 

[Split Rock]

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).

This is a controversial conclusion and not shared by other scientists in the field. Even if it is true, I'm not sure what your point is.

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

No, we are not "making up" the rest. Lucy, like humans, gorillas and chimpanzees are all apes. Apes all share common features. Thus, it is not a situation where we have 40% of the skeleton and are completely ignorant of the rest. As I also indicated, you are still ignoring the other specimens we have found.

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.

That is possible. We cannot know for certain if Lucy's species gave rise to a different species. That does not change the fact that she has all the characteristics required of a transitional between humans and earlier apes.

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

How so? Is it just coincidence her species fulfills the requirements to be a transitional? The only hoping and wishful, eyes-closed thinking I see are from creationists who don't want to hear what goes against their precious religious dogma and the notion their species was specially created by a divine act.

 

[Split Rock]

It's as if you just ignore our previous posts. We have more than one australopithecine fossil. Here is a nearly complete skull.

https://afarensis99.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/know-your-hominin-a-l-822-1/

But....But.... what about those conveniently "missing" (scare quotes on!) parts in yellow... you cannot know what they looked like!!!!!!! Its all Pie-in-the-sky hopes and wishful thinking!!!!!!

 

[JacksBratt]

No, we are not "making up" the rest. Lucy, like humans, gorillas and chimpanzees are all apes. Apes all share common features. Thus, it is not a situation where we have 40% of the skeleton and are completely ignorant of the rest. As I also indicated, you are still ignoring the other specimens we have found.

I'm quite busy tonight so I will just say that common features do not indicate a common ancestor. They indicate a common designer.

The bones of the chimp "lucy" only show one type of species of ape. You can assume that they are "transitional" However this is just an assumption. You cannot prove that anything came before to evolve into this animal or that this animal went on to evolve into something different. You can just say that this animal existed.

 

[stevevw]

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.

I was mainly saying that all the basic body plans of all phyla came into existence out of virtually nowhere and quite suddenly in an evolutionary scale.

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 were many complex forms that came into the Cambrian level. The eyes of the trilobites are very complex.
The Trilobite: Enigma of Complexity
The Trilobite: Enigma of Complexity
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The theory of the Cambrian Explosion holds that, beginning some 545 million years ago, an explosion of diversity led to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms.
Cambrian Explosion
[/FONT]

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

What I was saying is that there are many animals that are still alive today which had larger versions of them millions of years ago. They didn't actually evolve from something else. They are just smaller version of the same animals. This may be the case with many animals. Reptiles such as the komodo dragon and even frill neck lizards may just be smaller versions of the dinos. But they are basically the same animals but smaller versions.

This can be something that happened within an animals existing genetic info. They havnt morphed from a totally different creature but just changed in size and other smaller features but are basically the same creatures. The genetic ability of animals back then to make a great amount of variation of size, color and smaller changes to shapes or even additions of certain features like feathers is all possible within the existing genetic info of an animals genome.

The genomes of early animals could have produced most of the variety we see today. The thing is evolutionists have misinterpreted this as evolution. They have labels many creatures as new and different species that have morphed out of existing ones through random mutations. But mutations are basically harmful and rarely make beneficial changes that can account for all the variety we see and has ever existed since time began.

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

Yes but wouldn't the mutation be the mixing of existing genes that produce colors for the fur. Afterall we all have the genetic info within our genes for hair color, skin color ect. The recombination of existing genes whether doesn't make new info to say turn that mouse into a cat ect or make that mouse grow wings or gills for swimming under water. That info isn't there and hasn't been proven in lab tests. They have caused bacteria to evolve and resist anti biotic which was a feature it never had before. But that ability was built from the existing genetics it already had. They can mutate flies to have legs growing out of their heads and give them extra wings. But they cant turn that fly into a grass hopper or give it spider web making ability.

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

So if each animals was made just as it was there would be variation within each of those types of animals as no one is the same. Some have big noses, some are tall and some are darker in color. So humans have much variation and can have some similarities with apes. They can also have some similarities with non related creatures like the octopus. Humans have similarities with the eyes of octopuses.
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/squid-and-humans-evolved-same-eye
There are animals that are very similar that are unrelated so comparing similar features is not a reliable way to link animals all the time. Like I mentioned before the skulls discovered at Georgia may have wiped out several species that were named by evolutionists. This has now made all those species into one because the great variation within the one species covered all the different shapes that evolutionists used to make other species. So what this does is cut out some of the links made for the transitions of ape man. It also indicates that there maybe only one species of man.

If the early australopithecines are seen as just apes then it makes a case for just one real species of man with great variety and then all the apes with their great variety. Variety is different to transitions. Variety is using the natural limits of existing genetics that can give differences to color with skin and hair for example, size, shapes of eyes for example with slanted eyes ect. No two animals within the same species are exactly the same and this is the natural variation we see. But the abilities are limited.
http://www.nature.com/news/skull-suggests-three-early-human-species-were-one-1.13972

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

Who knows. They say that micro organisms have a great deal of HGT going on. They are a lot more able to share genetic material with each other. So if this was all life was at one stage then it is easy to see that the gene pool may have been very large and much of the blue prints for all life was there being shared around. But it could also be that this layer happens to be at the bottom because they are mainly bottom dwellers. There were other forms of life living on earth. All these creatures were made with great ability within their genomes to make a great deal of variation in life.

That info has been there for a long time and is drawn upon when needed. This is being seen with the discovery of the so called junk DNA having more function that previously thought. The so called junk DNA can switch genes on and off and there maybe thousands of combinations available or various triggers and codes which can be used to build body parts in various ways. Who knows until they continue to map out the rest of the genomes of animals and humans. But because its looking so detailed and complex and way beyond what they imagined I would say that there is a lot more explaining to do as to how this could all be made form random mutations which are basically harmful. There seems to be a lot of hidden codes and systems in place which have influence and order in making animals and humans.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm quite busy tonight so I will just say that common features do not indicate a common ancestor. They indicate a common designer.

If they indicate a common designer, perhaps you can explain why they form a nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies are formed by genetic descent, not design.

The bones of the chimp "lucy" only show one type of species of ape. You can assume that they are "transitional" However this is just an assumption. You cannot prove that anything came before to evolve into this animal or that this animal went on to evolve into something different. You can just say that this animal existed.

Transitional means they have features in common with two different but related taxonomic groups. It does not mean we know she was a direct ancestor or not. Lucy is a transitional that supports the conclusion of common ancestry of humans and other apes, because she had features of both. She thus fulfills the predictions of evolutionary theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

I was mainly saying that all the basic body plans of all phyla came into existence out of virtually nowhere and quite suddenly in an evolutionary scale.

You are still wrong. The tetrapod body plan is nowhere in the Cambrian. The mammal body plan is not in the Cambrian. There are tons of body plans not found in the Cambrian.

Also, how do you determine if something came into existence suddenly? What features in a fossil indicates this?

There were many complex forms that came into the Cambrian level.

Once again, you are claiming that a simple vertebrate with no bones and hardly a brain is as complex as a human. Remember you said that.

What I was saying is that there are many animals that are still alive today which had larger versions of them millions of years ago. They didn't actually evolve from something else.

We are going to need to see evidence for this claim. Please provide us with the criteria you are using to determine if a fossil evolved from something else.

Reptiles such as the komodo dragon and even frill neck lizards may just be smaller versions of the dinos.

Dinosaurs are not lizards. You are showing a massive ignorance of basic anatomy. Start with the legs. Notice how the legs exit the body of the lizard parallel to the ground. Notice how the legs of a dinosaur exit the body perpendicular to the ground. This is just one difference of many.

Dinosaurs were not big lizards anymore than mammals are hairy lizards.

This can be something that happened within an animals existing genetic info. They havnt morphed from a totally different creature but just changed in size and other smaller features but are basically the same creatures. The genetic ability of animals back then to make a great amount of variation of size, color and smaller changes to shapes or even additions of certain features like feathers is all possible within the existing genetic info of an animals genome.

The folly of your made up explanation is illustrated by your ignorance of basic anatomy. We can add genetics to the growing list of biological subjects that you know nothing about.

Yes but wouldn't the mutation be the mixing of existing genes that produce colors for the fur.

A mutation is a change in gene sequence, not a mixture of already existing gene sequences. This is basic genetics, and you are getting it wrong.

So if each animals was made just as it was there would be variation within each of those types of animals as no one is the same. Some have big noses, some are tall and some are darker in color. So humans have much variation and can have some similarities with apes.

No variation of modern humans overlaps the diagnostic features seen in any variation of australopithecines or H. erectus. Those are the facts.

They can also have some similarities with non related creatures like the octopus. Humans have similarities with the eyes of octopuses.

Again, you display a profound ignorance of basic anatomy. The human eye is more like that of the fish than it is of the octopus. All vertebrates, including humans, have a backwards facing retina. Octupus, and other cephalopods, have a forward facing retina. The two types of eyes also spring from different cell lines. The eyes produce the expected nested hierarchy.

There are animals that are very similar that are unrelated so comparing similar features is not a reliable way to link animals all the time.

As you have shown, your ignorance of basic anatomy causes your argument to fall apart.

If the early australopithecines are seen as just apes then it makes a case for just one real species of man with great variety and then all the apes with their great variety. Variety is different to transitions.

Transitionals would be variations.

We are back to the same question. What features would a fossil need to have in order for YOU to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

Should we conclude that no matter what a fossil looks like, you will refuse to accept it as transitional?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm quite busy tonight so I will just say that common features do not indicate a common ancestor. They indicate a common designer.

Were you and your siblings or extended family each separately designed, or do you share those features because of common ancestry?

Also, it is the NESTED HIERARCHY that indicates evolution, as has been explained multiple times and at length.

The bones of the chimp "lucy" only show one type of species of ape.

We have already shown that Lucy is not a chimp. You ignore that evidence.

Also, a transitional should be an ape. Simply calling something a species of ape does not preclude it from being a transitional.

I will ask you the same question that the other creationists still refuse to answer. What features would a fossil need to have in order for YOU to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

You can assume that they are "transitional" However this is just an assumption. You cannot prove that anything came before to evolve into this animal or that this animal went on to evolve into something different. You can just say that this animal existed.

Again, transitional does not mean ancestral. We can demonstrate that they are transitional by showing the mixture of features from modern humans and basal apes.

 

[JacksBratt]

If they indicate a common designer, perhaps you can explain why they form a nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies are formed by genetic descent, not design.



Transitional means they have features in common with two different but related taxonomic groups. It does not mean we know she was a direct ancestor or not. Lucy is a transitional that supports the conclusion of common ancestry of humans and other apes, because she had features of both. She thus fulfills the predictions of evolutionary theory.

So, if two different creatures have similar features that means that they are transitional?

This animal has a tooth. Hey, so does this animal. They must be transitions between a third animal?

I don't believe you can prove transitional anything. Fossils are static. They are a tiny slice of a moment in time where that animal died. They have no information of what went on before or after that animal died.

It is the evolution camp that takes these static windows of information and extrapolate what happened before and after to fabricate the transitions that aren't there.

Fossils prove nothing except that the animal lived and died, suddenly, and was covered with mud right away.

 

[JacksBratt]

I will ask you the same question that the other creationists still refuse to answer. What features would a fossil need to have in order for YOU to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

If the evolutionary story is true and it took millions and millions of years to change and change and change again and again and again. Each stage would have to live for thousands of years. The number of steps would be exhausting. There should be a unending number of types of fossil creatures. Millions of years of creatures morphing and mutating into others. Not the "punctuated" relatively few number of different types of animals and organisms. The fossil record is pathetically lacking in the number that would be needed if all the different creatures on this earth have a common ancestor. Not to mention that there are fossils of creatures that exist to this very day. So, they say, this particular creature was best for survival and stayed, unchanged, for billions of years....while others went through an infinite number of fluid changes but show absolutely a pathetic number of fossils for the infinite number of creatures that had to exist in order for this to happen.

Fossils can never ever prove that anything is transitional. All they show is a snapshot of a tiny point in time. The animals lined up to show the myth of transition could be similar creatures that lived at the same time in parallel. You cannot prove otherwise.

I could show you the bones of a chihuahua, beagle, border collie, golden retriever and Newfoundland dog. Line them all up. Tell you I found all these and they prove that they are transitional. All the while the creatures all exist at the same time.

Fossils mean nothing. The geologic column was very well debunked and a poster here showed that quite eloquently. Also, in reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors.

There is your answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

If the evolutionary story is true and it took millions and millions of years to change and change and change again and again and again. Each stage would have to live for thousands of years. The number of steps would be exhausting. There should be a unending number of types of fossil creatures.

Based on what evidence?

You need to show evidence that the rate of fossil preservation and fossil discovery is adequate to produce the observations you are claiming.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Here it is again.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for YOU to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

Please try to answer it this time.

Fossils can never ever prove that anything is transitional. All they show is a snapshot of a tiny point in time.

A transitional fossil would be a snapshot of a point in time.

The animals lined up to show the myth of transition could be similar creatures that lived at the same time in parallel.

Then why don't we find any modern humans in sediments that date to 3 million years where we find the transitional Australopithecines? Why don't we find any modern humans 1 million years before present where we find the transitional H. erectus fossils?

I could show you the bones of a chihuahua, beagle, border collie, golden retriever and Newfoundland dog. Line them all up. Tell you I found all these and they prove that they are transitional.

What features are you using to determine that these dogs are transitional?

Fossils mean nothing.

So much for creationists using the same evidence that real scientists use.

The geologic column was very well debunked and a poster here showed that quite eloquently.

Found the geologic column for you. It isn't debunked.

Notice how you have difference layers and sediments stacked on top of each other? That is a geologic column.

Also, in reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors.

How do you determine if a fossil appears abruptly and fully formed? What are the criteria you are using?

There is your answer.

Notice that you never answered the question.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for YOU to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

 

[RickG]

Also, in reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors.

So, are you saying that God created all life forms, both fauna and flora, over millions of years at just the right place and time to look like evolution instead of being evolution?

 

[Split Rock]

So, if two different creatures have similar features that means that they are transitional?

This animal has a tooth. Hey, so does this animal. They must be transitions between a third animal?

This is idiotic. Where are the different features of the the two groups in question, that are represented in this organism? This type of dumbed down straw-man is the reason creationists are not taken seriously.

I don't believe you can prove transitional anything. Fossils are static. They are a tiny slice of a moment in time where that animal died. They have no information of what went on before or after that animal died.

Yes, they are indeed slices of geological time. How is it that you type something sensible like this, after typing a silly straw-man caricature like the above comment?

When you compare these different slices of time, you begin to see a pattern. That pattern supports common descent.

It is the evolution camp that takes these static windows of information and extrapolate what happened before and after to fabricate the transitions that aren't there.

It is called inference.

Fossils prove nothing except that the animal lived and died, suddenly, and was covered with mud right away.

No. The fossil record tells us that species and even entire ecosystems on this planet have been replaced by others over and over again over the history of the Earth. This is consistent with common descent, but not with biblical creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, are you saying that God created all life forms, both fauna and flora, over millions of years at just the right place and time to look like evolution instead of being evolution?

I believe punctuated equilibrium does the same thing, does it not?

 

[AV1611VET]

What features would a fossil need to have in order for YOU to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

A daisy chain.

 

[Split Rock]

Fossils mean nothing. The geologic column was very well debunked and a poster here showed that quite eloquently. Also, in reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors.

There is your answer.

Who debunked the geological column? I must have missed that...

We have almost the entire column right here in North Dakota:

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/documents/Publication_List/pdf/MiscSeries/MS-66.pdf
Williston Basin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RickG]

I believe punctuated equilibrium does the same thing, does it not?

No, not in the least.

 

[Split Rock]

A daisy chain.

I prefer tulips...

 

[Split Rock]

Fossils can never ever prove that anything is transitional. All they show is a snapshot of a tiny point in time. The animals lined up to show the myth of transition could be similar creatures that lived at the same time in parallel. You cannot prove otherwise.

I could show you the bones of a chihuahua, beagle, border collie, golden retriever and Newfoundland dog. Line them all up. Tell you I found all these and they prove that they are transitional. All the while the creatures all exist at the same time.

Fossils mean nothing. The geologic column was very well debunked and a poster here showed that quite eloquently. Also, in reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors.

There is your answer.

Notice that you never answered the question.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for YOU to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

I think he did answer your question.... there are no features that a fossil would need in order for Jack to accept it as a transitional, since he won't ever accept any fossil as transitional.