The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

[jamesbond007]

Those on the right of the top row have larger brains and less developed muzzles then any modern chimp or gorilla.

Those on the left of the bottom row have smaller brains and heavier bone structure then any human.

But all seem very similar to those near by. The fact that they all (except the modern chimp) walked upright is also unlike any modern non human ape.

Our of curiosity, which do you think are human and which are apes? (Creationists never seem to be able to agree).

EDIT: The ones with smaller cranial cavity in the skull are probably chimps/apes. I'm not saying a larger cranial capacity means more intelligence, but I think the cranial capacity was used to separate between humans and chimps/apes.

I don't think we can have a decent conversation on the differences just looking at the skulls. For example, we need the hip, leg and feet if they were bipedal. Evolution states that bipedalism is what constitutes an chimp/ape vs ape-human (which I think is an chimp/ape).

 

[Shemjaza]

EDIT: The ones with smaller cranial cavity in the skull are probably chimps/apes. I'm not saying a larger cranial capacity means more intelligence, but I think the cranial capacity was used to separate between humans and chimps/apes.

I don't think we can have a decent conversation on the differences just looking at the skulls. For example, we need the hip, leg and feet if they were bipedal. Evolution states that bipedalism is what constitutes an chimp/ape vs ape-human (which I think is an chimp/ape).

Paleontologists have examined the bones of Australopithecus afarensis, and the hips indicate a much more upright posture then a chimp.

Also cranial capacity is only one trait. The rest of the skull and body plan are also transitional.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't believe you can defeat evolution just by fossil record alone, but showing that evolution happened rapidly and not over long time.

Er, showing that evolution occurred rapidly doesn't defeat evolution...

Amusingly, on another thread, someone was making an argument from incredulity that evolution was too slow to have produced the diversity of life we observe.

 

[xianghua]

EDIT: The ones with smaller cranial cavity in the skull are probably chimps/apes. I'm not saying a larger cranial capacity means more intelligence, but I think the cranial capacity was used to separate between humans and chimps/apes.

I don't think we can have a decent conversation on the differences just looking at the skulls. For example, we need the hip, leg and feet if they were bipedal. Evolution states that bipedalism is what constitutes an chimp/ape vs ape-human (which I think is an chimp/ape).

the problem is that any fossil cant be consider as evidence for evolution, since we cant prove that those animals evolved from each other.

 

[Shemjaza]

the problem is that any fossil cant be consider as evidence for evolution, since we cant prove that those animals evolved from each other.

Not the definition of transitional.

The implication is that they are related, not necessary that they are the direct ancestor.

 

[xianghua]

Cars do not breed, cars are not organic. Cars don't self-reproduce.

You may not know where cars come from, but almost everyone else here does.

it doesnt have any connection to self replicating now. i just talking about ic system. ic system is a system that if we will remove parts from it it will be non functional. such systems exist in both cars and living things. so if you agree that a car is ic you need to conclude the same for a living thing. do you agree, and if not why?

 

[Speedwell]

it doesnt have any connection to self replicating now. i just talking about ic system. ic system is a system that if we will remove parts from it it will be non functional. such systems exist in both cars and living things. so if you agree that a car is ic you need to conclude the same for a living thing. do you agree, and if not why?

By that definition, almost anything is IC. So what?

 

[xianghua]

Nothing can ever evolve into a car because a car is a machine not a living thing.

but i talk about organic components now and not about a regular machine. so according to evolution if we will have a self replicating molecule (or even a full cell) it basically can evolve into a complex system. evolution already evolved a spinning motor like the flagellum, according to evolution at least. so why not a car?

 

[Speedwell]

but i talk about organic components now and not about a regular machine. so according to evolution if we will have a self replicating molecule (or even a full cell) it basically can evolve into a complex system. evolution already evolved a spinning motor like the flagellum, according to evolution at least. so why not a car?

You mean a wheeled vehicle powered by a gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine? It seems highly unlikely. Evolution appears to run to legs rather than wheels for locomotion, among other things.

 

[theQuincunx5]

it doesnt have any connection to self replicating now. i just talking about ic system. ic system is a system that if we will remove parts from it it will be non functional. such systems exist in both cars and living things. so if you agree that a car is ic you need to conclude the same for a living thing. do you agree, and if not why?

You have no reason to believe that there are irreducibly complex systems in living things. As has already been noted and examples linked to, Irreducibly Complex systems in living things usually are not that.

As for Irreducibly Complex systems in cars, this may come as a shock to you, but they were designed by humans. We have lots of evidence for it.

BUT, remember that engines today look very, very different from engines of the past and there has been a DEVELOPMENT process.

But again, I cannot stress this enough, I really can't, but we know where cars come from, they are made by humans. I know this will shock you, but there are many places where cars are made by humans in plain sight. They are called FACTORIES and there are many of them across the earth.

 

[dad]

You have no reason to believe that there are irreducibly complex systems in living things. As has already been noted and examples linked to, Irreducibly Complex systems in living things usually are not that.

As for Irreducibly Complex systems in cars, this may come as a shock to you, but they were designed by humans. We have lots of evidence for it.

BUT, remember that engines today look very, very different from engines of the past and there has been a DEVELOPMENT process.

But again, I cannot stress this enough, I really can't, but we know where cars come from, they are made by humans. I know this will shock you, but there are many places where cars are made by humans in plain sight. They are called FACTORIES and there are many of them across the earth.

Only God breathes life into creations. Man can make stuff, but we should not expect that stuff, however it may be designed, to produce life. If man makes a car, the car is not going to produce other models itself. When we see the evolving/adapting in cars, we actually are seeing the adapting in man, that produces the cars.

 

[doubtingmerle]

evolution already evolved a spinning motor like the flagellum, according to evolution at least. so why not a car?

See
Could cars reproduce?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You have offered beliefs.

uh, and I have also offered reasons for believing the laws of nature were constant.

Do you have any reason at all for believing they changed?

We know the laws of physics were the same years ago, because the incoming starlight looks exactly like it would look like if the laws were the same when it left the distant stars. How do you explain that?

We know the stars are distant for many reasons. For example take supernova sn1987A. A star exploded in a supernova. The light reached a cloud ring around the star 8 months later and lit up the cloud. On earth we saw the supernova, and then saw the ring around it light up 8 months later. That tells us the ring was 8 light months in radius. Knowing the actual size of the ring, and the apparent size from earth, simple trig tells us it was 169,000 light years away. How do you explain it?

 

[xianghua]

Not the definition of transitional.

The implication is that they are related, not necessary that they are the direct ancestor.

sure. and you cant prove this either.

 

[xianghua]

You have no reason to believe that there are irreducibly complex systems in living things. As has already been noted and examples linked to, Irreducibly Complex systems in living things usually are not that.

yes they are. take the flagellum case. they found that the flagellum share several similar parts with another system called ttss. but:

1) they arent the same parts. only similar.
2) even if they were the same the flagellum also has unique parts that we cant find in the ttss. so its still a big gap between the ttss and the flagellum. think about that: a cell-phone and a watch also share se veral similar parts. but we cant change one into another by small steps. even by a human intelligent.

 

[theQuincunx5]

yes they are. take the flagellum case. they found that the flagellum share several similar parts with another system called ttss. but:

1) they arent the same parts. only similar.
2) even if they were the same the flagellum also has unique parts that we cant find in the ttss. so its still a big gap between the ttss and the flagellum. think about that: a cell-phone and a watch also share se veral similar parts. but we cant change one into another by small steps. even by a human intelligent.

OK, so long as you disagree with biologists and the evidence I guess you are perfectly in the clear to come up with whatever form of science you like.

Enjoy.

 

[doubtingmerle]

think about that: a cell-phone and a watch also share se veral similar parts. but we cant change one into another by small steps. even by a human intelligent.

But you have already agreed that life can do some things that non-living mechanical things cannot do. Since life can do some things non-living machines cannot do, why can it not be that "evolve" is one of those things?

 

[jamesbond007]

Paleontologists have examined the bones of Australopithecus afarensis, and the hips indicate a much more upright posture then a chimp.

Also cranial capacity is only one trait. The rest of the skull and body plan are also transitional.

Lucy isn't complete and was small, so it could have been a chimpanzee. Her hip was re-built to make it more human and she didn't have feet either. Lucy should be removed from consideration since her fossils were found three miles apart. Professor C. Owen Lovejoy who reconstructed Lucy thinks apes evolved from humans. He also thinks ardipithecus ramidus (older fossil) is more complete. Lucy was also a big failure when she toured in US museums. I think eventually they put afarensis and a footprint found by Mary Leakey together to have it be bipedal.

 

[Shemjaza]

sure. and you cant prove this either.

No, we present evidence. Hypothesis and theories which are then tested.

Evolution works and ID had nothing but hand waves, lies and logical fallacies.

 

[Shemjaza]

Lucy isn't complete and was small, so it could have been a chimpanzee. Her hip was re-built to make it more human and she didn't have feet either. Lucy should be removed from consideration since her fossils were found three miles apart. Professor C. Owen Lovejoy who reconstructed Lucy thinks apes evolved from humans. He also thinks ardipithecus ramidus (older fossil) is more complete. Lucy was also a big failure when she toured in US museums. I think eventually they put afarensis and a footprint found by Mary Leakey together to have it be bipedal.

You know she isn't the only afarensis found right?

I'm going to need more then scoffing and conspiracy theories to convince me that paleontology is totally wrong.