The Fossils for Human Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Is there a fallacy for excessive accusations of fallacies?

When a fallacy is blatant it is not an "accusation".

 

[Bradskii]

Evidence discovered by evolutionists like Berge indicates that whatever unique gait Lucy might have been capable of, it was not like a human’s.

And Lovejoy might agree. Yet he says:

'These findings further confirm what we concluded from ‘Ardi’ – that chimpanzees have undergone a great deal of specialized evolution since we shared a last common ancestor with them.” '

And now you've added Johanson, Brian Richmond, David Scott and Berge to the list of people we should listen to. People we should trust.

Berge: 'Progressive displacement of the acetabulo-cristal buttress on the ilium occurs both during hominid evolution (from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens)'. Heterochronic processes in human evolution: an ontogenetic analysis of the hominid pelvis - PubMed

Johanson: When Johanson and Gray discovered Lucy’s fossilized remains, they didn’t know her species. After close examination of the fossils, the research team felt confident they were looking at the bones of a primate that walked upright. The fragmentary bones of Lucy’s hindlimb were sufficiently similar to the knee joint found in 1973 to support the hypothesis that she was a biped. Ultimately, evidence from other parts of Lucy’s skeleton, such as her teeth and pelvis, demonstrated that she was, in fact, a hominin. Lucy: A marvelous specimen | Learn Science at Scitable

Richmond: 'Here we present analyses of an unprecedented discovery of 1.5-million-year-old footprint assemblages, produced by 20+ Homo erectus individuals. These footprints provide the oldest direct evidence for modern human-like weight transfer and confirm the presence of an energy-saving longitudinally arched foot in H. erectus. Further, print size analyses suggest that these H. erectus individuals lived and moved in cooperative multi-male groups, offering direct evidence consistent with human-like social behaviors in H. erectus.' Footprints reveal direct evidence of group behavior and locomotion in Homo erectus | Scientific Reports

You don't believe a word that these guys say. But still you are putting them forward to support whatever argument it is that you think you are making. And all of these guys would think that your ideas about evolution are nonsensical. All of them might take a minute or two to explain how wrong your views are. All of them might suggest that you should learn something about a process before trying to deny it exists.

You're like a flat earther quoting NASA astronauts in a bid to convince us the earth is flat.

But keep going. I'm learning more all the time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The question is whether Lucy was really a human ancestor. So, yes, it does matter whether she was a biped or not.

If evolution is true (and it is) then if we go back far enough then some ancestor of humans was not bipedal. So I don't see what you're trying to make a fuss about.

 

[driewerf]

Only there are scientists who agree. The bones are highly contested among those in the paleontology field.

They are pretty much all contested if you look into it.

Names? Papers? If there is plenty, it shouldn't be a problem to produce plenty.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe it will now if I repeat it:

No, it makes no sense because it has nothing to do with what I said. Your desire to revel in human suffering is known and noted, but it has nothing do with what I said.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it makes no sense because it has nothing to do with what I said.

Then why did you say what you said?

Say something that does make sense with what I said.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then why did you say what you said?

Say something that does make sense with what I said.

Do you know what contested means? Like something is contested? It doesn't mean it's a competition to have the right way, it means to dispute or to debate them.

 

[Ophiolite]

If one part is incorrect, why would I accept the same idea about another species. Perhaps the whole paradigm is what is actually incorrect.

That is not the logical conclusion. If 99.9% of the organisms studies provide clear evidence supporting evolution and one of them doesn't, then it is quite reasonable to ignore that exeception. Such is the case here.

There is a caveat to that. The anomaly that is found must not be one that relates the theory as a whole, but only to the organism under investigation. And again, that is the case here.

But more than that, as I pointed out earlier and others have remarked, there isn't actually an anomaly. There is a minor disagreement over a couple of details of human evolution, wherein the author of your link has greatly exagerated his position, seemingly because he thinks that makes his case better.

Look, I understand that accepting the reality of evolution would create extreme tension with your specific beliefs. Yet many Christians, possibly the majority, have little or no difficulty in accepting the overwhelming weight of evidence. Perhaps you would find more value in discussing the issue with such Christians. Those of us in atheist/agnostic camp who accept evolution are just going to keep repeating that there are just three reasons to accept it: evidence, evidence and evidence.

 

[renniks]

Australopithecus afarensis may have been our ancestors, or they may not have been. They may be a distant "uncle". They are still transitional fossils. You are using strawman versions of evolution which makes your posts easily refuted.

Transition to what? There's no evidence for anything but being an extinct ape.

 

[renniks]

But more than that, as I pointed out earlier and others have remarked, there isn't actually an anomaly. There is a minor disagreement over a couple of details of human evolution, wherein the author of your link has greatly exagerated his position, seemingly because he thinks that makes his case better.

What link?

 

[renniks]

Look, I understand that accepting the reality of evolution would create extreme tension with your specific beliefs. Yet many Christians, possibly the majority, have little or no difficulty in accepting the overwhelming weight of evidence.

The overwhelming weight of the evidence I see is that God designed this universe.

 

[Shemjaza]

Transition to what? There's no evidence for anything but being an extinct ape.

An extinct ape with traits found in humans.

Just like all the other transitional primates, there's no clear line between human and ape.

You tried all these same lies in other threads, and then pretend no one has ever answered you.

The overwhelming weight of the evidence I see is that God designed this universe.

Bet you can't name a single bit of scientific evidence.

Bravado and religious conviction are not evidence.

 

[Bradskii]

The overwhelming weight of the evidence I see is that God designed this universe.

Then why do you ask us to trust the words of scientists who directly oppose your views? Colour me confused.

 

[Astrid]

An extinct ape with traits found in humans.

Just like all the other transitional primates, there's no clear line between human and ape.

You tried all these same lies in other threads, and then pretend no one has ever answered you.



Bet you can't name a single bit of scientific evidence.

Bravado and religious conviction are not evidence.

The key phrase is "that I see".

 

[Astrid]

Then why do you ask us to trust the words of scientists who directly oppose your views? Colour me confused.

Ha, it aint you what's confused!

 

[renniks]

An extinct ape with traits found in humans

Only it doesn't have those traits.

 

[renniks]

Just like all the other transitional primates, there's no clear line between human and ape.

Then why would I believe it happened?

 

[renniks]

You tried all these same lies in other threads, and then pretend no one has ever answered you.

They have no answer to the contested fossils, so they just say they aren't contested or it doesn't matter, when it actually makes the difference of whether they could be human ancestors or not. I even showed that some were likely a mixture according to other scientists.

 

[renniks]

Then why do you ask us to trust the words of scientists who directly oppose your views? Colour me confused.

I didn't. Yes, you are confused.

 

[Ophiolite]

What link?

Sorry, I meant the link in the OP. It's a long thread and I'd fogotten who started it.

The overwhelming weight of the evidence I see is that God designed this universe.

And yet those scientists who have committed their live's to studying the evidence find in favour of evolution (and, for many Christians, not against the initial creative act of God). And those of us who learned the practical arts of palaeontology in acquiring a degree and later merely followed developments as a spectator via the journals see the same thing.

As Sir Thomas Browne observed in Religio Medici, "Besides that written one of God [scripture], that Universal and publick Manuscript, that lies expans'd unto the eyes of all: those that never saw him in the one, discovered him in the other." I see no signs that you have openly looked for meaning there. I may well be wrong on that, yet your blanket rejection of the evidence is suspect.