The Fossils for Human Evolution

[Estrid]

Whichever religion you want - you just have to be vociferous and unbending in your certainty that you, and you alone, have discovered The Truth.

No prob.. Everyone else can do it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No prob.. Everyone else can do it.

Just keep this in mind:

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

 

[pitabread]

What a dumb response from the evolution side.
Of course the popular paradigm is going to get more " votes" because who wants to buck popular opinion? It's the same with any topic.

If votes don't matter then why bring up the alleged thousands of scientists who reject "Darwinian theory" in the first place?

You don't get to have it both ways.

 

[Estrid]

If votes don't matter then why bring up the alleged thousands of scientists who reject "Darwinian theory" in the first place?

You don't get to have it both ways.

Nothing unusual about going against
popular opinion.

Someone would go against any odds if they just
had that fact that would disprove evolution.
History making for possibly the greatest discovery of
all time?
Who wouldn't?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

The fossil evidence regarding human evolution is neither reproducible nor reliable. And since paleoanthropologists cannot explain what caused humans to evolve naked skin, bipedalism, large brain, and other human features, creationists can push the non-scientific idea that this unique evolutionary path was the result of “Intelligent Design.”
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution

This is very interesting. In what sense is the fossil evidence regarding human evolution not reproducible?

Here is one example:

Lack of access to the original material is still a problem in paleoanthropology. In other sciences, discoveries and results can be reproduced or verified in independent laboratories. But a particular primate fossil is only found once. Others must trust that the fragments were found as claimed, that none were planted by a trickster, and none were intentionally kept hidden.
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution

How is the fossil evidence regarding human evolution not reliable?

Here is one example:

The bone fragments convinced specialists that Lucy was bipedal with an upright posture. No foot bones or hand bones were known from Lucy or from other Australopithecus. But Lucy was assumed to have had human-like feet...

The skull of Turkana boy was assembled from about 70 pieces, and many were missing. The brain case is said to be about 900 cc, and the age about 1.5 million years. The bones are said to show bipedality, and everyone assumes that the boy had human-like feet. However, the assembled skeleton has neither foot bones nor hand bones.

In the scientific descriptions that were published in 1993 (The Nariokotome Homo erectus skeleton), Alan Walker and Richard Leakey mentioned that a possible metatarsal (foot bone) was found “but it has some peculiar features and is from a part of the site that has yielded only questionable pieces.” The fossil collectors found fragments of many animals in the large volume of sediments.

Did they perhaps find hand bones or foot bones that suggested an arboreal lifestyle, and therefore could not belong to this skeleton?
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution

Did you catch that? Since the foot bones and hand bones of Lucy and Turkana boy were never discovered, it's simply an assumption, rather than a provable fact, that they had evolved past an arboreal (tree-dwelling) lifestyle.

Why does that matter?

It should be remembered, however, that arboreal apes are often bipedal when moving on the ground. YouTube videos show how gibbons walk and run like humans. The domesticated chimpanzee “Oliver” routinely walked comfortably in a fully upright position, leading some people to claim that he was a hybrid humanzee. A genetics test showed that he was not.

All chimpanzees can walk on two legs when carrying something, and must do so when moving about in waist-deep water.
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution

As those who believe in special creation have maintained all along, all fossils of supposed ape-to-man transitions are either fully ape or fully human.

The above article only confirms this, which is why the author presents an alternative explanation for human evolution, the aquatic ape theory, while admitting that it cannot be supported by fossil evidence.

No fossils would have formed along the coast of Bioko, because it was an erosional geologic environment without deposition of sediments.
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution

Wow. Just wow. This is what's classically called an ad hoc explanation. If the fossil evidence doesn't support the traditional theory of human evolution, make up a new one.

Perhaps good old Charlie was right all along too:

Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. - Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, p. 293.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you catch that? Since the foot bones and hand bones of Lucy and Turkana boy were never discovered, it's simply an assumption, rather than a provable fact, that they had evolved past an arboreal (tree-dwelling) lifestyle.

Why does that matter?

So full of fail, but I will deal with this claim. Why do creationists always assume that only one example of species are found? Lucy was not the only Australopithecus afarensis ever found. She was not the first. She was not the last. Guess what were found in other digs? It rhymes with "Put Jones".

These bones were made for walking

Are you sure that those people in your meme are not laughing at you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As those who believe in special creation have maintained all along, all fossils of supposed ape-to-man transitions are either fully ape or fully human.

Oh my! Oh my! Seriously? You are fully ape. I am fully ape. If you are human you are fully ape You cannot refute a scientific theory with a strawman argument. There is no "change of kind" in evolution.

Yes, the people in the gif are laughing at you.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Oh my! Oh my! Seriously? You are fully ape. I am fully ape. If you are human you are fully ape You cannot refute a scientific theory with a strawman argument. There is no "change of kind" in evolution.

You are just arguing over semantics, while missing the substance entirely. What is the traditional meaning of the word "ape"?

"Ape", from Old English apa, is a word of uncertain origin. The term has a history of rather imprecise usage—and of comedic or punning usage in the vernacular. Its earliest meaning was generally of any non-human anthropoid primate, [c] as is still the case for its cognates in other Germanic languages.[5] Later, after the term "monkey" had been introduced into English, "ape" was specialized to refer to a tailless (therefore exceptionally human-like) primate.[6] Thus, the term "ape" obtained two different meanings, as shown in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica entry: it could be used as a synonym for "monkey" and it could denote the tailless humanlike primate in particular.[7]

Some, or recently all, hominoids are also called "apes", but the term is used broadly and has several different senses within both popular and scientific settings. "Ape" has been used as a synonym for "monkey" or for naming any primate with a human-like appearance, particularly those without a tail.[7] Biologists have traditionally used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[1] but more recently to mean all members of Hominoidea. So "ape"—not to be confused with "great ape"—now becomes another word for hominoid including humans.[3][d]
Ape - Wikipedia

Why is it so hard to admit that it's just an assumption, rather than a provable fact, that Lucy and Turkana boy represent our evolutionary ancestors? Again, they were found without hand bones and foot bones, so they could have been tree-dwellers for all we know.

Yes, the people in the gif are laughing at you.

Charles Darwin deserves to be laughed at. He was an outright racist whose theory, after 150 years, has still not been demonstrated by the actual evidence, and yet reductionists and materialists have the gall to laugh at anyone who questions his theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are just arguing over semantics, while missing the substance entirely. What is the traditional meaning of the word "ape"?



Why is it so hard to admit that it's just an assumption, rather than a provable fact, that Lucy and Turkana boy represent our evolutionary ancestors? Again, they were found without hand bones and foot bones, so they could have been tree-dwellers for all we know.



Charles Darwin deserves to be laughed at. He was an outright racist whose theory, after 150 years, has still not been demonstrated by the actual evidence, and yet reductionists and materialists have the gall to laugh at anyone who questions his theory.

There are no biological traits that other apes have that humans do not have. You may find something unique to gorillas, or orangutans, or chimps. But it a trait is had by gorillas and chimps we will have it too. In fact chimps are more closely related to use than they are to other apes. The fact that you and I are apes is not an assumption. In fact that is an error on your part since if you make that claim you take on a burden of proof. It is a conclusion drawn from endless evidence.

You failed and only succeeded in demonstrating your own ignorance.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why is it so hard to admit that it's just an assumption, rather than a provable fact, that Lucy and Turkana boy represent our evolutionary ancestors? Again, they were found without hand bones and foot bones, so they could have been tree-dwellers for all we know.

Except, as Subduction-Zone pointed out, archaeologists have found more than just those singular fossils allowing us to see more of what those hominids looked like.

Charles Darwin deserves to be laughed at. He was an outright racist whose theory, after 150 years, has still not been demonstrated by the actual evidence, and yet reductionists and materialists have the gall to laugh at anyone who questions his theory.

Darwin being racist doesn't matter, and if you think that evolutionary theory hasn't been demonstrated, then you are just drowning in your own ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Charles Darwin deserves to be laughed at. He was an outright racist whose theory, after 150 years, has still not been demonstrated by the actual evidence, and yet reductionists and materialists have the gall to laugh at anyone who questions his theory.

I have to revisit this. First off Darwin grew up in a time of racism and was demonstrably less racist than most. His theory did not rely on racism at all. We have come a long time since Darwin, you lose every time that you make such poor arguments. Science does not make the mistake that you do with the Bible. We do not claim that things are true because of the people that came up with the idea, though Darwin was amazingly correct with how little evidence that he had. But progress does not begin and stop with him Since his time evolution has gone through massive changes as we learned more and more.

And clearly you have no idea at all what is and what is not evidence. Would you like to discuss the topic? It is well defined in the sciences. The evidence for evolution is endless and creationists cannot seem to find any that opposes it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is very interesting. In what sense is the fossil evidence regarding human evolution not reproducible?

Here is one example:



How is the fossil evidence regarding human evolution not reliable?

Here is one example:



Did you catch that? Since the foot bones and hand bones of Lucy and Turkana boy were never discovered, it's simply an assumption, rather than a provable fact, that they had evolved past an arboreal (tree-dwelling) lifestyle.

Why does that matter?



As those who believe in special creation have maintained all along, all fossils of supposed ape-to-man transitions are either fully ape or fully human.

The above article only confirms this, which is why the author presents an alternative explanation for human evolution, the aquatic ape theory, while admitting that it cannot be supported by fossil evidence.



Wow. Just wow. This is what's classically called an ad hoc explanation. If the fossil evidence doesn't support the traditional theory of human evolution, make up a new one.

Perhaps good old Charlie was right all along too:

Your source seems to be cherry-picking the evidence - should we tear our hair out that two Australopithecus specimens have missing bones? I don't think so - "Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals..." Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

 

[Estrid]

I have to revisit this. First off Darwin grew up in a time of racism and was demonstrably less racist than most. His theory did not rely on racism at all. We have come a long time since Darwin, you lose every time that you make such poor arguments. Science does not make the mistake that you do with the Bible. We do not claim that things are true because of the people that came up with the idea, though Darwin was amazingly correct with how little evidence that he had. But progress does not begin and stop with him Since his time evolution has gone through massive changes as we learned more and more.

And clearly you have no idea at all what is and what is not evidence. Would you like to discuss the topic? It is well defined in the sciences. The evidence for evolution is endless and creationists cannot seem to find any that opposes it.

Newton invested in slavery.

 

[AV1611VET]

Newton invested in slavery.

For some reason I think the Muses, in charge of arts & sciences, are working overtime.

Everything from the Rolling Stone's Brown Sugar to academia's Bible Condones Slavery is being pushed.

I have a feeling the 13th Amendment is going to be repealed during the Tribulation.

Can't prove it though -- just a thought.

 

[Ophiolite]

Charles Darwin deserves to be laughed at.

I'm not sure that snide little insults are the best way of conducting a mature discussion.

He was an outright racist whose theory,

I think I've already pointed out to you that this is nonsense. He was passionately opposed to slavery. I've posted details of the relevant work to consult to inform yourself about this. If you keep repeating the same errors it will become tedious.

after 150 years, has still not been demonstrated by the actual evidence,

Making bald statements that are not only demonstrably wrong, but have been repeatedly shown to be nonsense may make you feel better and enhance your standing among like minded fellows, but it is ultimately a rather sad site.

and yet reductionists and materialists have the gall to laugh at anyone who questions his theory.

No. Scientists, Christian, Hindu, Moslem, atheist and agnostic, despair of those who attack the theory without having knowledge of the theory or anything scientifically meaninful to offer in its place. Laugh? We are more inclined to cry out of pity for them.

 

[Estrid]

I'm not sure that snide little insults are the best way of conducting a mature discussion.
I think I've already pointed out to you that this is nonsense. He was passionately opposed to slavery. I've posted details of the relevant work to consult to inform yourself about this. If you keep repeating the same errors it will become tedious.
Making bald statements that are not only demonstrably wrong, but have been repeatedly shown to be nonsense may make you feel better and enhance your standing among like minded fellows, but it is ultimately a rather sad site.
No. Scientists, Christian, Hindu, Moslem, atheist and agnostic, despair of those who attack the theory without having knowledge of the theory or anything scientifically meaninful to offer in its place. Laugh? We are more inclined to cry out of pity for them.

I'd love to see evolution competently questioned.
I'm sure any researcher would be fascinated by
a challenge, a real question.

Garbage of the " how come still monkeys"
or falsehoods of every sort, zero data ever is
not a challenge or a serious question.

We always try to explain and reason.
Laughing at is treating with contempt.
We have had quite a dose of contempt from
at least three of our recent creationist posters.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'd love to see evolution competently questioned.
I'm sure any researcher would be fascinated by
a challenge, a real question.

Garbage of the " how come still monkeys"
or falsehoods of every sort, zero data ever is
not a challenge or a serious question.

We always try to explain and reason.
Laughing at is treating with contempt.
We have had quite a dose of contempt from
at least three of our recent creationist posters.

Indeed. Almost all discoveries in science have arisen from probing, difficult questions and unsettling challenges. The only thing unsettling about the challenges from anti-evolutionists on this forum is that I'm related to the authors.

 

[Estrid]

Indeed. Almost all discoveries in science have arisen from probing, difficult questions and unsettling challenges. The only thing unsettling about the challenges from anti-evolutionists on this forum is that I'm related to the authors.

?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

The devil ain't taking my joy away.

Get behind me, Darwin! (Mark 8:33)

 

[Ophiolite]

?

I presume the authors of the anti-evolution sentimentson this forum are human, so I am related to them. Only if they are AIs, or aliens would this not be the case. (And since I don't rule out panspermia for the origin of life on Earth, they might be relatives also.)