Two quick articles on human evolution:

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Where did those brains come from?

They found a skull from one part of Africa, an arm from somewhere else, and a jawbone. It was discovered that the skull was that of an ape, the arm was from a baboon and the jawbone was from a pig. What they did was to put these bones together, and filled in the rest from their own imagination. No full set of bones has been found of any of these intermediate ape/man species. It was a total hoax, like the Pitdown man.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Y

You are asking poorly formed questions. People that know that they are wrong often do this.

Once again, lets go over the basics. Right now it is beginning to look as if you are trolling. I hope that is not your intent.

I'm not trolling. What I am showing is that our brains, capable of logical thought are the product of design, requiring a designer. This forum did not happen by chance. Someone designed and programmed it, and it is being maintained by a staff of admins and moderators. The computer that you are using is the product of design, and was designed by a team of designers.

Do you really think that the world around us with all its complexity and design did not have a designer? And if it does have a designer, who do you think that designer is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did those brains come from?

Until you get serious you lose the right to demand answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not trolling. What I am showing is that our brains, capable of logical thought are the product of design, requiring a designer. This forum did not happen by chance. Someone designed and programmed it, and it is being maintained by a staff of admins and moderators. The computer that you are using is the product of design, and was designed by a team of designers.

Do you really think that the world around us with all its complexity and design did not have a designer? And if it does have a designer, who do you think that designer is?

No, you are demonstrating very poor reasoning skills. Let's work on those first.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Until you get serious you lose the right to demand answers.

It is a logical question that seeks a logical answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They found a skull from one part of Africa, an arm from somewhere else, and a jawbone. It was discovered that the skull was that of an ape, the arm was from a baboon and the jawbone was from a pig. What they did was to put these bones together, and filled in the rest from their own imagination. No full set of bones has been found of any of these intermediate ape/man species. It was a total hoax, like the Pitdown man.

That is a lie spread by creationists.

Lucy was not the first Australopithecus afarensis. Nor was she the last. She was the most complete one found. The set of bones shown in pictures were all found at one site.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a logical question that seeks a logical answer.

Please, don't speak of logic.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, you are demonstrating very poor reasoning skills. Let's work on those first.

The only scientific proof I want is what can be directly observed and replicated through testing. Otherwise, don't waste your time and effort. Anything that cannot be proved by the scientific method, is not scientific. Collecting random bones and using artist impressions to create something that cannot be proved to exist is not scientific.

The ape/man's brain had to come from somewhere, but that would be difficult to determine because there is no brain. Just a skull that has been identified as an ape skull and not human. So, without a brain to examine, or to collect DNA from, no comparison can be made either with chimp or human DNA. So all that is left is just guesswork.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

‘Lucy’s baby’ suggests famed human ancestor had a primitive brain

This is based on rather limited data points, but it appears that young Australopithecus had brains more similar to that of chimps than man and it developed more as it grew.

And the second deals with a clarification on the placement of Homo antecessor:

Mysterious human ancestor finds its place in our family tree

By analyzing peptides in teeth of the fossil they were able to determine aspects of its relation to modern man.

The shape of the skull in the artist's picture does not coincide with the artist's impression of the half-human baby. The skull is obviously that of an ape and not a human, and the picture is an artist's guess of what the "baby" might have looked like. And there is no proof that the larger set of bones is actually human at all, and because the set is not complete, an artist has had to fill in the missing bits to try and show that it is an ape-human. But no complete fossils have been found to provide evidence that any ape-people actually existed. So, no observation, no science.

 

[Kylie]

So you can't answer the question? I knew you couldn't, because a brain which is just a collection of molecules would not understand what the question is, let alone the answer.

But you seem to have a logical mind, and that is contradictory to the principle of evolution where time and chance cannot produce order and design.

If Sub's brain can't understand the question, then you are admitting that evolution is true and thus your brain can't understand it either. And if your brain was created by God, then so was Sub's, and thus he is capable of understanding the question. Or are you suggesting that your reality is not the same as his reality?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only scientific proof I want is what can be directly observed and replicated through testing. Otherwise, don't waste your time and effort. Anything that cannot be proved by the scientific method, is not scientific. Collecting random bones and using artist impressions to create something that cannot be proved to exist is not scientific.

The ape/man's brain had to come from somewhere, but that would be difficult to determine because there is no brain. Just a skull that has been identified as an ape skull and not human. So, without a brain to examine, or to collect DNA from, no comparison can be made either with chimp or human DNA. So all that is left is just guesswork.

"Proof" is a mathematical concept. You are using incorrect terminology. And you do not know what science is or how it is done. You are simply saying that you are a science denier when you refuse to discuss the basics of science.

The concept of scientific evidence is a good place to start. And if you understood that you would see that the scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creationism and that can be at least partially blamed on the cowardice of creation "scientists". Even creationists that can do proper science in other fields cannot do so when it comes to their creation beliefs.

Why is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The shape of the skull in the artist's picture does not coincide with the artist's impression of the half-human baby. The skull is obviously that of an ape and not a human, and the picture is an artist's guess of what the "baby" might have looked like. And there is no proof that the larger set of bones is actually human at all, and because the set is not complete, an artist has had to fill in the missing bits to try and show that it is an ape-human. But no complete fossils have been found to provide evidence that any ape-people actually existed. So, no observation, no science.

What? Does this make any sense at all to anyone?

It does not matter what an artist draws. He is merely trying to help lay people to understand. A lack of understanding of lay people does not refute the article. And once again you are misusing terminology. Lucy, like you, is one hundred percent ape. Humans never stopped being apes. The idea of a "half ape half man" is a creationist strawman where they lose that part of the debate by not being able to understand what they are debating against.

I know that you do not like the fact that you and I are apes, but again the scientific evidence supports that. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If Sub's brain can't understand the question, then you are admitting that evolution is true and thus your brain can't understand it either. And if your brain was created by God, then so was Sub's, and thus he is capable of understanding the question. Or are you suggesting that your reality is not the same as his reality?

The basic question is, if evolution is correct, and we are just a a bag of molecules produced by time and chance, where does our logical mind come from?

 

[Speedwell]

The basic question is, if evolution is correct, and we are just a a bag of molecules produced by time and chance, where does our logical mind come from?

It is an emergent property of our brains, just as it would be if we were poofed into existence 6000 years ago.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

"Proof" is a mathematical concept. You are using incorrect terminology. And you do not know what science is or how it is done. You are simply saying that you are a science denier when you refuse to discuss the basics of science.

The concept of scientific evidence is a good place to start. And if you understood that you would see that the scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creationism and that can be at least partially blamed on the cowardice of creation "scientists". Even creationists that can do proper science in other fields cannot do so when it comes to their creation beliefs.

Why is that?

Science is based on the scientific method, which involves observation, replication, and testing. If it can't be proved by this method then it cannot be science, but a belief system made up of conjecture, artist impressions and theories, all made up by people who don't really know for sure.

Yes, creationism is also a belief system that is based on a different foundation.

On another thread in a different forum, I asked for one substantive piece of evidence that one organism has changed into another - even a bacteria changing into an amoeba, but after a lengthy exchange no one could. In fact four of the most eminent and qualified evolutionist scientists were asked the same thing, and they couldn't either, and they were totally stumped and they knew it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What? Does this make any sense at all to anyone?

It does not matter what an artist draws. He is merely trying to help lay people to understand. A lack of understanding of lay people does not refute the article. And once again you are misusing terminology. Lucy, like you, is one hundred percent ape. Humans never stopped being apes. The idea of a "half ape half man" is a creationist strawman where they lose that part of the debate by not being able to understand what they are debating against.

I know that you do not like the fact that you and I are apes, but again the scientific evidence supports that. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs.

All the artist is doing is to show what he believes. He doesn't really know at all, because there is no basis for proof. If he showed a photograph, then that is proof that such a creature actually exists or existed, but he can't. He has to use his imagination to produce something he believes might be the creature. And the "scientists" say, "We believe it, so it is true", which is existential philosophy based on "faith in faith".

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It is an emergent property of our brains, just as it would be if we were poofed into existence 6000 years ago.

If it is a property of our brains, then it should have been there when scientists dissected human brains - but somehow they couldn't find it. Maybe self-consciousness is not in the brain at all.

 

[Speedwell]

If it is a property of our brains, then it should have been there when scientists dissected human brains - but somehow they couldn't find it. Maybe self-consciousness is not in the brain at all.

It's like taking apart a CD player to look for the music. But if you don't like that explanation, what's yours? Whatever it is, our bodies are still bags of molecules.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It's like taking apart a CD player to look for the music. But if you don't like that explanation, what's yours? Whatever it is, our bodies are still bags of molecules.

But we know that the music was composed, performed and recorded by people. It was designed. The music did not appear by chance over time. There was a composer once who composed a piece of music by chance to show that music could be composed through an evolutionary process of chance. But when it was played, it was booed and laughed out of the concert hall, and musicians refused to ever play it again.

So if you are going to use music as your analogy, and if is proved that music was designed by a composer, and performed by actual musicians, and recorded by other people on to a tape designed and manufactured by other people, then to be consistent, you have to say that logical thought and self-consciousness has to be the result of design by a designer and not through time and chance.

 

[Speedwell]

But we know that the music was composed, performed and recorded by people. It was designed. The music did not appear by chance over time. There was a composer once who composed a piece of music by chance to show that music could be composed through an evolutionary process of chance. But when it was played, it was booed and laughed out of the concert hall, and musicians refused to ever play it again.

So if you are going to use music as your analogy, and if is proved that music was designed by a composer, and performed by actual musicians, and recorded by other people on to a tape designed and manufactured by other people, then to be consistent, you have to say that logical thought and self-consciousness has to be the result of design by a designer and not through time and chance.

Which doesn't answer my question. Just saying self-consciousness is the result of a designer is no explanation at all. A designer could have designed a process of evolution which resulted in creatures with brains that produced self consciousness as an emergent property.