Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The border is the vast genetic differences between Australopithecus and Homo sapiens. Whenever well-preserved hominin skeletons are found, they can be readily identified as one or the other genus. So why should we assume one transitioned into another at some point?Okay, if Homo habilis is a human, where's this fabled border between "pure human" and "pure ape"?
If you insist on distinctions with no difference, that might technically be correct, although it seems Darwin predicted just that. A common ancestor amount to the same problem.There is no need for me to discuss this falsehood with you again because it has been explained several times by myself and others that evolutionary scientists have NEVER claimed that apes transformed into humans. If you won't take the time to learn evolution, even if you disagree with it, it is impossible for myself and others discuss evolution with you.
Darwin lived close to 2 centuries ago. The problems that I noticed creationist face is their sources almost never update their knowledge base on evolution.If you insist on distinctions with no difference, that might technically be correct, although it seems Darwin predicted just that. A common ancestor amount to the same problem.
None of your claims without proper support need any refutations. A mere "You're wrong." is sufficient.Lol, right. Lets look at the actual differences between apes and "neanderthals" or modern humans or any of the homo sapiens. Yes, the ape and human genomes are similar but at the same time, the genetic differences are huge. We are talking 30 million "letter" differences if the genomes differ just 1 percent. But the 1 or 2 percent difference so often claimed is wrong. When multi-nucleotide differences are included the differences are closer to 10 percent. That's a huge amount of human-specifying information. There are also serious ape\human differences that transcend DNA sequences. (Differential Nucleosome formation, 3D DNA structure, DNA methylation, transcription, RNA splicing, RNA editing and more.
Paleoanthropologists might not consider this information at all, as it's not really their field. Just the change of an ape foot to the configuration of a human foot is an extremely complex genetic undertaking.
Of course, this is just the tip of the ice burg. A human foot on an ape-like body doesn't work. The feet, legs' knees, hips, backbone, neck, and brain would all have to be genetically rewired. I don't expect you to take my word for it, but 6 million years is not enough time for a specific nucleotide to be replaced by a specific alternative nucleotide, and for this change to become permanent. If only five mutations were required the waiting time would exceed the currently estimated age of the earth. But of course, you will have to do your own research on that. Suffice it to say that I don't believe in evolution doing miracles.
Then quote and link those sources.I'm working with information and sources put out as little as three years ago...
Citation? The so-called evolutionary tree is now admitted to be a bush, a bunch of rabbit trails that don't lead us to any clear linage between apes and humans. So-called neanderthals bred with so-called homo sapiens. There are in reality only two lines, those who are pure apes and those who are homo sapaian.
If you insist on distinctions with no difference, that might technically be correct, although it seems Darwin predicted just that. A common ancestor amount to the same problem.
You don't seem to know very much about all the transitional hominids.The border is the vast genetic differences between Australopithecus and Homo sapiens. Whenever well-preserved hominin skeletons are found, they can be readily identified as one or the other genus. So why should we assume one transitioned into another at some point?
Clearly? Because of what? Skull shape? First the evidence for habilis is very shakey. Paleo experts have debated rather it's even a real species. The fossil evidence is fragmentary at best. Probably a mix of human and ape bones at one site.Homo habilis is D... an upright tool maker, but clearly closer in form to Australopithicus than it is to Homo sapiens.
Useless post...Why does this bush business keep coming up? If's like some gotcha moment every time it's mentioned.
Look, cladistics is enormously complex. You'd need a decent degree and a lot of study to come to grips with even a small portion of the complexity that is the connection between all life. And most people who really do understand it very well are generally concerned with small portions of the whole.
Some people with a limited understanding of the evolutionary process (no names here) need the explanations to be as simple as possible so that they can get a grasp of the concept. So not so long ago, evolution was indicated as some kind of ladder, with unicellular life on the lowest rung and guess who at the top.
That might be ok for primary school children (despite it wrongly suggesting that there was only one path from there to here and that we were the ultimate aim). Then people drew cute little diagrams of trees to show the various branches. Simplified to the nth degree, but that was good enough for the general population.
But if you ask enough questions and poke around a little, then that simply kid's version of a tree gets a lot more complex. To the point where someone had declared it to be more like a bush than a tree (at which point you jump in and shout 'aha!' as if getting an admission that it's very complex is some sort victory for bible literalists).
Except that even calling it a tangled bush is nowhere near close enough to describing the incredibly complexity of what is trying to be shown in a diagrammatic form. You might compare it to a family tree representing everyone who has ever lived. We are all connected in some way. But if you look at yourself and a couple of generations back, it looks like a tree. But go back a hundred generations and it'll look a real mess. More a bush than a tree.
Go back a thousand generations and it's just tangled undergrowth. But, and this is the point you fail to grasp, it's all interconnected...
So next time you claim 'it's not even a tree - it's a bush', then I will correct you. It's much, much more tangled than you can even imagine.
But not world-wide, and no evidence for them.WUT?
I never posted any bible 'tales'.
On the contrary, I mentioned flood accounts which are historically documented OUTSIDE the bible. (extra-biblical)
A world-wide flood 4500 years ago would leave a mark.If you wish to waive your hands and simply dismiss something as a mere "fabrication", then (ironically) it is you who are the one making stuff up. You are literally creating a myth of your own. Your mythology is that it never happened.
Yes it does.There is evidence. That you find the evidence unpersuasive doesn't give you the right to re-define the definition of the word "evidence". Or to declare a victory of your own.
Yes.
Then I eagerly await several such examples that I know I will never actually get.The experts disagree with each other constantly about the bones and what they mean.
See above.Yes there's guesswork involved.
Do you, now?So what? I've skinned more animals than 99 perfect of the people on here. I know bone structure.
Great observation. Interestingly, I did not mention anything like that. Nice dodge!A fossilized bone from an extinct animal is not gonna tell you what DNA it had,
So I guess you just totally ignored what I wrote and are running with your layman's "troof"? Based on skinning some animals?what fur, or lack of fur or hair or even exact size and shape.
A whole skeleton construction from a leg bone and some teeth? You don't even know the skull shape. Guesswork is inevitable.
Nice try (incorrect, though).Can I make a guess based on 9th grade biology and internet observation?
Digital joint bone, not ancient, as not fossilised to my eye. scale unknown so no clue to ultimate size.
It does seem to be a good description of what you think. And not just on that particular issue. Look at your claim re: bones and such.Quit lying about me. If I was so inclined you could be reported for flaming.
Do you, now?So what? I've skinned more animals than 99 perfect of the people on here. I know bone structure.
Great observation. Interestingly, I did not mention anything like that. Nice dodge!
A fossilized bone from an extinct animal is not gonna tell you what DNA it had,
So I guess you just totally ignored what I wrote and are running with your layman's "troof"? Based on skinning some animals?
what fur, or lack of fur or hair or even exact size and shape.
A whole skeleton construction from a leg bone and some teeth? You don't even know the skull shape. Guesswork is inevitable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?