• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What proof would you need? (2)

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Wiccan_Child, Jan 2, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Psudopod

    Psudopod Godspeed, Spacebat

    +159
    Other Religion
    In Relationship
    This isn't new. This is the definition of transitional and hasn't been amended. It's also been presented several times.

    Yes, bipedalism was demonstrated earlier in the line of ancestory than previously thought, but there is still a transition from non-bipedal to bipedal apes. You'll have to give more information on what you mean by reduced facial features, which features, are they present in all apes down the line? And you haven't demonstrated that humans share more features with orangs than chimps, you've asserted it. Genetically, they certainly do not.

    Again, you have asserted this, not demonstrated it.

    Again, you have asserted this, not demonstrated it.

    Which human fossils are these? And of course we know what a human trait is, we have mirrors.

    Based on your assertions.
     
  2. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    Why don't you contact Wiki. It is easy. They will change content. You reckon you have the book. It will be easy for you and I would in your situation. I wonder why you have not done so if you are so angry with me. .

    Can you see how you have gone on and on about sin and death. Are you seriously expecting me to waste my time on this. This has nothing to do with science and I am not going to play old earther against YECs


    In relation to Lucy you are another one that likes to cherry pick the research that you prefer.


    Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

    Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.
    From the Cover: Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths


    Is it just me or does this research say..The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

    So here you have afarensis out of the human loop and Ardi in.

    Now wait there is more.....

    But now Ardi has found herself in a spot of controversy. Two new articles being published by Science question some of the major conclusions of Ardi's researchers, including whether this small, strange-looking creature is even a human ancestor at all.

    The biggest mistake White made, according to the paper, was to use outdated characters and concepts to classify Ardi and to fail to identify anatomical clues that would rule her out as a human ancestor. As an example, Sarmiento says that on the base of Ardi's skull, the inside of the jaw joint surface is open as it is in orangutans and gibbons, and not fused to the rest of the skull as it is in humans and African apes — suggesting that Ardi diverged before this character developed in the common ancestor of humans and apes.

    Ardi: Scientists Challenge Human Ancestor Connection - TIME


    Now I am not throwing my hat behind any of these researchers. What the above re Lucy and Ardi demonstrates mainly is that researchers have no clue who is who in the zoo in relation to fossils older than 2 million years old. Additionally there is stuff all fossils to demonstrate chimp or gorilla ancestry, particularly recent. Does that not strike evos as perculiar?

    Where are they? They are hidden in the human line. All the previous evidence prior to Ardi spoke to chimp like traits. The common ancestor was not chimp like. Hence your fossils should be classified as chimp ancestors now. But Oh not, not you guys. You look for God only knows what else so as not to falsify your theory.

    Re Dawkins I stumbled on this..

    If you walked up the line like an inspecting general-past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis -and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity.


    This is Dawkins work above from Meet my Cousin the Chimp. Many researchers think Habilis is out now. The 'perhaps' in bold suggests to me that Dawkins at least questions Lucy's validity in the human line. I now think you have misrepresented Dawkins and possibly your relationship with him.

    So in a nutshell these researchers truly have no idea and can present a plethora of words that amount to nothing more than speculation.

    Really I do not care whom is right or wrong in relation to all this conflicting research. However to suggest that you have good evidence is misrepresentative to say the least. I do not care if these are chimp or gorilla ancestors. The point is this rubbish is not evidence of anything other than a mess.


    The evidence that creationists present cannot be worse than this.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2012
  3. USincognito

    USincognito The Spite Reporters Win Supporter

    +6,185
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Unless there's something in that giant wall of text that says, "US, again, you were right and I was wrong. That link you provided does not say what I thought it did. I'm sorry.", I can safely ignore all the rest and let your hubris continue to make you out to be a big joke.
     
  4. USincognito

    USincognito The Spite Reporters Win Supporter

    +6,185
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Actually, since this is the 3rd or 4th time you posted this link.
    Afarensis: Rak and Australopithecus afarensis: A Second Look

    "Wolpoff and Frayer go on to demonstrate that Neanderthal display a wide variety of mandibular morphologies that frequently overlap that of modern humans. Modern humans and non-Neanderthal hominins also display a wide variety of overlapping mandibular morphologies. Consequently, they argue that the three traits (and a fourth not used in the australopithecine paper) do not give a valid phylogenetic signal. The same critique can be made with the australopithecine paper. Does it sample the range of variation in the australopithecines (including Paranthropus)? Probably not..."

    Wooops. (You might want to check out the whole entry, it's got pretty pictures* showing why Rek, etc. are, at least, misguided.)

    -eta. Here's another entry with even more pretty pictures* and citations
    http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/04/18/is_australopithecus_afarensis/

    * Of course given your past errors with Salem/Lucy, Lucy/modern human skeleton, Turkana boy and Orangutans, we know you're not very good with pictures, but at least your can look at them instead of reading something and misunderstanding it.
     
  5. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,872
    Agnostic
    No woffling. The statement still stands. A transitional will have a mixture of chimp and human features just as H. erectus has.

    If you do not accept this definition of transitional then please show us the definition you are using.

    Look in a mirror.

    We also have much more in common with H. erectus than any of the other species you list. This makes H. erectus transitional between us and our common ancestor with those other species.

    The brain capacity of H. erectus is intermediate between us and other ape species. That is a fact. That is what makes H. erectus transitional.

    You have never explained why this excludes H. erectus from being transitional. Are you saying that a transitional has to be identical to modern humans? If not, then why do you continue to point to differences as a problem?

    Another false claim made by Astrid. She doesn't like the evidence so she has to tell porkies to make it go away.

    There is nothing to defend. The pelvis is transitional. You have never been able to show that it is not.

    Another false accusation.

    Is either reconstruction transitional? If not, then why do you make a big stink about it? Obviously, one of those reconstructions has to be transitional otherwise you wouldn't harp on it so much.

    You mean the frauds that real scientists exposed? It wasn't creationists who exposed these frauds, it was evolutionists.

    So what features would a real transitional have? Why can't you answer this question.

    So what is the correct criteria to use when determining if a fossil is transitional or not? You can not claim that these are not transitional without having these criteria.
     
  6. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,872
    Agnostic
    What substantiating evidence did he present that favors his model over others?

    Then his theory is wrong because dark matter has been observed as has dark energy.
     
  7. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,872
    Agnostic
    Where in our definition of transitional does it require a transitional to be a direct ancestor?
     
  8. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,872
    Agnostic
    Answer the question. Do you think babies come about through abiogenesis? You claim that evolution and abiogenesis should not be separated. This means that you see no difference between biological reproduction (the mechanism of evolution) and abiogenesis.



    Disbelief is not a philosophy.



    That is not atheism. Atheism is just a disbelief in supernatural deities. That's it. No more, no less. Is not believing in Thor a philosophy? Of course not, and neither is disbelieving in your god.

    I can tell you right here. I am here to stop the destruction of our education system at the hands of theists who see knowledge as a threat to religious indoctrination. It is that simple.

    You are projecting again.



    How is this evidence?

    But you did not present evidence that substantiated the theory, and on top of that we have observed both dark matter and dark energy.

    Then do so. Still waiting for this substantiating evidence. What evidence do you have that these feet came from modern humans?

    That is not a part of the theory of evolution, so how could evolutionists even believe that?

    Where is your substantiating evidence?

    Substantiating evidence please.

    Name one observation of a supernatural deity forming a fully functioning species. You need to supply your substantiating evidence for this. You also need to explain why your theory would produce a nested hierarchy.

    200 years ago man could not fly, so I guess that 200 years ago flying was magical poofing as well.

    No one is claiming that complex organisms came about through this process. Or do you really think that babies come about through abiogenesis? You have been taught about reproduction, haven't you?

    Substantiating evidence please.

    What god? Evidence please.
     
  9. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    This above does nothing to refute the fact that your evolutionary researchers have no idea what they are talking about. The link you provided is not even published research. However, that does not matter as I know these researchers have no clue and disagree with each other, and I love it.

    The very fact that various researchers disagree with each other only adds weight to my argument and does not refute it at all.

    Here is another paper where researchers do not agree on Lucy's tree climbing ability and also speaks to Lucy's curved foot bones.

    Australopithecus afarensis bone could change story of human evolution - CSMonitor.com

    Then despite the fact that bipedalism goes back 20my a metarsel is attributed to Lucy alone and suddenly she is a perfect biped despite having curved foot bones and curved fingers.

    Bipedalism: Orangutan to Human - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

    I have said many times that it does not matter whom is right or wrong. The point is that these researchers are desperately looking for human intermediates but in the end they have no idea what they are talking about.

    Further to that I believe you have misrepresented your mate Dawkins who appears to question Afarensis in the human line. Many researchers have also kicked Habilis out of the human line. If Dawkins thought Lucy was in the human line he would not have used the word 'possibly'. Why is Dawkins not convinced by the shortened pelvis and all of Lucys supposed humanity?

    I do not believe you are the guy in that photo. I think you are big noting yourself and using the power of a lie to misrepresent Dawkins.

    You have stuff all fossil evidence for chimps and gorillas and some researchers believe they are hiding in the human line, so I am not alone on this.

    Just because you have apes that are not exactly like todays apes does not mean any of them are on their way to becoming human.

    You lot like to ridicule creationists. However anything a creationist supplies as evidence could not be any worse than the mess and controversy evolutionists like to call evidence.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2012
  10. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married

    You are skirting around a single point which is

    Nothing any creationist offers as evidence for their view could possibly be worse that the convoluted nonsense, contradiction and controversy evolutionists offer up.

    You can sprooke about this or that. You can cherry pick which researcher you like to back. You can strain any point you like, and still creationist evidence can be no worse than this mess you lot present and a bunch of researchers that cannot agree on anything except "it all evolved".
     
  11. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    +135
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Others
    Creationists offer no evidence of anything. All they do is try to (through misinformation) cast doubt in evolution.
     
  12. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    And still nothing you say will take away the fact that anything a creationist offers as evidence for creation could not possibly be worse than the mess you evolutionists have to offer.

    That includes the 150 years of continual falsifications of previous evidence that you lot would have shoved down creationists throats now residing in the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past.
     
  13. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    I have research to back an earth centred universe, 30% different Y chromosome, 10% larger chimp genome, different hot spots, different expressions of proteins NOT from creationist sites as well as flood geology, young earth, as well as a plethora of other work on creationists sites. If you cannot read or understand them or even bother to look at them, nor discern what is creationist and not, that is not my problem.

    Nothing you produce is any better.

    Nothing I produce could be worse than anything you produce including 150 years of falsifications.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2012
  14. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,872
    Agnostic
    What evidence?

    You don't falsify evidence. You falsify hypotheses. Do you even understand how science works?
     
  15. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,872
    Agnostic
    Present the evidence then.

    You don't have that.

    Hot spots of what?

    Why is this a problem?

    Substantiating evidence please.

    Substantiating evidence please.

    We understand that those sites peddle lies. What more need be said? Have you read my thread on 14C in diamonds?

    Yeah, it is. What we present is peer reviewed, not from a 3rd party source that distorts and lies.

    And yet it is.
     
  16. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,872
    Agnostic
    Then offer up some evidence and let's see how it stacks up.

    For example, why don't you explain how IC systems are evidence of creationism. Explain it to us. Let's see if you can defend it at all.
     
  17. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,872
    Agnostic
    Another bald assertion from Astrid.

    So you are saying that you do not accept evolution because it is not dogmatic?

    That's a whopper of a porky there. Just because scientists have too little evidence to determine which of the transitional fossils are in our direct line of descent it does not indicate that humans were magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity. Do you understand how ridiculous your position is? Do you understand what a false dichotomy is?

    How does this indicate that humans were magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity? Please explain.

    Another bald assertion from Astrid. How can you make this claim when you can't even define what a transitional fossil should look like? The only one without a clue is you.
     
  18. Fastener

    Fastener Guest

    +0
    Astridhere... could you please tell me where you stand on new information?
     
  19. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    +135
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Others
    None of this is evidence of a six day creation by your God.
     
  20. USincognito

    USincognito The Spite Reporters Win Supporter

    +6,185
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...