What proof would you need? (2)

[Astridhere]

Oooops, except that image was a cladogram demonstrating how the ear structures of Basilosaurids fit neatly within the ear structures of Cetacean evolution. A cladogram created by those people who actually studied the fossils and concluded that Basilosaurid ears were "functionally modern", which you interpreted as "typical" based on whatever Creationist site you read discussing something of which you'd otherwise be utterly unaware.
These pretty pictures are based on preconcieved notions such as comparative genomics and shared traits actually means something. A morphologically based cladogram does not produce the same pretty picture as one based on DNA does. Hence no matter what you say you have a contadiction. Hopefully God knew he was going to mess with evolutionists heads.
So who should we trust? Some gal in Oz who can't figure out how to use the quote function,
I know how to use it. My PC just won't. As much as this peeves you lot off, this is one thing I do not do intentionally.

relies on bogus Wikipedia content,
Wiki is fantastic and speaks to much research all in the one spot. You love Wiki, if you didn't you'd contact them and ask them to change the content of your outdated mate, Dawkins. You haven't. You love them.

You just like to run around holding onto any straw availbable trying to hide behind it.

continually refers to Au. afarensis as "Lucy",
What are you taking about now? Your own researcher speak to Lucy as being australopithecus AFARENSIS. Do you doubt your own researchers now? How embarassing for you.

Here's a link. Back to BIO101 for you.

Lucy - The Australopithecus afarensis Lucy

BTW, Lucy, the same as Ardi, changed current thinking in a single find. which is more substantiation that your flavours of the month are not science, just straw grabbing.

thinks all hominid species should resemble modern H. sapiens

Evolutionary researchers are the boofheads that suggest there are resemblances, only to find that research from your own suggests otherwise eg Lucy is not in the human line. Boo Hoo for you.

Why do you think certain hominids, of various flavours of the month, are put in the human line? I agree with you on this one. There really is no resemblance really, only a few reused designs.

In other words none of them, including you, have no idea what they are talking about.
and read something on a Creationist website, or the experts who actually studied the fossils and placed Basilosaurids as transitionals between Rhodicetids and modern whales?

Creationist interpretations could not possibly we worse than the contradictions and falsifications you lot provide.

Basilosaurus is a whale, silly. You, as usual, are barking up the wrong tree in confusion. It is ambulocetus natans that has been misrepresented, as well as Pakicetus and Indohyus. You lot have appear to use deer, wolf, sea lions ancestors as whale intermediates. What nonsense. With all your supposed butt covering terms lke homoplasy and convergent evolution how the heck could you lot demonstrate any more than wishful thinking.

If a fossil looks, walks and has many similarities to a sea lion or seal, could it be a sea lion of seal ancestor? Of course not. It must be some other totally unrelated creature poofing into a whale. What desperate nonsense evolutionists go on with in their desperate attempts to prove the impossible.


If you're not a troll, you're a great Creationist Astrid.
Thanks. I knew you would come around sooner or later.

So the highlight of USincognitos post is that he does not believe Lucy is an Afarensis.

Has USingonito also misrepresented his take on Dawkins. Highly likely!

You have best go tell the evolutionary scientific establishment that you know better and that they should no longer refer to Lucy as afarensis.



The other highlight is USincognito suggesting that homonids should not resemble humans. I agree that hominid names are thrown into a hat and then researchers draw straws to decide who gets to pick a name out of the hat. Is that what you think also? This will decide which homonid will be the direct human ancestor for a year. How bizarre for you to say such a thing US. Were you drinking alcohol when you wrote this post?

In fact all the nonsense you lot go on with in relation to classifications is based on your preconcieved assumptions.


Homoplasy: A good thread to pull to understand the evolutionary ball of yarn

Of course you poor evolutionists have not got a solid family tree of organisms back past the sub family rank, or family where there is no subfamily ranking. Hence you have no idea past grabbing at straws as to who is who in the zoo before then and your cladograms are wishfull thinking based on a changing and often falsified or contradictory landscape. IOW..evolutionists truly have no idea.

 

[CabVet]

So the highlight of USincognitos post is that he does not believe Lucy is an Afarensis.

Has USingonito also misrepresented his take on Dawkins. Highly likely!

You have best go tell the evolutionary scientific establishment that you know better and that they should no longer refer to Lucy as afarensis.



The other highlight is USincognito suggesting that homonids should not resemble humans. I agree that hominid names are thrown into a hat and then researchers draw straws to decide who gets to pick a name out of the hat. Is that what you think also? This will decide which homonid will be the direct human ancestor for a year. How bizarre for you to say such a thing US. Were you drinking alcohol when you wrote this post?

In fact all the nonsense you lot go on with in relation to classifications is based on your preconcieved assumptions.


Homoplasy: A good thread to pull to understand the evolutionary ball of yarn

Of course you poor evolutionists have not got a solid family tree of organisms back past the sub family rank, or family where there is no subfamily ranking. Hence you have no idea past grabbing at straws as to who is who in the zoo before then and your cladograms are wishfull thinking based on a changing and often falsified or contradictory landscape. IOW..evolutionists truly have no idea.

Where do you copy and paste this stuff from? Amazing amount of non-sense. You know people actually think about those things, right? Could you define monophyly if I asked?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did... did she really just use convergent evolution in an attempt to refute evolution?

BEES HAVE HAIR JUST LIKE MAMMALS, THEREFORE INSECTS ARE MAMMALS, HERP DERP

 

[Astridhere]

[/size][/font]

What's the non-evolutionary explantion for all mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians being tetrapod?
Dear, this is based on your assumption that tetrapods 'evolved' once. You dating methods and algorithmic magic uses these assumptions as insertion values. You seriously know nothing about algorithms do you?

For atavistic tails in humans and legs in whales? The blind spot in the eye?
Eyes evolved more than once, much to your researchers dismay again forcing an evolutionary rethink.

Frogs legs are similar to mankind and they aren't even a mammal.

Tetrapods have been dated back to 395mya or more, where there were many different tetrapod species about by that time. Your researchers really have no idea past a wish list, really. Indeed 'if' tetrapods evolved more that once, and why wouldn't they, you would have more of a mess than you currently have. The bottom line is all these classifications are nothing more than straw grabs based on a preconcieved outcome, where your algorithms are designed to demonstrate 'common ancestry' not the truth.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...est-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land/

It is all desperation and seeking any straw to save TOE from death.

TOE is a zombie and had died many times. .... The walking dead that refuses to die.

 

[Astridhere]

Did... did she really just use convergent evolution in an attempt to refute evolution?

BEES HAVE HAIR JUST LIKE MAMMALS, THEREFORE INSECTS ARE MAMMALS, HERP DERP

NO..SHE used your cover butt terms to demonstrate how desperate evolutionists are and just how many butt convering terms evolutionists have to invent to hand wave away a plethora of annomolies.

What your hand waves demonstrate is that God used the best designs many times and there is no convergent evolution?

Homoplasy is just another hand waving term based on the notion of evolution. Homoplasy should mean "similar designs created by the creator".

What your butt covering terms demonstrate is that evolutionists really have no idea!

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Frogs legs are similar to mankind and they aren't even a mammal.

Hardly:

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hey, you know who Astridhere reminds me of... DAD.

That's right, she's no other than our beloved fish-bowl-holding comedian, dad.

"Your researchers really have no idea past a wish list, really...
TOE is a zombie and had died many times. .... The walking dead that refuses to die."

Ah, dad, how I missed your crazy, oh-so crazy rants.


EDIT: "Butt-covering". LOVE IT.

 

[Keachian]

Wiki is fantastic and speaks to much research all in the one spot. You love Wiki, if you didn't you'd contact them and ask them to change the content of your outdated mate, Dawkins. You haven't. You love them.

We not only misunderstand evolution and have to be sorted out by Astrid, but misunderstand wikis

 

[Split Rock]

Hardly:

The basic morphology is the same. That's because frogs and humans are both tetrapods, like our common ancestor was.

 

[CabVet]

Frogs legs are similar to mankind and they aren't even a mammal.

Tetrapods have been dated back to 395mya or more, where there were many different tetrapod species about by that time.

Were there mammals 395my ago? How about reptiles? Birds?

Forget the dating, for all intents and purposes, let's assume the entire geological record is 12 thousand years. Yes, I am actually saying that, let's assume the earth is 12 thousand years old. Why do all groups appear in a certain order in the geological record and not all at the same time like the Bible says? Is that science's invention too?

 

[Astridhere]

Hardly:

Oh lovey, if only you lot actually used these reasoning abilities all the time, we would have less to discuss. It is you lot that make up all this nonsense about homoloplasy and homology in the first place. Don't think I actually agree with any of the psychobabble you evos come up with.


Even though frogs don't look much like people on the outside, their skeletons are similar to people's skeletons, especially when it comes to their limbs. Just like in a person's arms, in a frog's front legs are bones called the humerus, the radius and the ulna. However, a frog's radius and ulna are fused into one bone. The same is true for a frog's legs -- the femur supports its upper leg, and the bones of the lower leg, the tibia and fibula, are fused. A frog has two scapulae, or shoulder blades, and clavicles, or collarbones, that are shaped a lot like the same bones in a person's body.

HowStuffWorks "The Frog Skeletons vs. Human Skeletons"

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Even though frogs don't look much like people on the outside, their skeletons are similar to people's skeletons, especially when it comes to their limbs. Just like in a person's arms, in a frog's front legs are bones called the humerus, the radius and the ulna. However, a frog's radius and ulna are fused into one bone. The same is true for a frog's legs -- the femur supports its upper leg, and the bones of the lower leg, the tibia and fibula, are fused. A frog has two scapulae, or shoulder blades, and clavicles, or collarbones, that are shaped a lot like the same bones in a person's body.

So how will you reply to Split Rock's post?

The basic morphology is the same. That's because frogs and humans are both tetrapods, like our common ancestor was.

 

[Astridhere]

USincognito

Here's something for you for when you decide to surface from behind your staw that has just been ripped away from your hand, by me and your own supposed mate, Dawkins.

Ancestor's Tale - Dawkins
The Blind Cave Fish's Tale, which is about Dollo's Law, will reassure us that this last is not the case. There is nothing in principle wrong with Theory 4. Chimpanzees really could have passed through a more humanoid, bipedal stage before reverting to quadrupedal apehood. As it happens, this very suggestion has been revived by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas, in their two books, The Monkey Puzzle and The First Chimpanzee. They go so far as to suggest that chimpanzees are descended from gracile australopithecines (like Lucy), and gorillas from robust australopithecines (like ‘Dear Boy&#8217. For such an in-your-face radical suggestion, they make a surprisingly good case.

Ancestor's Tale, The - Dawkins R.A.

Dawkins may not have directly uttered the words however he agrees with an evolutionary researcher that has!


Where is that little master of the porkies, USincognito?

..and this is why Dawkins suggests a 'perhaps' to Lucy, when he speaks to her being in the human line as already posted. Do I need to line it all up again for you USincognito, or is your memory retention sufficient for you to remember?.

Dawkins comments on top of other reseach that suggests Lucy is not in the human line means Lucy and all her humanity may well be a chimpanzee ancestor, with no humanity in her at all.

 

[Keachian]

since when were chimpanzees exclusively quadrupedal? Or for that matter most Apes?

 

[CabVet]

USincognito

Here's something for you for when you decide to surface from behind your staw that has just been ripped away from your hand, by me and your own supposed mate, Dawkins.

Yes, by all means, just keep changing the subject.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Mr Strawberry has yet again substantiated my assertion that evolutionists are gobsmacked and unable to mount any refute to my fur laden erectus ape interpretation. It is better than your interpretation of erectus data, makes more sense and aligns with observation better than any evo one.

Asking the same question that has no bearing on refuting me is really sad. I have already answered by saying that evolutionists are intoxicated and inculcated and are unable to to see the forest for the trees.

At the very least my interpretations cannot possibly worse than what you lot have to offer.

Thanks Mr Strawberry for your ongoing substantiation of your inability to provide any reply of substance.

Let's see if your next post is any better and actually demonstrates the error of my reasoning with more than 'they said so'.

My prediction is...NO, it will be the same line of rhetoric, sidewinding or ridicule and nothing more.

I didn't bother replying to you because you ignored the contents of my post and just carried on with your own bizarre rantings. It appears to be pointless trying to communicate with you.

 

[Astridhere]

Hey progmonk..you are unable to answer your own question after 150 years or more of evowoffle.

Flavour of the month, suggests indeed bipedalism isn't solely a human trait and that's what I have been saying for weeks, if not months.

Indeed Dawkins supports the evidence of Lucy being a chimp ancestor and Ardi being a gorilla ancestor and all that delusional humanity is down the dunny. That is the point my friend, in case you missed it.

The sad fact is all of it is rubbish and these researchers have no clue what the heck they are looking at.

 

[Astridhere]

I didn't bother replying to you because you ignored the contents of my post and just carried on with your own bizarre rantings. It appears to be pointless trying to communicate with you.

I ignored you first because your post was rambling on and on. Hence, I didn't bother replying to each ramble.

And still my point remains that you and your evo researchers have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I ignored you first because your post was rambling on and on. Hence, I didn't bother replying to each ramble.

quote]

The irony.

 

[CabVet]

I ignored you first because your post was rambling on and on. Hence, I didn't bother replying to each ramble.

And still my point remains that you and your evo researchers have no idea what they are talking about.

FYI: When you "ignore" someone you can't see his posts, so you didn't really ignore him, did you?