What proof would you need? (2)

CabVet · Jan 3, 2012

Astridhere said:
I was asked for a definition of an intermediate I have given one.

And that is the wrong one.

Astridhere said:
I have asked many evolutionists the same question and theirs was worse than mine. How about you give one seeing as evos are constantly asking creationists to give one? I'll bet you do not.

Transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a lifeform that exhibits characteristics of two distinct taxonomic groups.

Astridhere said:
However I am pleased with your response. What is a derived character given that apes were bipeds, pelvis were reduced, Ardi had shortened arms unlike modern apes. Evolutionists make this up as they go along.

Once again you prove you know nothing about taxonomy or systematics.

Astridhere said:
An alternative minority viewpoint is that Homo diverged from a common ancestor with Pongo perhaps as early as 13 million years ago, while Pan is more closely related to Gorilla. This alternative is supported by characteristics uniquely shared between humans and orangutans, such as dental structure, thick enamel, shoulder blade structure, thick posterior palate, single incisive foramen, high estriol production, and beard and mustache. There are at least 28 such well-corroborated features compared with perhaps as few as one unique feature shared between humans and chimpanzees. It is widely believed that these physical features are misleading, but an alternative possibility is that orangutans have undergone more genetic change than humans and African apes have since their divergence from the common ancestor. If this had happened, then the apparent genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees would not necessarily be due to a close evolutionary relationship.[13][14] This hypothesis has been proposed as an explanation as to why early hominids, such as the australopiths, not only look more like orangutans than either African ape, but also share characters unique to orangutans and their close fossil relatives, such as a thickened posteror palate and anterior zygomatic roots.[15]
Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

Your genomic phylogeny never adds up. You require a plethora of excuses to present a scenario that may seem somewhat plausible to maintain this status quo.

Again, all of the hypotheses above deal with how humans evolved, not if they evolved.

Astridhere said:
Evolutionists before finding Ardi always manitained how the fossils evidence supported ancestry to a chimp like ancestor. In actual fact mankind shares very few traits with a chimp and many more with an orang. So why you have some evidence of orang ancestors and none for chimps and gorillas in explainable. All the chimp and gorilla ancestors are hiding in the human line because you evos have looked for chimp like ancestors.

Human ancestors have an identity crisis.

Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis - Science News

The problem for evolutionists accepting that if evolution occured at all we are closer to the orang, is that it would falsify all your current DNA comparisons.

Perhaps if evolution made more sense I woud be more likely to take it seriously.

What you are left with is a huge contradiction.

Perhaps if you understand evolution it would make more sense to you. Hint: getting your information from creationist websites does not help.

Loudmouth · Jan 3, 2012

Astridhere said:
Researchers have found a human metararsel that predates Lucy.

How do you construct an entire species from a single bone? Isn't this the very thing you were criticizing evolutionists for in the other thread?

Lucy is not human and just an ape.

Humans are also apes, and transitional fossils should be apes as well. What next? Lucy was just a mammal?

If this is true data as purported by evolutionists, my interpretation is that this is evidence that mankind was around before and around afarensis.

Then why can't we find a single modern human cranium anywhere in these sediments? Why do you feel justified constructing a modern human from a single metatarsal?

Hence mankind appears in the fossil record suddenly as a creationist expect to find.

How do you determine that a species appeared suddenly by looking at a fossil?

The alternative explanation is that apes had fully human feet before they diverged into chimps and gorillas. This is non plausible,

Why is it non-plausible that a common ancenstor of humans and other apes had a human-like metatarsal? Please explain.

The body is homoplasic and God used the same best design many times. The hallmark of mankind resides in higher reasoning ability and sophisticated language and abstract thought. These are not homoplasic.

IOW, it doesn't matter what the fossil record shows. You reject evolution because it conflicts with your beliefs.

Erectus also does not display these traits.

So you are saying that a transitional between modern humans and other apes would need to have the same reasoning capabilities as modern humans, according to evolutionary theory?

Creationists cannot trust the reconstructions evos put together. They are biased in favour of flavour of the month. Rudolfensis is another example of the Leakeys misrepresenting a fossil to look more human than it is, untill it was reconctrcted to look more ape like.

Then please show us reconstructions of fossil hominids that you do trust.

I feel evos should not ridicule creationists because we can interpret the data to suit the various creationist camps just as well as evolutionists, and are perfectly entitled to claim they also have science and observation on their side.

You can interpret fingerprints at the scene of the crime as evidence of leprechauns. The question is whether or not your interpretation is testable, falsifiable, and rational. Thus far, it is not.

Astridhere · Jan 3, 2012

Notedstrangeperson said:
You've probably mentioned it already, but what metatarsal are you referring to?

There's much evidence to suggest that Lucy was a human ancestor. This paper (LINK) compares an australopithecus skeleton to the skeletons of both modern chimps and modern humans. Out of 36 anatomical traits they compared, 22 (61%) were human-like and 14 (39%) were ape like.

Interestingly, another creationist I often talk to considers Homo Erectus to be fully human. Why? Because the average brain size of H. Erectus was around 1,100cc - which fits into the modern human range, but only just.

Would you disagree with him?

I'm not sure where you got this idea. H. Erectus walked more like a modern human than australopithecus did.

The link you provided to support Lucy being human was a classroom lesson where they are still teaching the same outdated line of chimp like comparisons from a common ancestor that was not chimp like and where most traits supposedly evolved independently eg knuckwalking and long arms. I have produced recent research, that demonstrates Lucy is too dervided to be a human ancestor.

From the Cover: Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
Quantifying mental foramen position in ex... [Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Bipedalism is not a human trait. We do not need fossils we can see it in orangs today.

Paleontologists have conventionally used signs of bipedalism as key criteria for distinguishing early human, or "hominin," fossils from those of other apes. But, this distinction is complicated by recent fossil evidence that some early hominins, including Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), lived in woodland environments, while even earlier forms such as Millennium Man (Orrorin) appear to have lived in the forest canopy and moved on two legs.

Lessons From The Orangutans: Upright Walking May Have Begun In The Trees

Homo erectus is a waddler because the recently found Gona female pelvis demonstrates same.

Clearly, something is amiss. The body size dimorphism seems reasonable, but the pelvic shape suggests extreme behavioral dimorphism as well (males were out running long distances while the females waddled around bearing children at home). This may be reasonable, but it may not be. Other Homo erectus specimens, like the ones from Dmanisi provide evidence that small body size in erectus was not unusual. Perhaps our reconstruction of the Turkana pelvis requires modification, as it seems to be an outlier.
The New Homo erectus pelvis from Gona « A Primate of Modern Aspect

Astridhere · Jan 3, 2012

Loudmouth said:
How do you construct an entire species from a single bone? Isn't this the very thing you were criticizing evolutionists for in the other thread?

Yep,,if you can do it so can I.

Humans are also apes, and transitional fossils should be apes as well. What next? Lucy was just a mammal?
Yet none of you can explain why humans remain in the homoninae clade when nothing puts us there except evolutionists imagination

Then why can't we find a single modern human cranium anywhere in these sediments? Why do you feel justified constructing a modern human from a single metatarsal?

Because mankind was not numerous

How do you determine that a species appeared suddenly by looking at a fossil?

You lot do it all the time. Surely you do not support double standards.

Why is it non-plausible that a common ancenstor of humans and other apes had a human-like metatarsal? Please explain.

Because erectus is now a waddler still and I have explained it is just that your comprehension is challenged and you are in denial

IOW, it doesn't matter what the fossil record shows. You reject evolution because it conflicts with your beliefs.

I use science and observation not my beliefs. Evolutionists should try it sometime.

So you are saying that a transitional between modern humans and other apes would need to have the same reasoning capabilities as modern humans, according to evolutionary theory?

Erectus had a small neural cannal and was incapable of sophisticated speech....not human.....The suddenly homo sapiens appear...proof of creation

Then please show us reconstructions of fossil hominids that you do trust.

These are apes

You can interpret fingerprints at the scene of the crime as evidence of leprechauns. The question is whether or not your interpretation is testable, falsifiable, and rational. Thus far, it is not.

Mine is observed evidence yours is mythical algorithmical evidence that could likely prove there are leprechauns and teletubbies are human intermediates, if your reaserchers needed to.

I am still waiting for you to explain Turkana Boys whackey pelvis.

I trust the skulls that were found complete and they are all ape heads. I trust the skeletons that were found relatively in tact like Salem that also demonstrate afarenensis is too derived to be in the human line

Loudmouth · Jan 3, 2012

Astridhere said:
I am still waiting for you to explain Turkana Boys whackey pelvis.

What needs to be explained? The pelvis is more human-like than any other living ape. This makes H. erectus transitional.

Perhaps it is time that you explain the pelvis. Even the more recent female H. erectus pelvis is more human-like than the pelvis of any other living ape. H. erectus has morphology that is more human-like than any other living ape. That is exactly what we should see in a transitional fossil.

I trust the skulls that were found complete and they are all ape heads.

How does this disqualify them as transitionals?

Fastener · Jan 3, 2012

You are transitional, you are different from your parents and you are or will be different from your children, what's so hard to understand about that?

Loudmouth · Jan 3, 2012

Astridhere said:
Bipedalism is not a human trait. We do not need fossils we can see it in orangs today.

Here is an orangutan pelvis and femur:

Notice that the pelvis is narrow, not broad like it is in hominid bipeds. Also notice that the femur goes straight down instead of angling in towards the body midline like it does in hominid bipeds. You are clearly wrong about orangutans.

Homo erectus is a waddler because the recently found Gona female pelvis demonstrates same.

Female H. erectus may have been waddlers while the males were much more like modern humans. Your point? Why does this type of sexual dimorphism disqualify H. erectus as a transitional?

Clearly, something is amiss. The body size dimorphism seems reasonable, but the pelvic shape suggests extreme behavioral dimorphism as well (males were out running long distances while the females waddled around bearing children at home). This may be reasonable, but it may not be. Other Homo erectus specimens, like the ones from Dmanisi provide evidence that small body size in erectus was not unusual. Perhaps our reconstruction of the Turkana pelvis requires modification, as it seems to be an outlier.

The New Homo erectus pelvis from Gona « A Primate of Modern Aspect

Or there was a lot of variation amongst H. erectus. How did you rule that out?

Loudmouth · Jan 3, 2012

Astridhere said:
Yep,,if you can do it so can I.

You are saying that I can't, so you can't either.

Yet none of you can explain why humans remain in the homoninae clade when nothing puts us there except evolutionists imagination

What puts us there are the features that we share with other hominins. That is how species are grouped, by shared characteristics. This has been the case since Linnaeus, 100 years before Darwin published "Origin of Species".

Because mankind was not numerous

Or didn't exist at all.

You lot do it all the time. Surely you do not support double standards.

Aren't you the one who criticized scientists for doing this? The only double standard I see is yours.

Because erectus is now a waddler still and I have explained it is just that your comprehension is challenged and you are in denial

Why does this disqualify H. erectus as a transitional?

I use science and observation not my beliefs. Evolutionists should try it sometime.

Then please cite one observation of a supernatural deity creating an organism.

Erectus had a small neural cannal and was incapable of sophisticated speech....not human.....The suddenly homo sapiens appear...proof of creation

Why does a small neural canal disqualify H. erectus as a transitional? How did you determine that H. sapiens suddenly appeared?

These are apes

Just as a transitional should be.

Mine is observed evidence yours is mythical algorithmical evidence that could likely prove there are leprechauns and teletubbies are human intermediates, if your reaserchers needed to

What observations do you have of a supernatural deity creating an organism?

I am still waiting for you to explain Turkana Boys whackey pelvis.

Right back atcha. How do you explain the fact that Turkana Boy's pelvis is more human-like than any living ape?

I trust the skulls that were found complete and they are all ape heads.

Just as they should be if they are transitional.

I trust the skeletons that were found relatively in tact like Salem that also demonstrate afarenensis is too derived to be in the human line

What disqualifies A. afarensis as a transitional?

Notedstrangeperson · Jan 3, 2012

Astridhere said:
The link you provided to support Lucy being human was a classroom lesson where they are still teaching the same outdated line of chimp like comparisons from a common ancestor that was not chimp like and where most traits supposedly evolved independently eg knuckwalking and long arms.

Lucy is considered a human ancestor because she has anatomical traits which are found in modern humans and not other great apes. Or to put it another way - if she is not related to humans, then why does she hanve human traits?

Astridhere said:
Bipedalism is not a human trait. We do not need fossils we can see it in orangs today.

Paleontologists have conventionally used signs of bipedalism as key criteria for distinguishing early human, or "hominin," fossils from those of other apes. But, this distinction is complicated by recent fossil evidence that some early hominins, including Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), lived in woodland environments, while even earlier forms such as Millennium Man (Orrorin) appear to have lived in the forest canopy and moved on two legs.

Lessons From The Orangutans: Upright Walking May Have Begun In The Trees

Bipedalism is more than just walking on two legs - after all, kangaroos and birds can do it. The key thing to look for is anatomical similarities. Loudmouth has already mentioned this, but another comparison might be useful:

As you can see, the pelvis of both Australiopithecus and Ardipithecus were more similar to that of modern humans than modern chimpanzees.

Astridhere said:
Homo erectus is a waddler because the recently found Gona female pelvis demonstrates same.

Clearly, something is amiss. The body size dimorphism seems reasonable, but the pelvic shape suggests extreme behavioral dimorphism as well (males were out running long distances while the females waddled around bearing children at home). This may be reasonable, but it may not be. Other Homo erectus specimens, like the ones from Dmanisi provide evidence that small body size in erectus was not unusual. Perhaps our reconstruction of the Turkana pelvis requires modification, as it seems to be an outlier.
The New Homo erectus pelvis from Gona « A Primate of Modern Aspect

Loundmouth said:
Female H. erectus may have been waddlers while the males were much more like modern humans.

Actually that's just the authors' style of writing - female H. Erectus did not waddle all the time, just as male H. Erectus did not run around all the time.

The femurs of H. Erectus were similar to that of a modern human than an Australopithecus, suggesting that by this time they had become fully bipedal.

Notedstrangeperson · Jan 3, 2012

Astridhere said:
I trust the skulls that were found complete and they are all ape heads. I trust the skeletons that were found relatively in tact like Salem that also demonstrate afarenensis is too derived to be in the human line

Which apes exactly? Their cranial capacity is between 850 - 1,100cc, much larger than any great ape. Their canine teeth are tiny, while the canines of great apes are quite large. They have no crests on the top of their heads as orangutans and gorillas do. Their faces are quite flat.

And of course, those are only skulls. Their bodies are very unlike that of great apes at all.

On a side-note, another creationist I often speak with (Mark Kennedy) argues that Homo Erectus was fully human. It would be interesting to see two creationists decide what traits a hominin needs to have to be considered human. Would you be interested in debating him, Astridhere?

CabVet · Jan 3, 2012

Notedstrangeperson said:
On a side-note, another creationist I often speak with (Mark Kennedy) argues that Homo Erectus was fully human. It would be interesting to see two creationists decide what traits a hominin needs to have to be considered human. Would you be interested in debating him, Astridhere?

You haven't seen anything yet! There are some creationists here that argue that 22 species in the human genealogy are actually the first descendents of Adam and Eve!

Notedstrangeperson · Jan 3, 2012

CabVet said:
You haven't seen anything yet! There are some creationists here that argue that 22 species in the human genealogy are actually the first descendents of Adam and Eve!

Yes I've met Cupid Dave too.

cupid dave · Jan 4, 2012

Astridhere said:
There has not been, nor will there be any challenge, to my cited research. It is recent. It is published. Lucy, is not in the human line. She has chimpanzee features and is more likely to be a chimp ancestor than a human one. This illustrates how evolutionary researchers simply have no credibility. They are desperate for fame and grants, not the truth.

The orang is another creature I love to talk about. It shares more morphology with a human than a chimp and many researchers suggest this should take precedence over DNA comparisons. They have even come up with explanations/stories to explain this.

There are at least 28 such well-corroborated features compared with perhaps as few as one unique feature shared between humans and chimpanzees. It is widely believed that these physical features are misleading, but an alternative possibility is that orangutans have undergone more genetic change than humans and African apes have since their divergence from the common ancestor. If this had happened, then the apparent genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees would not necessarily be due to a close evolutionary relationship.[13][14] This hypothesis has been proposed as an explanation as to why early hominids, such as the australopiths, not only look more like orangutans than either African ape, but also share characters unique to orangutans and their close fossil relatives, such as a thickened posteror palate and anterior zygomatic roots.[15]

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further to that this page speaks to the changes to Hominidae as more fossil evidence messed up the initial definition. Again so much for evolutionists taxonomy as proof of anything. These researchers have made apes out of men only because they ignore the differences mentioned in my last post and many more.

Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins - Grehan - 2009 - Journal of Biogeography - Wiley Online Library

And this published research from 2009 above speaks to Orangs forming a clad with mankind to the exclusion of chimps and gorillas...so much again for your taxonomy.....

The exact criteria for membership in the Homininae under the chimpanzee theory of human origins are not clear, but the subfamily generally includes those species that share more than 97% of their DNA with the modern human genome, and exhibit a capacity for language or for simple cultures beyond the family or band.

So here above we have a fantastic flavour of the month scenario of taxonomic inclusion based on DNA, because the morpholical ones simply do not work for you guys anymore with all the morphological and genetic homoplasy, convergent evolution and the rest of the terms evos use to address contradictions and falsifications.

As we all know the 98% chimp/human similarity is only so because these biased researchers choose what to count or ignore in comparing DNA.

Global analysis of alternative splicing differences between humans and chimpanzees

The published article above speaks to 6%-8% diffferent in MTDNA alone. This does not include the Y chromosome difference of at least 30% and 54% in some studies, the 10% difference in size and surface structure. This 6-8% does not include the many other differences in the genome some of which I spoke to in my last post. So now mankind and chimps are out of the 97% similarity definition of Homininae.

So do evolutionists then take chimps out of Hominidae? No. What do they toddle off and do...tweak their definitions to maintain an ape in with mankind, only count what they want, use another definition or ignore the differences. This is just one example of the biased nonsense evos taxonomic system is. Any species classification is not any sort of evidence in itself...as Phred would like to think.

So where to from here. Nowhere for evolutionists and their researchers. They have no idea what they are talking about, they have attributed humanity to just about every ape they find and that is why you have no ancestry for chimps or gorillas. They have no idea what a human trait is given that bipeds have been around for 8my at least and likely more with the ornag ancestors, Ardi had short arms unlike a chimp, reduced facial features have been around for 12my in Lluc, a reduced pelvis mean nothing, and Ardi was an upright biped and likely a gorilla ancestor.

Lucy and all her humanity is a delusion as is the humanity you attribute to Erectus, ergaster and the whackey pelvis of Turkana Boy due for reconstruction to fit the Gona erectus female waddler.

What proof would I need to convert? Something that actually looks like evidence for evolution would be a good start. So far I have not seen any either in relation to fossils or genomic comparisons.

Evolutionists will not let real science and observation stand in the way of a good story and that is why I will never convert
__________________________________________________________

Cabvet. the above is an articulated response from post 976..pretty pictures that you are unable to speak to mean nothing more than "you are right because someone said so"

F in your pretty chart is Homininae..now speak to it.....and why mankind is placed there with gorillas and chimps.

It is foolish to pretend your arguments have refuted the estabished claims of paleontologists because they represent your own personal belief that what you post and what you argue has merit.

The place for your argument is Nature Journals or ther peer reviewed magazines.

On the other hand, the people arguing with you here are no better in this regard.

None of you have the credentials nor the proper place to air these points because the judge of such arguments against established scioence is withthe science community and the experts in the field of Paleontology.

All you are doing is stating your personal belief, that the foolish interpretation of Genesis the church now recognizes is the right interpretation.
But you can not maintain that interpretation in a responsible and intellectually fair discussion regardless of whether evolution is correct or not.

1) There is no evidence that any ape or man has ever had an individual life span of 900+ years.

2) Adam was not an individual, but a "kind" of man, a species perhaps, according to:

Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name "Adam," in the day when they were created.

3) All the apes or "men" claimed to be in our line of ascent HAVE died, and become extinct just as Genesis said.

Science is finding the 22 extinct skeletons Paleontologists argue are oir predecessors while you found zero:

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth

Huram Abi · Jan 4, 2012

Species are not created in a day.

Psudopod · Jan 4, 2012

A dog can never be bred to be as big as a horse or as small as a mouse. A dog can have many variations yet still be the same species. The genome is wonderfully created to allow adaptation but there are limits.

Where are these limits defined? What are they for each species? How do you demonstrate them?

Then there is drosophila experiments. You have done many things with these like get them to grow legs off their heads, grow a set of useless wings, found that advantageous alleles come with a disadvantage like less resistence to starvation and low birth weight, try to set an allele for accelerated development which did not fix in a population over 600 generations that is equivlent to 12000 human years. Evolutionary researchers can observe adaptation and give new names to that variation. However, fruit flies remained fruit flies.

Again you show your ignorance of what evolution actually shows. Of course they are still fruit flies, if they were anything else that would go against evolution. The same way our decendents will always be apes, mammals, vertebrates etc.

Changes in allele frequency speak to adaptation and how a bird can change its beak size, a moth can change colour, immunity. Evolutionists extrapolate and speculate that these adapations will morph a mouse deer into a whale or an ape into a human, a bacteria into an elephant.

No. Modern species do not morph into other modern species. Ancestral populations diverge and often end up very different, but maintain cladestic relationships. Thus all mammals from mouse deers to whales, share certain properties which have been carried down from their ancestors. Thus both mouse deer and whales have lungs and hair, even though these would seem to be a poor design in the whale.

Evolutionists have never observed bacteria sprout legs or start looking like it was morphing into to something other than a bacteria. Yet this is the basis of common ancestry to bacteria. Of course the excuse is 'not enough time'. Regardless it has not been observed.

No it isn't. Don't beat on the strawman, it hasn't done anything wrong.

Do you think with rising sea levels some group of mankind may morph back to the sea? Do you think island fauna like lizards will morph back to some kind of fish with rising sea levels or to escape prey? Yet evolutionists will offer ridiculous scenarios such as these as to how and why there is evolution from sea to land then back to sea again.

No, a lizard turning into a fish would falsify evolution. They may well devolpe aquatic traits, there are already several aquatic reptiles, but they will not become fish. Learn about what you are arguing against, instead of beating on that strawman.

This is the kind of scenario evolutionists expect the public to accept on the back of no evidence.

No, this is what creationists pretend scientists expect the public to accept, because beating on a strawman is easy and addressing the actual facts is hard.

Psudopod · Jan 4, 2012

An alternative minority viewpoint is that Homo diverged from a common ancestor with Pongo perhaps as early as 13 million years ago, while Pan is more closely related to Gorilla. This alternative is supported by characteristics uniquely shared between humans and orangutans, such as dental structure, thick enamel, shoulder blade structure, thick posterior palate, single incisive foramen, high estriol production, and beard and mustache. There are at least 28 such well-corroborated features compared with perhaps as few as one unique feature shared between humans and chimpanzees. It is widely believed that these physical features are misleading, but an alternative possibility is that orangutans have undergone more genetic change than humans and African apes have since their divergence from the common ancestor. If this had happened, then the apparent genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees would not necessarily be due to a close evolutionary relationship.[13][14] This hypothesis has been proposed as an explanation as to why early hominids, such as the australopiths, not only look more like orangutans than either African ape, but also share characters unique to orangutans and their close fossil relatives, such as a thickened posteror palate and anterior zygomatic roots.[15]
Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

Your genomic phylogeny never adds up. You require a plethora of excuses to present a scenario that may seem somewhat plausible to maintain this status quo.

You've presented a minority view as if it were fact. You can always find people who present an outlying view, even amongst genuine scientists, those who will refuse to accept what the evidence shows. The fact that they have this opinion doesn't make it reality.

Evolutionists before finding Ardi always manitained how the fossils evidence supported ancestry to a chimp like ancestor. In actual fact mankind shares very few traits with a chimp and many more with an orang. So why you have some evidence of orang ancestors and none for chimps and gorillas in explainable. All the chimp and gorilla ancestors are hiding in the human line because you evos have looked for chimp like ancestors.

If they are chimp / gorrilla ancestors, why do they show human traits?

Human ancestors have an identity crisis.

Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis - Science News

That is journalism, and pretty poor journalism at that.

The problem for evolutionists accepting that if evolution occured at all we are closer to the orang, is that it would falsify all your current DNA comparisons.

No it wouldn't. The genomic comparisions are completely independent. And even if it does turn out that humans are closer to orangs than chimps, that in no way falsifies evolution. Even the wikipedia article you copied provides a mechanism for how it could come about.

Perhaps if evolution made more sense I woud be more likely to take it seriously.

Perhaps if you understood evolution a bit better you would. You certainly would stop trying to falsify it by talking about a specific point in human evolutionary history. Even your sources show that what you are trying to argue in no way affects evolution.

Astridhere · Jan 4, 2012

cupid dave said:
It is foolish to pretend your arguments have refuted the estabished claims of paleontologists because they represent your own personal belief that what you post and what you argue has merit.
I do not need to pretend anything....Your own researchers destroy each other credibility quite nicely without any help from me. Perhaps it is you that is foolish
The place for your argument is Nature Journals or ther peer reviewed magazines.
I am sorry to tell you this is a forum where we discuss such things, and where evolutionists like to rip apart the creationists that are unable to defend themselves. You have no problem with talking about your woffle here and 150 years of falsifications, that you lot hand wave away as science. However I am pleased that you think I should present my arguments to the scientific establishment.
On the other hand, the people arguing with you here are no better in this regard.
Are you now having a go at evos
None of you have the credentials nor the proper place to air these points because the judge of such arguments against established scioence is withthe science community and the experts in the field of Paleontology.
What an over inflated sense of self entitlement you have. Should we close down CF just because of your most humble and worthless opinion.
All you are doing is stating your personal belief, that the foolish interpretation of Genesis the church now recognizes is the right interpretation.
But you can not maintain that interpretation in a responsible and intellectually fair discussion regardless of whether evolution is correct or not.
Too bad I have destabilized you to the obvious point of making you appear to behave like a frightened animal
1) There is no evidence that any ape or man has ever had an individual life span of 900+ years.

2) Adam was not an individual, but a "kind" of man, a species perhaps, according to:

Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name "Adam," in the day when they were created.

Here is a theist evolutionist harping on the bible because he is unable to defend his psuedo science. This makes me feel real good. Let's stick to science pal. The credibility of the bible can take care of itself. After all the bible writers knew the moon was created after the earth and a stack of other scientific points way before modern science.

3) All the apes or "men" claimed to be in our line of ascent HAVE died, and become extinct just as Genesis said.
I suppose you were there. Too bad you have nothing more than crappy pictures and no evidence for yiur stance like I do for mine,
Science is finding the 22 extinct skeletons Paleontologists argue are oir predecessors while you found zero:

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth

Here we go..Are you gong to talk science or does that frighten you.

Your best fossil Turkana Boy is a mutant undergoing a huge makeover just as I predicted would ahappen and what always ends up happening to your prize rubbish

I predicted Turkana Boy, yiur prize specimen, would undergo a reconstruction and so he has. Unknown to me it had already occured. Gee I am good! I just knew the Gona fossil would unhinge Turkana Boy.

Here is some science for you to ignore from your own evoutionary researchers...

The thing I like best about you lot trying to humanize an ape is that your reconstructions can change in light of new data like the Gona female erectus pelvis. The public thinks that if evos reconstruct they actually know what they are doing like putting a puzzle together that can only go together to give one picture. This is rubbish. Rudolfensis underwent a major head reconstruction and now Turk is undergoing a huge morphisis righ in front of your eyes.

Turk has shrunk to 5"4' and some researchers say shorter, stout build, very wide pelvis instead of hte nice little athletic one, he has less vertical and shorter processus spinosi mid-thoracally than in humans meaning he was not likely to be standing upright, flaring ilia not suitable for running and more like a wader, very long femoral neck and very horizontal, very low vertebrae, cranio-caudally 2/3 of humans, and he still has an ape head like before.

The Turkana Boy pelvis is also out of whack, and obviously so.

Now you have this thing that does not look human at all. In fact Turk has very large acetabula and femoral head (hip joints) much larger that in apes and apiths.

This article below is a new comment added to the woffle you lot went on with for decades before the Gona female was found.

The Nariokotome Homo Erectus Skeleton

Here is some more....

Shrinking erectus | john hawks weblog
New estimates of stature and body mass for KNM-WT 15000 (Daniel Wescott) - Academia.edu
Just how strapping was the Nariokotome Boy? (Daniel Wescott) - Academia.edu

So one find in Ardi changes the whole story that you lot went on a bout for 150 years, not that long ago and now the Gona female has knocked Turkana Boy of his 'human like' pedastal.

So sweety, If the heat is too hot here, you can always head to the childrens sections.

Evolutionists do not let real science and observation get in the way of a good story..and they have yet again invented another one...

Psudopod · Jan 4, 2012

Here is a theist evolutionist harping on the bible because he is unable to defend his psuedo science. This makes me feel real good. Let's stick to science pal. The credibility of the bible can take care of itself. After all the bible writers knew the moon was created after the earth and a stack of other scientific points way before modern science.

Um, cupid Dave's a creationist, in that he's taking evidence and interpreting it through Genesis. Hence the whole 22 extinct species are the decendants of Adam.

Astridhere · Jan 4, 2012

Psudopod said:
You've presented a minority view as if it were fact. You can always find people who present an outlying view, even amongst genuine scientists, those who will refuse to accept what the evidence shows. The fact that they have this opinion doesn't make it reality.

Oh rubbish...These scientists only disagree that morphology should not over ride DNA. They have not problem with the comaprison

If they are chimp / gorrilla ancestors, why do they show human traits?
What are human traits. You may like to go back and see to save the circular carry on of my having to repeat everything a thousand times because some evos have the memory retention of a worm.. You lot have no idea what human traits are anymore.

That is journalism, and pretty poor journalism at that.

Oh woffle... The falsification of our knucklewalking ancestry demonstrates that widely accepted common knowledge can be rubbish..and it is

No it wouldn't. The genomic comparisions are completely independent. And even if it does turn out that humans are closer to orangs than chimps, that in no way falsifies evolution. Even the wikipedia article you copied provides a mechanism for how it could come about.
Oh garbage. You obviously do not know about bootstaps and that is just for starters...

Perhaps if you understood evolution a bit better you would. You certainly would stop trying to falsify it by talking about a specific point in human evolutionary history. Even your sources show that what you are trying to argue in no way affects evolution

I appear to know more about it than you.

You have wasted an entire post on woffling on with your most humble and worthless opinion backed up by no more than hot air. Well done!

Perhaps when I come back tomorrow I'll find someone with something intelligent to say. Prog was doing good..Hopefully I'll find his reply then....but I've got to go.....

Evolutionists love a good story. They have plenty of them, and like any good story teller they can make it up as they go along.....

Astridhere · Jan 4, 2012

Psudopod said:
Um, cupid Dave's a creationist, in that he's taking evidence and interpreting it through Genesis. Hence the whole 22 extinct species are the decendants of Adam.

Then he should not call me foolish.

Anyone that thinks Seth was an ape is not a creationist, certainly not a biblical one.

What proof would you need? (2)

Question everything

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Fastener

Guest

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Question everything

Well-Known Member

cupid dave

Guest

Huram Abi

Guest

Godspeed, Spacebat

Godspeed, Spacebat

Well-Known Member

Godspeed, Spacebat

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency