What proof would you need? (2)

[Notedstrangeperson]

If a fossil has gorilla features could it be a gorilla ancestor? Of course not. It must be human.

If a fossil has chimpanzee features could it be a chimp ancestor? Of course not. It must be human.

Hence no evidence for gorilla or chimpanzee ancestry.

You're mistaken. There are quite a few fossils considered to be ape ancestors, rather than human ones:

• Proconsul - Trasitional form between monkeys and apes.
• Dryopithecus - Ancient primate.
• Sivapithecus - Another ancient primate, possibly related to orangutans.
• Pierolapithecus - Last common ancestor of all the great apes.
• Samburupithecus - One of the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.
• Nakalipithecus - Also one of the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.
• Choroapithecus - One of the first species of gorilla.
• Anoiapithecus - Extinct relative of of the orangutan.
• Ouranopithecus - Extinct relative of orangutans.
• Lufengpithecus - Extinct relative of orangutans.

 

[Phred]

You're mistaken. There are quite a few fossils considered to be ape ancestors, rather than human ones:

• Proconsul - Trasitional form between monkeys and apes.
• Dryopithecus - Ancient primate which lived before the human-chimpanzee split.
• Anoiapithecus - Extinct relative of of the orangutan.
• Pierolapithecus - Last common ancestor of all the great apes.
• Samburupithecus - One of the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.
• Nakalipithecus - Also one of the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.
• Choroapithecus - One of the first species of gorilla.
• Ouranopithecus - Possible extinct relative of orangutans.

Astrid won't notice. Facts are meaningless when she's making a point.

 

[Psudopod]

It is evo prattle and misrepresentation that have changed creationist minds about erectus and they should change them back. Mankind are classed as apes only because it suits the evo paradigm.

If it's that obviously false then it should be easy to say what part of the criteria for apes humans fail to meet.

In fact our intelligence and sophisticated language alone is sufficient to exclude us from beasts, if evos were not so desperate.

And by that logic dalmations have spots so they cannot be classified as dogs and nahwals have long horns so cannot be classed as whales.

 

[Loudmouth]

A transistion from ape to ape or dead end is a misrepresentation and a part of the convoluted nonsense evos like to go on with

Please cite your evidence for these claims. Empty assertions are just that, assertions.

It is no more human than Lucy the chimp with all her humanity that is too derived to be human.

Lucy was not a chimp. Lucy was a member of the species Australopithecus afarensis. Chimps are part of the species Pan troglodytes. Notice that they are different. Telling porkies is not helping your case. Also, Lucy is transitional as well because Lucy had a pelvis that is more human-like than other living apes. Thanks for pointing out the other transitionals for us.

It is evo prattle and misrepresentation that have changed creationist minds about erectus and they should change them back. Mankind are classed as apes only because it suits the evo paradigm. In fact our intelligence and sophisticated language alone is sufficient to exclude us from beasts, if evos were not so desperate.

Again, Linnaeus grouped us with the other apes 100 years before there was an evolutionary paradigm. You are just wrong.

No it means any species or kind can have great variety, like Lucy and Turk both being apes.

And humans being apes as well.

Erectus is an extinct ape or transitioning to another variety of ape missing in your fossil record.

That ape is Homo sapiens. Last I checked, we are not extinct.

The pelvis is akin to Lucy, another ape, neither of which had a human gait.

Yes, akin to another transitional hominid. Go figure. Also, why would a transitional need to be identical to modern humans? The whole point is that they should be different than modern humans since they are in the process of transitioning to modern humans. The very fact that you cite differences between modern humans and transitional hominids as reasons to reject the fossils only highlights how little you understand evolution, or biology in general.

No he isn't. and you have yet to demonstrate what human like means these days

You don't even know what modern humans look like now? Do you have a mirror?

You have yet to explain the whackey pelvis.

You mean the one that is more human-like than other living apes and other fossil hominids? What needs to be explained? It is transitional.

Last we spoke of it your excuse was multiple fossils forgeting of course that Turk is meant to be one individual.. It is not. Let's see if they do better with the next guess.

More empty assertions. Nowhere have you shown that it was from two individuals. The skeleton was found within a 7 m area. It adds up to one individual, not two. They didn't find three femurs or four. They found two. Again, your evidence-free conspiracy theories hold no weight.

Turkana boy is not transistional to a short armed biped like Ardi (likely a gorilla), and with a wider pelvis that even afarensis, likely a chimp.

Please list the criteria you used to determine that Turkana boy is not transitional between Australopithecines and modern humans. Let me guess, you are going to run away from this as usual.

Ardi and Afarensis are apes and so is Turk.

Just as a transitional should be.

Turk can be reconstructed to look like whatever you lot wish as flavour of the month.

Another empty assertion. Making empty claims does not make the evidence go away. Why don't you become a defense attorney and tell the jury that they can make fingerprints look like whatever they want. See how long your career lasts.

All Lucy's humanity belongs to apes as does Turks. The humanity in them is all rubbish.

So you think transitional features are rubbish. Thanks for finally admitting it. Now we can finally conclude that the fossil evidence doesn't matter to you, just as hypothesized many weeks ago.

A transistion from ape to ape is not what I am talking about and you know it.

Yeah, it is. Humans are apes. Our common ancestor with other apes was an ape. The transitionals between us and that common ancestor were apes. They are all apes.

Do we need to discuss pictures of horses again? Or do you realize just how bad your taxonomic skills are? What next? Chihuahuas aren't dogs because they are different from Great Danes? Or do you classify species by what they have in common, not the differences?

Evos like to try to bamboozle the meaning of transitional to imply rubbish.

So says the person who can not even tell us what criteria she is using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

You have no intermediate ape/humans,

Based on what criteria? Le me guess . . . you can't answer this question, can you.

All this talk above in your post is misrepresentative nonsense based on a assumptions that change like the wind...Not science......

Let people look for themselves. Here is a modern human pelvis:

Here is the female H. erectus pelvis you like to talk about so much:

Here is a chimp pelvis:

The bones talk for themselves. H. erectus is more human-like than other living apes, and those similarities do not stop with the pelvis.

Perhaps it is time that you start addressing the pelvises. They completely destroy your argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

The orang looks more human than Turk.

Another display of just how dishonest you are. You need to compare juveniles across all three species, otherwise it is a dishonest comparison.

And since we look like other apes, doesn't that make us an ape as well?

Such a wide pelvis does not support a human gait

No one is saying that H. erectus is a modern human. They are transitionals so of course there are going to be differences. Why can you not understand this? Why do you keep insisting that transitionals must be identical to modern humans in order to be transitional? Do you even understand the mistake you keep making?

Erectus is an ape.

As are modern humans. Your point?

Evolutionary researchers will never let real science and observation get in the way of a good story.

So says the person who thinks that Lucy was part of the species Pan troglodytes even though they are very, very different. Go figure.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's a valid point: "You make up all sorts of twoddle like stories". Creative writting is an essential part of evolution. They just tend to make up stuff as they go along. The amazing thing is they take it all so serious. They do not seem to hear the laughter of the people from the future joking about what they use to believe back in the good old days of evolutionary theory.

The fossils aren't made up. It is very disappointing that you would take such a stance. You uually take a pretty honest position.

Why don't you redeem yourself. Why don't you tell us what features a real transitional should have. Can you do that?

 

[Split Rock]

It's a valid point: "You make up all sorts of twoddle like stories". Creative writting is an essential part of evolution. They just tend to make up stuff as they go along. The amazing thing is they take it all so serious. They do not seem to hear the laughter of the people from the future joking about what they use to believe back in the good old days of evolutionary theory.

Let me guess... you do hear the laughter of people from the future?? I suggest a therapist.

 

[RickG]

It's a valid point: "You make up all sorts of twoddle like stories". Creative writting is an essential part of evolution. They just tend to make up stuff as they go along. The amazing thing is they take it all so serious. They do not seem to hear the laughter of the people from the future joking about what they use to believe back in the good old days of evolutionary theory.

Saying scientists make stuff up is a serious accusation.

 

[Keachian]

Researchers ability to reconstruct fossils on the basis of their assumptions is the biggest secret in the evolutionary world. The truth is that these evos can humanize or ape up and fossil as it suits them and flavour of the month

You do understand peer review, falsification and the scientific method right?

As anyone can see I put up evidence to support my opinion. You lot rarely contribute more than opinion

You set up strawmen and parade them up and down and set them on fire thinking you're actually attacking evolutionary theory.

No not right at all but a desperate misrepresentation of what I assert. Evos are good at it.

It's not desperate at all, misrepresentation it may be but I'm basing it on what you have said in our conversation.

Nested heirarchies are rubbish. Where is your nested hierarchy now that modern birds predate arch. Your mested heirarchies sure do not take the Y chromosme into consideration nor any genomic differences.

I understand words and I understand sentence structure but I don't understand what you just said. Modern birds predate Archeoptryx is that what you're saying? If so species name and study.

What makes you qualified. Evo researchers get their credentials off the back of Corn Flakes packets..it seems.

I lol'd, all researchers have at least 7 years of study before they even get their doctorate.

This is the biggest load of faeces ever. I have often stated that ones view on how God created means nothing re salvation.

Seeing as you are also prepared to make it up as you go along I shouldn't bother with the rest of your post.

If I haven't hit the mark on why you object to evolution on theological grounds then please do share, I'm not one to argue on something that I have a vague grasp on, I understand enough of the theory of evolution to accept what people who are far more educated in the field of biology tell me and who do not want to peddle their theology, I argue mainly over theological misconceptions about what accepting evolution means.

Theist evolutionsists believe God decided to give an ape a soul..good for you.

Or as I do that the soul evolved through God's guidance.

Listen pal, there is no use squirming about this. Your own evo researchers now know that bipedalism is not a human trait. Deal with it.

I'm not squirming, I also know that bipedalism is not a human exclusive trait, it is a trait shared by all of the great apes, what separates us from the apes is our feet not having opposable thumbs, however you can easily see that our big toes could have been opposable by the way we can separate them from the rest of our toes, seriously splay your toes out and hold your hands over them also splayed, aren't they similar? The main advantage the shape of our feet lends us is that of speed and without the need to pick up things as much with our feet the advantage obviously won out.

Oh garbage, apes use simple tools now and they are obviously not human, Here again is the prattle that tries to make even modern apes into humans. An ape cannot praise God, nor understand right from wrong. It is that simple.

A dog can understand right from wrong a cat can understand right from wrong, even outside of human influence these two facts hold true.

Oh..I supose you think this is the first time I have heard this

No I don't but some people learn slowly, you are basically straw-manning if you think that what you had said is what the theory of evolution says.

The thing is evolutionary researchers that you bow down to and do homage to are blind boofheads.

Sure some of them could be blind, but their ability to see makes no difference about their conclusions, I would hope that any peer review panel would assess the merits of discoveries based on whether they can prove it wrong or not, not on any disability the researcher has.

These are able to reconstruct any shattered fossil into whatever they think it should be. We have clearly seen this in the misrepresention of rudolfensis by the Leakeys and we see it clearly in the false reconstruction of the Turkana Boy pelvis and stature.

If the recreations are false then they will be found out, much the same way that piltdown man was.

You lot need to find intermediates and so you invent them. You make up all sorts of twoddle like stories about savanah or woodlands and what drove this and that. The Gona pelvis yet again demonstates that all these stories you call science are no more than ficticious and speculative biased nonsense.

Yes they're stories put forward to explain how we developed and diverged, what's your point, these sorts of stories happen in all fields of science.

Turkana Boy and erectus will never look the same again. These researchers are still arguing on how Turk should be reconstructed. All putting forward their woffley ideas.

Researchers arguing, that's how science works...

Turkana Boy is now short and waddly. The female erectus pelvis is akin to Afarensis with striking similarity except the Gona pelvis is even wider that Lucy's pelvis, which by the way has also undergone many reconstructions to suit flavour of the month.

Falsification and peer review do you understand them?

Previous models of Erectus locomotion and the woffle about environmental adaptations in this species "must be revised", and will never look the same again.

http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/pdfs/Gona_PR_English.pdf

Falsification and peer review, what is your point? Do you seriously understand what you are saying here, you're objecting that science changes based on evidence found, what doesn't change is reality, only our understanding thereof changes.

Indeed now you have half wits bearing big brained babies and half wits being able to provide the nurturing care a big brained baby requires. For goodness sake, even a human with sufficient cognitive delay is unable to care for a neonate. Yet you lot will suck up a story that an ape headed, half witted waddler can nurture a totally dependent infant to maturity. This is new story of the day and flavour of the month. It is just one non plausible story after another. None of these stories have any basis in what is observed today and factual, let alone using any common sense. Any non plausible story will suffice to sticky tape your theory together.

You're compressing history. One of the things you need to realise is that the reality of evolution is sorites paradox, if you don't know what that is here's a link to my lecturer who studies fuzzy logics. The Sorites Paradox The fossils we have found are 1 pixel high lines scattered haphazardly throughout the gradient image that he has, can you tell me where on the image it is yellow and where it is red?

Since most of the rest of your post deals with a misunderstanding of the relationship between evolutionary theory and sorites paradox, let's have a deeper look into that.

Arranged above is a group of transitional fossils, which of the above would you classify as human and which would you classify as apes?

 

[cupid dave]

Saying scientists make stuff up is a serious accusation.

It is just as bad when church people do the same thing, ie, make up stuff.

The Bible is pretty much open to seeing the scientists' species as leading to the three racial stocks of Modern man as is the church dogma from the Dark Ages.

Each side ought shake hands and agree,... either way the Genesis genealogy is uncanny satifactory to the creationism it portrays.

 

[Keachian]

It is just as bad when church people do the same thing, ie, make up stuff.

The Bible is pretty much open to seeing the scientists' species as leading to the three racial stocks of Modern man as is the church dogma from the Dark Ages.

Each side ought shake hands and agree,... either way the Genesis genealogy is uncanny satifactory to the creationism it portrays.

You also need to have a look at sorites paradox to understand why this view is twisting evolutionary theory and the bible.

 

[Huram Abi]

Not much on accurate bible geneology.

According to your chart the bible should say that Seth begat Enoch and that Enoch had 3 sons, Enos, Mahaleelel, and Cainan.

Does the bible say this?

 

[cupid dave]

You also need to have a look at sorites paradox to understand why this view is twisting evolutionary theory and the bible.

Common sense would dictate you look at Hegel.
The dialectic between evolutionary Theisis which is opposed by the Religious Anti-thesis has resulted in this Synthetic Theistic Evolution point of view.

Itis unstoppable.

The more you, on the one side, hold out against religion, the more Religion will be forced to revise their interpretation of the Bibble which can and ought be satisfactory to both sides.

 

[Huram Abi]

...

 

[Keachian]

Common sense would dictate you look at Hegel.
The dialectic between evolutionary Theisis which is opposed by the Religious Anti-thesis has resulted in this Synthetic Theistic Evolution point of view.

I read words, I understand words, I understand how words fit into sentences, the above has a parsing problem.

Itis unstoppable.

What is?

The more you, on the one side, hold out against religion, the more Religion will be forced to revise their interpretation of the Bibble which can and ought be satisfactory to both sides.

I do not hold out against religion, what I am contending against is your dare I say it gnostic, heretical and uneducated views on both the Bible and theory of evolution. You are inserting words and ideas left, right and center to account for how you believe the bible should be read. You believe that the true meaning of the Bible was hidden by pre-evolutionary understanding of the text, this is pure gnosticism of hidden teachings.

 

[cupid dave]

I read words, I understand words, I understand how words fit into sentences, the above has a parsing problem.


What is?


I do not hold out against religion, what I am contending against is your dare I say it gnostic, heretical and uneducated views on both the Bible and theory of evolution. You are inserting words and ideas left, right and center to account for how you believe the bible should be read. You believe that the true meaning of the Bible was hidden by pre-evolutionary understanding of the text, this is pure gnosticism of hidden teachings.

I said that the erroneous church interpretations of Genesis are being ridiculed by the atheists like Bill Maher as those atheists everywhere use common sense and science facts well known even by our teenagers.


There is nothing hidden or gnostic in reading exactly what is plainly there.

Pangea is described as is the Big Bang beginning.

The seven eras of time were days of extremely long duration and gen 1:14 makes this clear since there was no other type o day until then.

 

[Keachian]

I said that the erroneous church interpretations of Genesis are being ridiculed by the atheists like Bill Maher as those atheists everywhere use common sense and science facts well known even by our teenagers.

Mockers will mock, someone is not going to accept Christianity on some hairbrained idea that the Bible contains current scientific thought and neither is the Bible's validity supposed to be defined thereon.

There is nothing hidden or gnostic in reading exactly what is plainly there

You don't read exactly what is plainly there. No one agrees that what you are doing is a plain reading of the bible.

Pangea is described as is the Big Bang beginning.

sure.

The seven eras of time were days of extremely long duration and gen 1:14 makes this clear since there was no other type o day until then.

I have already discussed this with you.

 

[cupid dave]

Mockers will mock, someone is not going to accept Christianity on some hairbrained idea that the Bible contains current scientific thought and neither is the Bible's validity supposed to be defined thereon.

.

It is the other way around.

Young people are going to acept that the Bible is wrong.


This is what happened to the Church of Rome before the Reformation.

But the young people merely went to a Protestant church.

Today, the young people go to Bill Maher's studio audience and the college campuses.



Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold,... (the golden spiritual insights of the irrepressible idea of psychic Consciousness emerging from scripture)... tried in the fire... (of modern science),... that thou mayest be rich... (in continued church leadership); and (buy into) white (yet unwritten, new insights), raiment... (of revised books of your evermore obvious misinterpretations), ...that thou mayest be clothed... (and protected in thine thinking with secularly acceptable scriptural confirmations), ...and that the shame... (as visited in Geocentricism, in Creationism, in literal world-wide floods, etc) ... of thy nakedness... (your unsupportable intuitive irrationalities) ...do not appear... (and confront you); ...and anoint thine eyes... (awaken!)... with (the) eyesalve...(of truth!), ...that thou mayest see... (socio-psychologically).

 

[Keachian]

It is the other way around.

Young people are going to acept that the Bible is wrong.

What is your point?

This is what happened to the Church of Rome before the Reformation.

But the young people merely went to a Protestant church.

Today, the young people go to Bill Maher's studio audience and the college campuses.

Is the fact that people are amassing prophets and teachers that tell them what they want to hear any concern of mine? Yes but I'm not going to subvert the scriptures. I speak to the truth of scriptural thought as best I can.

Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold,... (the golden spiritual insights of the irrepressible idea of psychic Consciousness emerging from scripture)... tried in the fire... (of modern science),... that thou mayest be rich... (in continued church leadership); and (buy into) white (yet unwritten, new insights), raiment... (of revised books of your evermore obvious misinterpretations), ...that thou mayest be clothed... (and protected in thine thinking with secularly acceptable scriptural confirmations), ...and that the shame... (as visited in Geocentricism, in Creationism, in literal world-wide floods, etc) ... of thy nakedness... (your unsupportable intuitive irrationalities) ...do not appear... (and confront you); ...and anoint thine eyes... (awaken!)... with (the) eyesalve...(of truth!), ...that thou mayest see... (socio-psychologically).

Wow, you just completely changed what that verse says and muddied the clear references to the old testament prophets.

 

[cupid dave]

What is your point?


Is the fact that people are amassing prophets and teachers that tell them what they want to hear any concern of mine? Yes but I'm not going to subvert the scriptures. I speak to the truth of scriptural thought as best I can.


Wow, you just completely changed what that verse says and muddied the clear references to the old testament prophets.

Its OK.

You old heads did do the best you could.
Bless you.

But the church attendance is already down 50% in America and only 20% of the European Catholics are showing up.

The Bill Mahers are having their hay day.

But soon, the few "seeds" who buy into the 21st century support of scripture with science and academic facts will grow a great new tree in Christianity that answers back to these Bashers.

The only way the present state of Christian teachings can go is Theistic Evolution.