What proof would you need? (2)

[Keachian]

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.

This is no reason to completely destroy the bible.

The Bill Mahers are having their hay day.

And so did Joseph Simth, Jim Jones, David Berg and so many others

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 way this conversation is going I could ask you for a bible reference and you'd quite happily oblige.

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

I agree with you that theistic evolution is the future of theological origins thought, however I do not see any trace of theistic evolution in what you are saying, sure you are accepting of evolution, however you insist on using the bible as if it is a scientific textbook, you my friend are a creationist.

 

[cupid dave]

I agree with you that theistic evolution is the future of theological origins thought, however I do not see any trace of theistic evolution in what you are saying, sure you are accepting of evolution, however you insist on using the bible as if it is a scientific textbook, you my friend are a creationist.

What destroys the Bible for new readers is some church idea they hear long before they ever read the book.

They have a mind set based on what the church people have all decided is what the book says.

How many people skimmed through 22 "begats" in genesis as quickly as they could because it seemed clear it was about individuals, regardless that they live the unvbelievable 900 years.

Once they see that modern science agrees, there were about 22 types of :men: in our ascent, the scriptures makes sense.

 

[Keachian]

What destroys the Bible for new readers is some church idea they hear long before they ever read the book.

They have a mind set based on what the church people have all desided is what the book says.

In contrast to what you've decided which is the furthest out there of any interpretation of Genesis I have ever heard.

How many people skimmed through 22 "begats" in genesis as quickly as they could because it seemed clear it was about individuals, regardless that they live the unvbelievable 900 years.

Once they see that modern science agrees, there were about 22 types of :men: in our ascent, the scriptures makes sense.

regardless of the fact that there are far more than 22 hominids in our ascent as we know it atm, what about when they discover another?

 

[Astridhere]

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. Two common ancestors great stuff..
• Choroapithecus - One of the first species of gorilla. No such thing
• Anoiapithecus - Extinct relative of of the orangutan.
• Ouranopithecus - Extinct relative of orangutans.
• Lufengpithecus - Extinct relative of orangutans.

Actually this above demonstrates you have stuff all. Apart from one gorilla ancestor, which no longer exists in any literature I can find, the rest are non descriptive apart from orang, which is exactly what I have been saying. After all, even with out looking them all up, I know proconsul like Ida, was thought to be a human ancestor and then of course discredited as usual. Ida even had human hands with an opposable thumb.


Indeed what evolutionists have demonstrated to themselves is that the modern human body plan is over 20 million years old.

Early Apes Walked Upright 15 Million Years Earlier Than Previously Thought, Evolutionary Biologist Argues

A Human Ancestor for the Apes? « Anthropology.net

Cockroaches and birds are also bipedal. If bipedalism is a human trait then perhaps cockroaches and birds 'evolved' from mankind.


All you lot have demonstrated is that apes evolved from mankind, which is a ridiculous scenario for both of us. You lot will have to recant bipedamism as a human trait, and the same goes for the pelvis and opposable thumbs and flat footedness.

All reconstructions presented to the community are recontructed in line with flavour of the month. None of these researchers actually know what they are talking about. Any of these fossils can be reconstructed to be as ape like or as human like as flavour of the month, or a need for glory, dictates. There are so many similarities that evos are best guessing at most. In the hand of creationists these fossils you present as evidence could be reconstructed to suit any paradigm required and are not evidence of anything. Even your researchers can hardly agree on anything, and love to discredit each others work.

If there is an credibility at all behind anything presented by evolutionists it is that one of the first created apes were short armed, like Ida, with an opposable thumb, and flat footed terrestrial, bipedal apes.


Evolutionists love a good story. Here is one of my own...

The initial creation of apes were much like mankind, as the link I provided suggests. They had a coat of fur and could not talk, and Adam could see they were an interesting beast, different from the rest, and he named them a such. At this time beasts were not afraid of mankind. After the fall some apes adapted to arboreal life. Adam was lonely because although apes were great to play around with they could not engage in sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability, nor abstract thought. So God created Eve from the DNA of Adam. That is why the Y male chromosome appears so divergent. It is not divergent at all. It is uniquely created as required and was around for some time before the female.

Indeed evolutionists have demonstrated, at the least, that apes evolved from humans because for 150 years you have sprooked that bipedalism is a human trait.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Actually this above demonstrates you have stuff all. Apart from one gorilla ancestor, which no longer exists in any literature I can find, the rest are non descriptive apart from orang, which is exactly what I have been saying. After all, even with out looking them all up, I know proconsul like Ida, was thought to be a human ancestor and then of course discredited as usual. Ida even had human hands with an opposable thumb.

I spelled Chororapithecus wrong. Sorry. Here's an article about it (link).

As for the rest, they aren't "non-descriptive". Very early apes such a Dryopithecus lived before apes divided into separate species, so they cannot be classified as either humans, chimps, gorillas or orangutans.

I don't quite understand what your criticism is either. You claimed that every primate fossil is automatically considered a human ancestor, rather than just an ape. I give you examples of ape fossils and you claim they look like humans ...

Early Apes Walked Upright 15 Million Years Earlier Than Previously Thought, Evolutionary Biologist Argues

A Human Ancestor for the Apes? « Anthropology.net

Cockroaches and birds are also bipedal. If bipedalism is a human trait then perhaps cockroaches and birds 'evolved' from mankind.

You're missing the point. Several users have pointed out that bipedalism is based not just on the ability to walk on two legs, it's also based on anatomy. The pelvis of Australopithecus is more similar to that of a modern human than a modern chimpanzee.

I'm sorry if I appear rude, but when fail to address other user's posts it looks as though you're intentionally ignoring them, and it makes you argument appear weak.

Also, cockroaches aren't bipedal.

 

[cupid dave]

1) In contrast to what you've decided which is the furthest out there of any interpretation of Genesis I have ever heard.


2) regardless of the fact that there are far more than 22 hominids in our ascent as we know it atm, what about when they discover another?

1) Yes, the Theistic E volution BiblkeInterpretation is now on line so readers can criticize it and double check sola scripture, in order to see if the whole overview is a valid way of describing the scriptures.

It is far different from the apologies of the other denominations which require one believe the Bible even before reading it, because so litle of what they say has substanciation in academia and science.

What is coming will be preachers how promote this congruence between science and scripture and explain the correspondences from the pulpit in the same manner that the present churches demagogue their teachings.

In other words, these things i promote as new ideas for consideration are just another perspective set on the table.

2) From the pulpit, as I do here, preachers will refer to those scientists who are both respected members of tht establishment and who agree with the genealogy in Genesis:

I have been referring doubting Thomas to this recent book:


The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans

 

[Phred]

Also, cockroaches aren't bipedal.

I can think of several who are.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I can think of several who are.

Either that's a way of saying "people are cockroaches" or bugs are better runners than I thought.

The internet has ruined my ability to detect sarcasm.

 

[Keachian]

1) Yes, the Theistic E volution BiblkeInterpretation is now on line so readers can criticize it and double check sola scripture, in order to see if the whole overview is a valid way of describing the scriptures.

I found it yes, it's a very gnostic work and it is destroying the bible, if this is theistic evolutionary literalism count me out.

It is far different from the apologies of the other denominations which require one believe the Bible even before reading it, because so litle of what they say has substanciation in academia and science.

TE is not a denominational belief, TE is a belief that comes out of all denominations.

What is coming will be preachers how promote this congruence between science and scripture and explain the correspondences from the pulpit in the same manner that the present churches demagogue their teachings.

Heaven forbid

In other words, these things i promote as new ideas for consideration are just another perspective set on the table.

Another perspective yes, but not a literal one as you are trying to claim, not even one representative of the majority of TEs

2) From the pulpit, as I do here, preachers will refer to those scientists who are both respected members of tht establishment and who agree with the genealogy in Genesis:

I have been referring doubting Thomas to this recent book:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans

This doesn't answer my question or are you saying that there will always only be 22 species? You have replaced the idea of God of the Gaps with Bible of the Gaps.

 

[Keachian]

Actually this above demonstrates you have stuff all. Apart from one gorilla ancestor, which no longer exists in any literature I can find, the rest are non descriptive apart from orang, which is exactly what I have been saying. After all, even with out looking them all up, I know proconsul like Ida, was thought to be a human ancestor and then of course discredited as usual. Ida even had human hands with an opposable thumb.

Opposability of the thumb is not a human exclusive trait all great apes have it, quite a few other primates have it.

Cockroaches and birds are also bipedal. If bipedalism is a human trait then perhaps cockroaches and birds 'evolved' from mankind.

Birds are different in that they also have the ability to fly,

All you lot have demonstrated is that apes evolved from mankind, which is a ridiculous scenario for both of us. You lot will have to recant bipedamism as a human trait, and the same goes for the pelvis and opposable thumbs and flat footedness.

Where have we demonstrated this?

All reconstructions presented to the community are recontructed in line with flavour of the month. None of these researchers actually know what they are talking about. Any of these fossils can be reconstructed to be as ape like or as human like as flavour of the month, or a need for glory, dictates. There are so many similarities that evos are best guessing at most. In the hand of creationists these fossils you present as evidence could be reconstructed to suit any paradigm required and are not evidence of anything. Even your researchers can hardly agree on anything, and love to discredit each others work.

Failing to see that that is how science works, for the umpteenth million time.

If there is an credibility at all behind anything presented by evolutionists it is that one of the first created apes were short armed, like Ida, with an opposable thumb, and flat footed terrestrial, bipedal apes.

I think you'll find we have a bit more credibility than that.

Evolutionists love a good story. Here is one of my own...

The initial creation of apes were much like mankind, as the link I provided suggests. They had a coat of fur and could not talk, and Adam could see they were an interesting beast, different from the rest, and he named them a such. At this time beasts were not afraid of mankind. After the fall some apes adapted to arboreal life. Adam was lonely because although apes were great to play around with they could not engage in sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability, nor abstract thought. So God created Eve from the DNA of Adam. That is why the Y male chromosome appears so divergent. It is not divergent at all. It is uniquely created as required and was around for some time before the female.

And so the fossil record shows that modern man coexisted with these apes?

Indeed evolutionists have demonstrated, at the least, that apes evolved from humans because for 150 years you have sprooked that bipedalism is a human trait.

Do we walk around on hands and legs? It is the way in which we are bipedal (with longer legs and flat feet) that makes us different to the other apes.

Please address my previous post directed to you I think if you understand sorites paradox you may be able to further understand evolutionary theory and why you are wrong in some of the things you have said.

 

[CabVet]

The initial creation of apes were much like mankind, as the link I provided suggests. They had a coat of fur and could not talk, and Adam could see they were an interesting beast, different from the rest, and he named them a such. At this time beasts were not afraid of mankind. After the fall some apes adapted to arboreal life. Adam was lonely because although apes were great to play around with they could not engage in sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability, nor abstract thought. So God created Eve from the DNA of Adam. That is why the Y male chromosome appears so divergent. It is not divergent at all. It is uniquely created as required and was around for some time before the female.

Indeed evolutionists have demonstrated, at the least, that apes evolved from humans because for 150 years you have sprooked that bipedalism is a human trait.

AV's explanation of simply "God did it" is 10x better than this, at least he is true to his beliefs and does not try to twist the Bible or science to fit them.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson

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. Two common ancestors great stuff..
• Choroapithecus - One of the first species of gorilla. No such thing
• Anoiapithecus - Extinct relative of of the orangutan.
• Ouranopithecus - Extinct relative of orangutans.
• Lufengpithecus - Extinct relative of orangutans.

Notedstrangeperson has explained one of the two things you have highlighted was a typo. Nakalipithecus, you have highlighted with a mocking thumbs up because there were two ancestors listed. What's wrong with this? One will be historical to the other. Just as my grandmother and my great grandmother are both my ancestors; the existance of one does not refute the existance of the other.

Actually this above demonstrates you have stuff all. Apart from one gorilla ancestor, which no longer exists in any literature I can find, the rest are non descriptive apart from orang, which is exactly what I have been saying.

What do you mean, non-descriptive? It's a list of extinct species. I'm sure you can find more information on them if you looked.

After all, even with out looking them all up, I know proconsul like Ida, was thought to be a human ancestor and then of course discredited as usual. Ida even had human hands with an opposable thumb.

Had a quick read up on proconsul and nothing suggests it's discredited. There appear to be four discovered species, and it has old-world monkey and ape traits, placing it somewhere between the split between old-world monkeys and apes, making it a distant human ancestor.

And Ida wasn't discredited, just likely to be a side branch, rather than a direct human ancestor.

Indeed what evolutionists have demonstrated to themselves is that the modern human body plan is over 20 million years old.

Early Apes Walked Upright 15 Million Years Earlier Than Previously Thought, Evolutionary Biologist Argues

A Human Ancestor for the Apes? « Anthropology.net

Bipedalism alone does not make something a modern human. You yourself have been pointing at the fossils and calling them "just an ape". They look nothing like modern humans.

Cockroaches and birds are also bipedal. If bipedalism is a human trait then perhaps cockroaches and birds 'evolved' from mankind.

Ignoring your bizarre assertion about cockroaches, no one who actually understands evolution would be stupid enough to try and claim a relationship on the basis of a single trait.

All you lot have demonstrated is that apes evolved from mankind, which is a ridiculous scenario for both of us. You lot will have to recant bipedamism as a human trait, and the same goes for the pelvis and opposable thumbs and flat footedness.

Astridhere, go and find a mirror and look at yourself. Are you bipedal? Do you have wider hips than a chimpanzee? Are your thumbs opposible, your feet flat?

The initial creation of apes were much like mankind, as the link I provided suggests. They had a coat of fur and could not talk, and Adam could see they were an interesting beast, different from the rest, and he named them a such. At this time beasts were not afraid of mankind. After the fall some apes adapted to arboreal life. Adam was lonely because although apes were great to play around with they could not engage in sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability, nor abstract thought. So God created Eve from the DNA of Adam. That is why the Y male chromosome appears so divergent. It is not divergent at all. It is uniquely created as required and was around for some time before the female.

I read the two links you provided and couldn't see anything about the coats of ape ancestors. And yet again I notice you are focusing on the Y chromosome and ignoring the entire rest of the genome. It's like the parable of the blind men and the elephant, except you seem to be purposefully only looking at the tail and declaring it to be a rope.

Indeed evolutionists have demonstrated, at the least, that apes evolved from humans because for 150 years you have sprooked that bipedalism is a human trait.

Bipedalism is a human trait, in that humans are bidedal. It also appears to be a trait in our early ancestors. This does not mean apes evolved from humans. Both latin and french have gendered nouns, does this mean latin evolved from french or vice versa?
​

 

[cupid dave]

This doesn't answer my question or are you saying that there will always only be 22 species? You have replaced the idea of God of the Gaps with Bible of the Gaps.

Yes I am saying the bible is right and the genealogy will finally coincide with what the paleontologists settle on as fact.

This will support the Bible not destroy it.
But your church people will be left behind as society embraces a factual supported scripture in general.

 

[Keachian]

Yes I am saying the bible is right and the genealogy will finally coincide with what the paleontologists settle on as fact.

This will support the Bible not destroy it.
But your church people will be left behind as society embraces a factual supported scripture in general.

Your readings as far as I can see, yes I've looked most of them up from here squeeze God out and make him into something that doesn't deserve worship it debases the very gospel in search of some harmony that in many Christian minds doesn't matter and goes so far as to deny the very divinity of God. There is also hardly any field of science that is not warped through this mangling of scripture to serve what you think is a need of the Church.

 

[Huram Abi]

The worst part is that he does all this for the sake of bad science.

Destroys the integrity of the bible all to make it fit a very inaccurate description of the natural world he is trying to make fit.

He could convince the entire uneducated community that the bible fits science, but the second you look at what the science actually says vs. his own claims about what science says, then he's just caused confusion and division.

You simply can't say that the bible is true factually because of the Out of Africa events, for example, and then completely give false information on those events.

It doesn't work, because people can read for themselves and when they discover that modern sapiens have been coming out of Africa for 150,000 years, they can plainly see for themselves that this 40,000 number simply doesn't work.

You cannot demonstrate that the bible is a reflection of science by giving a wrong description of what scientists say.

 

[Astridhere]

[/list]Notedstrangeperson has explained one of the two things you have highlighted was a typo. Nakalipithecus, you have highlighted with a mocking thumbs up because there were two ancestors listed. What's wrong with this? One will be historical to the other. Just as my grandmother and my great grandmother are both my ancestors; the existance of one does not refute the existance of the other.

Oh stop clowning around. You lot simply have stuff all fossils for your chimp and gorilla ancestry. You can carry on with whatever nonsense you wish. The sad fact for you is that your lack of ancestors for both gorillas and more importantly chimpanzee is acknowledged by your own researchers.

There is no debate here. This is a fact.


What do you mean, non-descriptive? It's a list of extinct species. I'm sure you can find more information on them if you looked.

The point contested was your lack of fossil ancestros demonstrating chimp ancestry back to a common ancestor. I am correct. You obviously have no idea but are prepared to contest a point that your own evo researchers agree with. Half the human/chimp part of the bush is obviously missing

Had a quick read up on proconsul and nothing suggests it's discredited. There appear to be four discovered species, and it has old-world monkey and ape traits, placing it somewhere between the split between old-world monkeys and apes, making it a distant human ancestor.

Then you did not look hard enough.
Proconsulidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point is and still remains you have stuff all fossils to demonstrate chimp ancestry


And Ida wasn't discredited, just likely to be a side branch, rather than a direct human ancestor.

Spooking a fossil is in the human line then not is a descreditiation to the initial theoryy and all the woffle behind it. It is that simple.


Bipedalism alone does not make something a modern human. You yourself have been pointing at the fossils and calling them "just an ape". They look nothing like modern humans.
And......


Ignoring your bizarre assertion about cockroaches, no one who actually understands evolution would be stupid enough to try and claim a relationship on the basis of a single trait.

No sense of humour. Too bad for you.


Astridhere, go and find a mirror and look at yourself. Are you bipedal? Do you have wider hips than a chimpanzee? Are your thumbs opposible, your feet flat?

I know my baby will not be born and be able to cling to me. My baby, when I have one, will require neonatal care that only an intelligent reasoning being can provide. not a half witted ape as in the case of erectus


I read the two links you provided and couldn't see anything about the coats of ape ancestors. And yet again I notice you are focusing on the Y chromosome and ignoring the entire rest of the genome. It's like the parable of the blind men and the elephant, except you seem to be purposefully only looking at the tail and declaring it to be a rope.

I have provided a 'story' that is unfalsifiable just like the nonsense you lot come up with that changes like the wind


Bipedalism is a human trait, in that humans are bidedal. It also appears to be a trait in our early ancestors. This does not mean apes evolved from humans. Both latin and french have gendered nouns, does this mean latin evolved from french or vice versa?

Bipedalism is an ape trait because apes were bipedal first, like Lucy the ape and Ardi the ape. Even your researchers agree bipeda have been around for about 20my way before mankind and any chimp/human split.
[/indent]

I would like to write a letter to the evolutionary scientific community and tell them just how stupid they are.

Now, with the Gona find Turkana Boy requires a pelvic reconstruction. Erectus has also shrunk from the athlete you lot woffled on about for years to a 5'4" wide hipped waddler.

Now your latest flavour of the month, even more ridiculous, is that half witted apes had large brained babies.

We OBSERVE today that women with sufficient intellectually delay cannot successfully raise a dependent neonate. Yet researchers are now suggesting, on the back of the Gona female erectus, that this stupid half witted erectus, devoid of higher reasoning capability successfully raised a totally dependent child.

Turkana Boy

Female Bornean Orang Adult Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus 10.3 inches long


Juvenille Orang. 9 inches long

You lot with your biased nonsense for guageing brain capacity have poofed Turk with no larger a cranial vault than an orang into a half witted human, raising an independent neonate and meeting all their needs. This requires higher intelligence. If erectus were not sufficiently hairy, infants must have been totally dependent on their mothers buy this stage. In fact Turks brain case is more receding that these orangutans above. It takes a whole lot of woffle and algorithmic magic to turn what is obviously observed into a myth.



Apes of all kinds do not have totally dependent offspring. An ape baby clings to its' mother from birth. A human baby does not. It is an obvious difference that separates mankind from ape based on the one non homoplasic trait around, superior intelligence and higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and the sophisticated language that goes with it.

What you need is a hairy ape, still with clinging neonates, with a large brain capacity comparable to modern humans that is intelligent enough to deminish the independence of a neonate 1.5mya. A neonate is not going to survive unless its mother is sufficiently intelligent to meet all it's needs, which requires abstract thought and reasoning ability not demonstrated in the small neural canal of erectus/ergaster. Were erectus also having babies yearly like mankind with no birth control, as opposed to every 4/5 years as in apes? Were these half wits carrying a bunch of kids around the savanah or forest with them? Were they smart enough to mash up the leaves and nuts and friut to wean a child with a human digestive system onto solids?

All researchers can do is provide non plausible and ridiculous scenarios to hand wave away the obvious. Erectus is a hairy ape that has been biasedly humanized.

Would you evolutionists like to define what an intermediatly independent baby would do and how it would be cared for?

 

[Astridhere]

AV's explanation of simply "God did it" is 10x better than this, at least he is true to his beliefs and does not try to twist the Bible or science to fit them.

Yet again you have nothing of substance to contribute. You held true to a human knucklewalking ancestry and now these believers have been shown to be fools that follow evolutionary researchers like sheep to the slaughter.

You are not sufficiently mature to have a conversation with. You blab without knowledge of your own sciences. You waste time challenging already accepted knowledge of your own researchers, which is frustrating.

AV himself admits he has little to no knowledge of evolutionary science and this is why he is unable to speak to the evidence that supports creation nor is able to see how stupid evolutionary science is and the myths it is based on.

My story is as good as any of the changing nonsense you lot come up with and is unfalsifiable, because it is a theory or story based on an interpretation of the data.

Why don't you ignore my above post and reply with immature banter yet again to the totally dependent neonate ape myth?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I would like to write a letter to the evolutionary scientific community and tell them just how stupid they are.

Now, with the Gona find Turkana Boy requires a pelvic reconstruction. Erectus has also shrunk from the athlete you lot woffled on about for years to a 5'4" wide hipped waddler.

Now your latest flavour of the month, even more ridiculous, is that half witted apes had large brained babies.

We OBSERVE today that women with sufficient intellectually delay cannot successfully raise a dependent neonate. Yet researchers are now suggesting, on the back of the Gona female erectus, that this stupid half witted erectus, devoid of higher reasoning capability successfully raised a totally dependent child.

Turkana Boy

Female Bornean Orang Adult Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus 10.3 inches long


Juvenille Orang. 9 inches long

You lot with your biased nonsense for guageing brain capacity have poofed Turk with no larger a cranial vault than an orang into a half witted human, raising an independent neonate and meeting all their needs. This requires higher intelligence. If erectus were not sufficiently hairy, infants must have been totally dependent on their mothers buy this stage. In fact Turks brain case is more receding that these orangutans above. It takes a whole lot of woffle and algorithmic magic to turn what is obviously observed into a myth.



Apes of all kinds do not have totally dependent offspring. An ape baby clings to its' mother from birth. A human baby does not. It is an obvious difference that separates mankind from ape based on the one non homoplasic trait around, superior intelligence and higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and the sophisticated language that goes with it.

What you need is a hairy ape, still with clinging neonates, with a large brain capacity comparable to modern humans that is intelligent enough to deminish the independence of a neonate 1.5mya. A neonate is not going to survive unless its mother is sufficiently intelligent to meet all it's needs, which requires abstract thought and reasoning ability not demonstrated in the small neural canal of erectus/ergaster. Were erectus also having babies yearly like mankind with no birth control, as opposed to every 4/5 years as in apes? Were these half wits carrying a bunch of kids around the savanah or forest with them? Were they smart enough to mash up the leaves and nuts and friut to wean a child with a human digestive system onto solids?

All researchers can do is provide non plausible and ridiculous scenarios to hand wave away the obvious. Erectus is a hairy ape that has been biasedly humanized.

Would you evolutionists like to define what an intermediatly independent baby would do and how it would be cared for?

Where do you get this stuff? This is cartoon gold!

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

We OBSERVE today that women with sufficient intellectually delay cannot successfully raise a dependent neonate. Yet researchers are now suggesting, on the back of the Gona female erectus, that this stupid half witted erectus, devoid of higher reasoning capability successfully raised a totally dependent child.

That's a strange criticism. Animals raise offspring with the same level of intelligence as they have. No-one is suggesting Homo Erectus could suddenly give birth to a Homo Sapiens baby.

Apes of all kinds do not have totally dependent offspring. An ape baby clings to its' mother from birth. A human baby does not.

True, human babies are especially vulnerable when they are born, but all mammals babies are totally dependant on their mothers at birth. Unlike fish or reptiles, they aren't able to feed themselves as soon as they're born - they need their mother's milk.

On a side-note, human babies don't cling to their mothers because we have no fur to cling onto, but their grip is strong enough to support their own body weight.

Were these half wits carrying a bunch of kids around the savanah or forest with them? Were they smart enough to mash up the leaves and nuts and friut to wean a child with a human digestive system onto solids?

All mammals babies have to be weaned eventually. Why would Homo Erectus be any different?

 

[Astridhere]

FrenchyBearpaw....why don't you offer a refute instead of a ridiculous comment that demonstrates you have absolutely nothing of substance to say, let alone refute me, or answer any challenge?

I strongly suggest that evolutionists hide behind comments of ridicule when they are gobsmacked and unable to offer a plausible reply.

This is what gobsmacked looks like......

I love it, we biblical creationists love it, when evos put up simplistic smart butt comments because it demonstrates beyond doubt that you are unable to lodge any plausible refute and stand totally gobsmacked.

What does a half independent neonate define as? Obviously FrenchyBearpaw has no idea as his reply undeniably demonstrates