Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
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.
This does not answer the question at all. NO other species has totally dependent babies unable to participate in the feeding arrangement. NONE. Mankind is the only species that gives birth to immobile infants.
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.
I have just given you an example of an ape baby clinging to its mother from birth. This is an observed fact. The neonate will seek the nipple according to instictual need for sustanence. A human mother must be intelligent enough to understand the feeding requirements of a new born and carry it and handle it without breaking its neck. Higher intelligence is required here. That is an observed fact.
Evos have assumed, or more likely not even considered, there is no such mid range of independence at birth. The newborn can either cling onto its mother or it cannot. It can either seek the nipple or mother or it cannot in mammals and apes. The newborn either coperates in the reciprocation of care or it falls to its death or starves. It either seeks the nipple or it does not and dies. An infant ape is not totally dependent on its mother for every need. A human baby is totally dependent on the intelligence of its mother to survive. Erectus was deficient I assert.
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.
This is what I also said. No fur equals totally dependent babies that mum had to carry. There is nothing in between. Hence you are avoiding my questions with asides. The grasp reflex is gone after several weeks.
You need to describe how an intermediately independent baby would be cared for by a half witted ape that would not know how to carry a babe in arms and making sure it is suckled regularly. The baby no longer has the ability to seek the nipple for itself or go find mum. Mum has to know to put it to the breast within hours and feed it it regularly, protect it from predators, stop it from crawling in its own faeces in the cave and eating poisons or chocking. One rough move can easily break an infants neck. It takes intelligence during an ice age to clothe a hairless infant meaning abstract thought and non egocentric thinking that is more complex than instinct. Brutes and half wits cannot care for human newborns and raise them to independence without support and assistance. It requires higher intelligence.
Most importantly babies born to mother of very low intelligence simply do not survive without assistance. A boofheaded erectus, I am telling you, would not have the intelligence to care for a totally dependent neonate, A gorilla has a brain size of up to 650cc and will not know how to care for a human new born. Erectus is not much smarter, even by your biased humanizing nonsense. There is nothing inbetween. You have to make erectus far more intelligent than he is to meet a new borns needs.
The other stupid thing is evos say an ape like erectus can light fires. Most of us have no idea of the complex task firelighting and control is. It takes abstract thought and higher reasoning ability to use flint or stick rubbing to make fires in a world without lighters, matches or magifying glasses.
I am asserting your link is along the lines of any news headline that in essence is rubbish. I'll gurantee you that this would be the rarity and the baby would have likely been of low birth weight. Regardless human babies are totally dependent on their mothers to be nursed and carried that requires intelligence.
All mammals babies have to be weaned eventually. Why would Homo Erectus be any different?
Human babies live for some time before their digestive systems are able to eat solids. It takes intelligence to regularly feed baby and stop it from chocking as an infant when it begins to put everything in its mouth, and support its neck It takes intelligence to raise a human baby.
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
Quite honestly, the only reason I read your posts is for some lulz. So keep em comin'.
Evolutionists really like to hand wave some important impossibilities away.
Erectus were not smart enough to raise a totally dependent baby.
I can't even do that much. Her posts should be prefaced by some kind of WALL OF TEXT INCOMING warning.
What makes you think that?Astridhere said:The newborn can either cling onto its mother or it cannot. It can either seek the nipple or mother or it cannot in mammals and apes. The newborn either coperates in the reciprocation of care or it falls to its death or starves. It either seeks the nipple or it does not and dies. An infant ape is not totally dependent on its mother for every need. A human baby is totally dependent on the intelligence of its mother to survive. Erectus was deficient I assert.
Astridhere said:It takes intelligence during an ice age to clothe a hairless infant meaning abstract thought and non egocentric thinking that is more complex than instinct. Brutes and half wits cannot care for human newborns and raise them to independence without support and assistance. It requires higher intelligence.
Homo Erectus had a cranial capacity of roughly 850-1,100cc, which would make them much more intelligent than gorillas. Why would an animal with such a larger brain somehow be less able to rear their young than an animal with a smaller brain.Astridhere said:Most importantly babies born to mother of very low intelligence simply do not survive without assistance. A boofheaded erectus, I am telling you, would not have the intelligence to care for a totally dependent neonate, A gorilla has a brain size of up to 650cc and will not know how to care for a human new born. Erectus is not much smarter, even by your biased humanizing nonsense. There is nothing inbetween. You have to make erectus far more intelligent than he is to meet a new borns needs.
Notedstrangeperson said:All mammals babies have to be weaned eventually. Why would Homo Erectus be any different?
That doesn't answer my question. All mammal babies - from mice to elephants - have to be weaned eventually. Why would Homo Erectus somehow be unable to do this?Astridhere said:Human babies live for some time before their digestive systems are able to eat solids. It takes intelligence to regularly feed baby and stop it from chocking as an infant when it begins to put everything in its mouth, and support its neck It takes intelligence to raise a human baby.
Yes, this is why evolution has been the dominant theory in biology for over 200 years. apparently you creationist are so incompetent that you are unable to convince the majority of the scientific community and the rest of the world. Why is that again? Have fun with your demands of refutation when you are the one with the burden of proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_(primate)
Is Proconsul any less bipedal than todays apes with its short arms and more of a human skull than any thing inbetween?
Astridhere said:Is Proconsul any less bipedal than todays apes with its short arms and more of a human skull than any thing inbetween?
Hapwood suggests its a chimp.
It is no wonder your researchers never present Proconsul standing upright it would make a mochery of your fossils.
What your fossils show is a short armed Proconsul adapting into the longer armed Ardi, Lucy, Erectus on their way to becoming some of the apes we see today....an ape to ape adaptation with no sign of mankind morphing from an ape.
Proconsul wasn't a modern biped. It wasn't even a modern ape - it's considered a transitional form between apes and monkeys. I'm also assuming you mean "mockery", as there's nothing about Proconsul that makes evolution anything like ancient Peru.
It's true all apes lack tails, but then again so do some monkeys. Barbary macaques for example, no tails.Astridhere said:Oh no you don't!!!!Proconsul is tailess as flavour of the month, meaning it is an ape........
1. I'm not sure where you get that idea. H. Erectus had a much, much bigger brain than either Procunsul or an orangutan.Astridhere said:1. Turkana Boy and other erectus look less human than either Proconsul or a female orang, and you would have to be blind or in denial not to see it.
2. Short arms are not a human trait, as Proconsul had them. Pelvises mean nothing because the humanised and now too dervied to be human Lucy has a 'human like' pelvis and is likely a chimp or gorilla ancestor.
3. The most parsinomous interpretation of the fossil evidence is that a short armed, ape like Proconsul adapated into the longer armed apes we see today and Lucy, Ardi and Erectus are or resemble their ancestors.
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.
<snipped to reduce stupidity>
F in your pretty chart is Homininae..now speak to it.....and why mankind is placed there with gorillas and chimps.
Hello miss kettle.Progmonk you titter on the brink by not being able to assimilate information into that inculcated evolutionary mind of yours. Now look at the pretty pictures...
One of the problems you're making is that your proconsul picture you're fond of is front on which hardly makes for a good comparison between the others.1. Turkana Boy and other erectus look less human than either Proconsul or a female orang, and you would have to be blind or in denial not to see it.
My arms happen to be around 2/3rds the length of my legs, am I not human?2. Short arms are not a human trait, as Proconsul had them. Pelvises mean nothing because the humanised and now too dervied to be human Lucy has a 'human like' pelvis and is likely a chimp or gorilla ancestor.
Well the cranial capacity of some of the species you list would disagree with that interpretation.3. The most parsinomous interpretation of the fossil evidence is that a short armed, ape like Proconsul adapated into the longer armed apes we see today and Lucy, Ardi and Erectus are or resemble their ancestors.
So you have radiometrically tested these fossils and found that procunsul lived far later than we think and are willing and able to show your findings to a peer review board, you'd be praised in the scientific community if you could, look at all the hubbub over the results that CERN just got from finding a particle that travels faster than the speed of light. Science destroying evidence is always welcome, indeed it is sought heavily after.You are unable to falsify my 3 points or scenario. I have the evidence as demonstrated above. It aligns with the evidence better than evolutionists short, then long, then short arms. My points and scenarios align with the evidence despite the fact that it is biased in favour of evolutions flavour of the month. Erectus with more of a receding forehead than an orang is no more smarter than an orang or chimp today. They did not have suficient intelligence to light fires, a complex task, or nurse and care for totally dependent new borns.
Mankind were there to light the fires and hearths with erectus, if there really was any sign of fire lighting at all. Modern Mankind appears suddenly in the fossil record, amidst many ape ancestors, which is support for a creative event.
It's true all apes lack tails, but then again so do some monkeys. Barbary macaques for example, no tails.
Hon, quibbling about what your researchers classify anything is not the point. Proconsul is currenty classified as Hominoidea. It has short arms and I can make up a story just like your evo researchers can eg knucklewalking ancestry you lot went on about for over 150 years gone to the rubbish bin of evo delusions.
1. I'm not sure where you get that idea. H. Erectus had a much, much bigger brain than either Procunsul or an orangutan.
Only according to you algorithmis magic Indeed the skulls presented do not demostrate this. Turk has more of a receeding forhead than a modern female ornag.
2 and 3. You cannot use one form of antomical evidence (in this case, short arms) to suggest that Proconsul was the direct ancestor of Ardi, Lucy and H. Erectus, then simply ignore anatomical evidence (pelvis shape) which suggests they were related to moern humans. It's cherry-picking.
Indeed I can suggest anything I want. I can also interpret the fossil evidence any way I want.
What a laugh your comment is after all the talk about bipedalism being a human trait. What a laugh at evos that use homoplasy and convergent evolution to excuse annomolies and what doesn't fit. Indeed I can suggest what ever I like, and have done so. You lot cannot agree on anything and continually discredit each other theories.
The 'human like pelvis' is demonstrated in Lucy the 'too derived' ape that could not be in the human line that is likely on her way to morphing into a gorilla according to some researchers. Turks pelvis and entire stature about to undergo a reconstruction to a wider pelvis and short 5'4" and likely a waddler. Turk with his whackey pelvis, that you have not explained, also demonstrates the poor lad likely had a limp as well as a waddle
You may not like my story. That does not concern me. However it is irrefuteable, because it is a theory and an interpretation of the data according to Astridhere.
Hello miss kettle.
One of the problems you're making is that your proconsul picture you're fond of is front on which hardly makes for a good comparison between the others. You can see well enough
Turk is never presented with his chin squared up. It would look even more ape like if it was.....No chin and more of a receding forehead that the others.
Rudolfensis misrepresented by the Leakeys as a flat faced creature. Tilt Turks head back. Turk looks the same, as does the cranial vault, despite all the woffle about brain increase. Rudolfensis brain is reduced to 526cc and I'd say Turks brain without the bias would be similar.
Controversial Human Ancestor Gets Major Facelift | LiveScience
from a more balanced perspective we see that proconsul's snout is far more elongated than any of the other of the primates you list, the canines far more pronounced than the orang which are more pronounced than erectus the cranial capacity of both erectus and humans appears to exceed that of the orang I can't tell that well though there isn't a size reference for these pictures. Rubbish and not observed, only by algorithmical magic
Proconsul
I can tell evolutionists wear evogoggles. The snout as you call it is much longer on Turk than a female Bornean orang or Proconsul. Certainly there is no evolution......
They are all a bunch of apes.
My arms happen to be around 2/3rds the length of my legs, am I not human?
My leg-arm ratio may be different to proconsul but I fail to see your point.
Proconsul with short arms
The picture says it all as do the bones. Proconsul does not have long arms. If you straighten this guy up, its arms would line up upper thigh.
Well the cranial capacity of some of the species you list would disagree with that interpretation.
Algorithmic magic that convolutes what is observed into a myth
So you have radiometrically tested these fossils and found that procunsul lived far later than we think and are willing and able to show your findings to a peer review board, you'd be praised in the scientific community if you could, look at all the hubbub over the results that CERN just got from finding a particle that travels faster than the speed of light. Science destroying evidence is always welcome, indeed it is sought heavily after.
Oh here we go..the ultimate gobsmacked come back. When ever a creationist successfully demonstrates how stupid evolutionary science is we get told to go publish a paper. A Research would get fired for even attempting such a thing as try demonstrate how stupid evo psuedo science is and falsify it.
So handle it Loudmouth, I can make up stories just like you evos can. My scenario demonstates your fossils are on their way to modern apes, pelvis, skulls and all. Mine are more plausible and parsinomous with the data.
No, they are not. Not by a long shot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?