What proof would you need?

[chuck77]

The real living fossils that support our own evolution can be seen in the fetus as the embryo grows through undeniable evolutionary stages of development, retracing its own metamorphosis from earlier species that had fish tails and later, gills, and so on:

Seriously? Or are you just testing us?

 

[Tiberius]

Actually the church began in April of the year 29, so it has not been 2000 years yet.
You still have about 17 more years to go.

I was rounding to the nearest century.

 

[chuck77]

So Chuck77, given that the vast majority of scientists accept that the evidence points to the fact of evolution are they all incredibly incompetent or is it a vast conspiracy? It looks from your quoted post that you lean towards incompetent.

You actually might want to present some evidence proving that they really are intermediates. We have the same evidence btw.

Because all you're doing now is; Argumentum ad populum:

"In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try again, this time with evidence, not fallacies.

Remember, just because a "scientist" tags a fossil "intermediate" doesn't make it so.

Walk us thru the steps how one determines if a fossil is transitional.

Oh, and our "theory" is that everything produces after it's own kind, which is exactly what we see happening. It's testable and operational in nature. YOU are the one who needs the evidence to back up what contradicts what's happening today.

 

[Astridhere]

I did not request a picture.

You have gone on and on about my/creationists describing an intermediate human. However you are unable to articulate what a transitional fossil should like yourself.

How do you know if any fossil is transitioning from a common ancestor, which you have no idea about, into either an ape or human?

Further to that we all know how valid your sketchings are after the initial misrepresentations of Neanderthal were falsified by DNA.

So let's look at this guy. I think it is Homo Habilis.


Homo Habilis skull.

Ardi's skull above

Above demonstrates how skulls are reconstructed to suit whatever evolutionists believe as flavour of the month.

Above female Bornean Orangutan. Orangs have more morphology in common with humans than chimps.


Now you explain what you are saying demonstrates the transition from some unknown ape to Ardi to Lucy to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to mankind.

How do you know these above are not simply apes or modern day ape ancestors? We know about convergent evolution, parallel evolution, Lluc had flat facial features 12 million years ago and indeed a female Bornean Orangutan skull looks more human than most of your erectus and habilis skulls.eg no sagital keel.

Where is the demonstration of human ancestry given even Turkana Boy, Homo erectus/ergaster, looks just the same as the rest?

Now don't cop out of this Loudmouth. Can you or can you not articulate, as to what makes any of these transitional from a common ancestor of chimps and humans you have no description of, to mankind and modern day chimps? How does the fossil record support ancestry to chimp like and ancestry to nothing like a chimp?

There does not appear to be a response to my questions, demonstrating very conclusively that evolutionists are unable to defend one ancestry, Mankind.

I have demonstrated the continuity of ape skulls like Ardi found with ape feet and clearly an ape and misrepresented fossils that are likely no more than variations of the same or similar species eg Habilis & Turkana Boy. The fossils above demonstrate the same skull shape back to Ardi. There is no evolution.

I have outlined how Erectus and other apes, habilis ardi are discontinuous with Mankind, yet have continuity with each other. These apes do not look similar to mankind, nor are their skull features within the range of mankinds variation. Rather they are more similar to each other and clearly apes along with Ardi.

It appears evolutionists are happy to respond to every aside. However when required to focus on any evidence evolutionists are unable to explain it or defend their evidence. Their ploy often is to take the discussion as far away from science as is possible, as the bottom line is evos have nothing but libraries of nonsense.

So you evolutionists carry on. Clearly when it comes down to it evolutionists are unable to answer a couple of what should be fairly simple questions in defence of the fossil record for human ancestry. In particular they assert with robust vigour that their skull evidence is irrefutable and obvious. Yet they are unable to mount any defence in refute to the above skulls being much the same and no more variant than a race, breed, subspecies etc. They are unable to articulate the transitional features that differentiate the human line, or other ape lines that have virtually little to no fossil ancestry to speak of and unknown and undescribed common ancestors.

Clearly you evos have found fossil evidence of apes and mankind and nothing transitional at all. This evidence is just one line of evidence that supports the creationist prediction that if creation is true no intermediates between kinds, chimps/humans, will be found.

With so little known about the common ancestor, how can you even refute the fossils above being orangutan ancestors? They most certainly are showing no sign of becoming human in the 4.4my since Ardi.

You evolutionists are obviously unable to take the higher ground as you are unable to put any substance behind your fossil evidence so much of which looks the same/similar species.

My point is established, with mankind as just one example. I have no reason to reconsider my view. The fossil and genomic evidence supports my view. It is evolutionists that really need to reconsider their view.

 

[AV1611VET]

It couldn't withstand scientific testing.

Yes, it did withstand scientific testing, or it would not have been up for sale as a wonder drug.

Unless there's something you know that I don't -- (and I can't say that with a straight face).

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, it did withstand scientific testing, or it would not have been up for sale as a wonder drug.

Unless there's something you know that I don't -- (and I can't say that with a straight face).

Oh, wait, what's this?

Why was Thalidomide pulled, AV? How did they connect all the problems to thalidomide? Was it science? YES IT WAS! It seems that thalidomide couldn't withstand scientific testing after all!

BTW, I can't help but notice that when I pointed out that your claim that it was all going to be disproven "soon" has been around for 2000 years, you conveniently dropped it. However, I;ve come to expect this sort of thing. You drop it for a while, hope everyone gorgets about it, then bring it up again whenever you need something to say.)

 

[Astridhere]

You actually might want to present some evidence proving that they really are intermediates. We have the same evidence btw.

Because all you're doing now is; Argumentum ad populum:

"In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try again, this time with evidence, not fallacies.

Remember, just because a "scientist" tags a fossil "intermediate" doesn't make it so.

Walk us thru the steps how one determines if a fossil is transitional.

Oh, and our "theory" is that everything produces after it's own kind, which is exactly what we see happening. It's testable and operational in nature. YOU are the one who needs the evidence to back up what contradicts what's happening today.

Hey there Chuck77.

I have waited for days for Loudmouth or any evo to just explain how the fossil evidence supports ancestry to chimp like and non chimp like creatures and nothing of substance in reply. No answer to the second one as yet either.

The best this lot are able to come up with is more questions that have no point to make or just avoid the subject with asides.

I just love the way belk has taken a shot at you when no more than garble is forthcoming from him. He is another one full of something to say that has nothing to do with defending TOE against the evidence posted. This confirms these supposed ancestors are nothing more than the same or similar species of ape variations, with no more variation between them than races, breeds etc observed today.

I guess inability and refusal to reply is deemed a forfeit. Afterall if these evos had any intelligent refute I am sure we would have heard it by now. At least I/We can demonstrate the ridiculousness of their non plausible assertions and provide evidence that there is no relationship between apes and mankind.

Hey you know the latest, I have quoted previously, Sediba being the great new flavour of the month as a human ancestor with its skull much the same as Ardi, Habilis and Turkana Boy. Sediba the tool maker with its ape hands and ape head. Oh it would be so funny if it wasn't so sad and desperate. These evo researchers say that this things hand is more human than habilis.
Direct ancestor of Homo genus? Fossils show human-like hand, brain and pelvis in early hominin

And of course Rudolfensis the misdated & misrepresented ape that also looks much like the rest still shows no transition.
Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed

Yep, Chuck77 these evos are gobsmacked and unable to answer a couple of simple questions about their supposedly and alleged obvious evidence of mankinds ancestry to a question mark.

So evo guys and gals I am afraid if you cannot demonstrate this transition you speak to you have lost this round. Clearly it is evolutionists that should seriously reconsider their view.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why was Thalidomide pulled, AV?

I'm talking about before it was pulled -- way before it was pulled.

 

[chuck77]

So evo guys and gals I am afraid if you cannot demonstrate this transition you speak to you have lost this round. Clearly it is evolutionists that should seriously reconsider their view.

No doubt Astridhere. You've done a superb job of giving the evo's a reason to reconsider their position. I'll use some non-creationist science references too.


Abstract Top

1Gene families are groups of homologous genes that are likely to have highly similar functions. Differences in family size due to lineage-specific gene duplication and gene loss may provide clues to the evolutionary forces that have shaped mammalian genomes. Here we analyze the gene families contained within the whole genomes of human, chimpanzee, mouse, rat, and dog. In total we find that more than half of the 9,990 families present in the mammalian common ancestor have either expanded or contracted along at least one lineage. Additionally, we find that a large number of families are completely lost from one or more mammalian genomes, and a similar number of gene families have arisen subsequent to the mammalian common ancestor. Along the lineage leading to modern humans we infer the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes since the split from chimpanzees, including changes likely driven by adaptive natural selection. Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences. This genomic “revolving door” of gene gain and loss represents a large number of genetic differences separating humans from our closest relatives.

PLoS ONE: The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families

-Bold Mine

That's from PLoS ONE!


PLoS ONE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"PLoS ONE is an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science since 2006. It covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine. All submissions go through an internal and external pre-publication peer review but are not excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. The PLoS ONE online platform has post-publication user discussion and rating features."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLoS_ONE


You can all stop saying we share 98.5 percent DNA with the chimp. Heck I think we share something like 50% with the banana

That's what we call a "common designer" BTW.

 

[blackbite10]

A good question......hmmmm.... let me think....... possibly if a species simply popped into existence but there are many things like say Jesus coming back.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm talking about before it was pulled -- way before it was pulled.

Before it was pulled they didn't have all the evidence, did they? They thought they had enough, but they didn't.

Or do you think that all science must wait til we have all information? By that logic, we'd still be rubbing sticks together to make fire. Heck, some could argue that we wouldn't even be allowed to do that!

 

[Tiberius]

You can all stop saying we share 98.5 percent DNA with the chimp. Heck I think we share something like 50% with the banana

That's what we call a "common designer" BTW.

So common features mean a common designer?

An airliner from Boeing has many features in common with an airliner from Airbus. Does an Airbus and a Boeing have a common designer?

No?

I guess we agree that common features don't mean common designer then.

 

[AV1611VET]

Before it was pulled they didn't have all the evidence, did they?

I don't know -- I wasn't there; but I'll certainly give them the benefit of a doubt and say they didn't.

I could take the approach that the evidence existed, but they didn't bother to look for it; but for the sake of arguing, I'll cut them some slack.

They thought they had enough, but they didn't.

I could start a campfire and enjoy some outdoor camping, but if it escalates into a four-county wildfire, can I claim I didn't have all the evidence?

Or do you think that all science must wait til we have all information?

I know of some mothers that would have appreciated it.

By that logic, we'd still be rubbing sticks together to make fire.

That's assuming you have hands to do it; some were born w/o that privilege.

Heck, some could argue that we wouldn't even be allowed to do that!

Just like some would argue we shouldn't be allowed to bring our Bibles to school?

 

[Tiberius]

Now you're just trolling, AV. I can't see anything in there that is relevant to what I am saying, only your attempts at obfuscation.

 

[Belk]

You actually might want to present some evidence proving that they really are intermediates. We have the same evidence btw.

There are others on here much more knowledgeable in biology so I will let them field this one.

Because all you're doing now is; Argumentum ad populum:

"In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try again, this time with evidence, not fallacies.

No, what I'm doing now is asking a question. You can tell by the little squiggly line with a dot under it that indicates an interrogative. The question, in case you missed it, was "Are the vast majority of the experts in their field incompetent or is there a vast conspiracy to keep evolution in place?" Bonus points if you can come up with a third option that explains why evolutionary theory has been around for 200 years (besides the obvious one of it's being true)

Remember, just because a "scientist" tags a fossil "intermediate" doesn't make it so.

Walk us thru the steps how one determines if a fossil is transitional.

Why? You could use google. Here try this. Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would seem that a transitional is "A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a lifeform that exhibits characteristics of two distinct taxonomic groups."

Oh, and our "theory" is that everything produces after it's own kind, which is exactly what we see happening. It's testable and operational in nature. YOU are the one who needs the evidence to back up what contradicts what's happening today.

Edit

Since this is the thread asking what evidence you would need to believe I will change my response to this. The theory of evolution predicts very small gradual change over thousands of years. This is what we see in nature as well. So it seems our competing theories are on equal footing for this one. We will need to look at other evidence to see where they differ. What other evidence does your theory predict we will see?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It doesnt take much for my mind to wander. I am quite impressionable, you know. I generally beleive in evolution, but having studied philosophy with its various ideas, and actually ejoying stretching my mind with religion, I could probably believe (briefly) any version of creationism someone just invented on the spot.

 

[Phred]

Common features could imply a common designer. Or they could imply a common pressure. For instance, if you feed different raw materials through the same mold you're likely to get a bunch of things that look the same but are made of different stuff. Send life (raw material) through the same environment (the mold) and you're going to get the same responses to it. Bats and birds for instance. They fly but are completely different. Pterodactyls flew too. There's food to be found by flying. And predators to be escaped from.

There are myriad examples. And you can imply common design. Natural selection is the designer.

 

[sandwiches]

Now you're just trolling, AV. I can't see anything in there that is relevant to what I am saying, only your attempts at obfuscation.

NOW? Obfuscation, equivocation, ignoring, flame-baiting, double-speak, derailing, and flat out trolling is all part of AV's modus operandi. I'm not sure why "the Truth" must be defended with lies, ignorance, and trolling, but it seems a little suspect.

 

[AV1611VET]

NOW? Obfuscation, equivocation, ignoring, flame-baiting, double-speak, derailing, and flat out trolling is all part of AV's modus operandi. I'm not sure why "the Truth" must be defended with lies, ignorance, and trolling, but it seems a little suspect.

Either way I get it.

If I stay in, I'm 'trolling'.

If I /thread, I'm 'running away'.

Hacer en mi mente, por favor.

 

[Orogeny]

Either way I get it.

If I stay in, I'm 'trolling'.

If I /thread, I'm 'running away'.

Hacer en mi mente, por favor.

You could surprise everybody by actually contributing for once.