What proof would you need?

[Astridhere]

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

Yes the differences are ignored. The researchers come from a TOE perspective so they likely do not feel the differences are worth counting. After all, whether there is a 1% or 90% human/chimp difference they would still say it proves evolution. One cannnot turn the complexity of the genome into numbers and expect the findings will have any veracity.

-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."

PLoS ONE - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes Wiki Chimpanzee Genome Project cites a 30% difference and even this comparison does not reflect many other differences.eg 10% difference in genome size, surface structure, protein expression, hot spots, non coding regions now known to be functional, etc.

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.

Absolutely Chuck77. We have 77% of 5000 of our best known genes to have a hit in a worm.

Given that all life forms a food chain and at least some adaptation is via epigenetic inheritance, all life had to be created on much the same blueprint for it all to work.

The Y chromosome and other differences between mankind and chimp says it all as far as genetics goes, and the fossil evidence is the icing on the cake in demonstrating mankind are not apes. The fossil evidence, the observed evidence, demonstrates that from Ardi to Turkana Boy what they have are all apes no more similar to mankind than a modern female Bornean orang. These creatures show continuity to each other, not us.

Evos are unable to answer some fairly simple challenges re human ancestry. Belk will be waiting a long time as I have been waiting for over a week for an answer to my first question and days for a reply to the second. Evos are unable to demonstrate any evolution in the skulls I put up for comparison let alone articulate what an intermediate fossil should look like. That is enough time in which to expect some explanation and it has not been forthcoming. That debate is done and dusted.

If observed evidence will not get an evolutionist to reconsider their view I doubt any evidence will.

We are privileged to be creationists Chuck77.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

If you stay in, you keep repeating the same flawed arguments over and over. We just don't like how you don't seem to listen to what we say, AV.

 

[CTD]

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.

That's what you get for stubbornly refusing to scoop the brain clean out of your head and become "elite"

 

[becon]

That's what you get for stubbornly refusing to scoop the brain clean out of your head and become "elite"

You are fascinated by that word 'elite' but you hate to talk about it, why is that?

 

[Astridhere]

You are fascinated by that word 'elite' but you hate to talk about it, why is that?

Hey..why don't you go back a few pages and answer some real questions. You have started another thread that bags out creationists.

I'd like to see you strut your stuff here. Are you an evolutionist that can defend their theories and so called supportive evidence with any substance, or not?

The thread is about changing ones viewpoint. I have demonstrated how many fossils upheld as demonstrating evolution are all much the same. All the rubbish about increasing brain size is nothing more than nonsense. Much the same species being extremly sexually dimorphic, including erectus, explains what you misrepresent as evolution.

Here is something else for you to chew on in the meantime.

Data from three African field sites on Pan troglodytes demonstrate an unambiguous pattern of a slower growth rate in wild vs. captive chimpanzee populations. A revised dental growth chronology for chimpanzees is similar to estimated timing of Homo erectus and therefore has implications for interpreting life history in hominins.

Wild chimpanzee dentition and its implications for assessing life history in immature hominin fossils

Growth study of wild chimpanzees challenges assumptions about early humans, anthropologists say - UC Santa Cruz


So not only is there evidence that homo erectus is sexually dimorphic like gorillas, Erectus dental erruption is also like a wild chimp. Turkana Boy, your supposedly best fossil, has a skull just like habilis and Ardi and many others with no more variation than race or breed. The fossil record demonstrates there are apes and mankind with no intermediates linking ancestry to a question mark of a common ancestor. This is evidence for creation and falsifies evolutionary theory.

There is no point taking a shot at AV or any other creationist, or spamming threads with ridicule, if you are unable to defend what you evolutionists misrepresent as evidence for common descent, ridicule is pointless.

If robust and observed evidence for creation will not get an evolutionist to reconsider their view, what will?

 

[sandwiches]

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.

Translation: Blah blah blah... I'm a martyr... blah blah...

I've seen you make actual arguments in a thread instead of trolling. So, don't act like your only two options are to troll or leave a thread.

 

[RickG]

Hey..why don't you go back a few pages and answer some real questions. You have started another thread that bags out creationists.

I'd like to see you strut your stuff here. Are you an evolutionist that can defend their theories and so called supportive evidence with any substance, or not?

The thread is about changing ones viewpoint. I have demonstrated how many fossils upheld as demonstrating evolution are all much the same. All the rubbish about increasing brain size is nothing more than nonsense. Much the same species being extremly sexually dimorphic, including erectus, explains what you misrepresent as evolution.

Here is something else for you to chew on in the meantime.

Data from three African field sites on Pan troglodytes demonstrate an unambiguous pattern of a slower growth rate in wild vs. captive chimpanzee populations. A revised dental growth chronology for chimpanzees is similar to estimated timing of Homo erectus and therefore has implications for interpreting life history in hominins.

Wild chimpanzee dentition and its implications for assessing life history in immature hominin fossils

Growth study of wild chimpanzees challenges assumptions about early humans, anthropologists say - UC Santa Cruz


So not only is there evidence that homo erectus is sexually dimorphic like gorillas, Erectus dental erruption is also like a wild chimp. Turkana Boy, your supposedly best fossil, has a skull just like habilis and Ardi and many others with no more variation than race or breed. The fossil record demonstrates there are apes and mankind with no intermediates linking ancestry to a question mark of a common ancestor. This is evidence for creation and falsifies evolutionary theory.

There is no point taking a shot at AV or any other creationist, or spamming threads with ridicule, if you are unable to defend what you evolutionists misrepresent as evidence for common descent, ridicule is pointless.

If robust and observed evidence for creation will not get an evolutionist to reconsider their view, what will?

Having just read the actual paper and the review you linked, it appears you have been working hard down in the "quote mine".

When everything is put into context, all both say is that "captured" chimpanzees are not a good proxy for hominid/chimpanzee comparisons but wild chimpanzees are.

 

[becon]

I'd like to see you strut your stuff here. Are you an evolutionist that can defend their theories and so called supportive evidence with any substance, or not?

Well as you're so good at asking questions but not answering them how about you strut your stuff here?

All creationists want is answers why is that? we know they were all kept away from evolution and science when they were growing up but why don't they look for answers themselves? why keep asking others?

You don't even need to tell others you are looking to see what evolution is all about just do it, it's all garbage anyway so what have you got to lose? get some real ammunition to throw at those Godless evolutionists, it's wrong so you really should be able to find plenty of holes in it, that's what all the other creationists keep telling you and they should know because they ALL know about evolution don't they? creationists tell you nothing but lies lies and more lies.

The silliest thing about the creation v science argument is the fact that creationists have no schooling and they are trying to fight against something they don't understand that can not be beaten, even if it could it would take more than creationists can ever hope to muster to find out how to do it.

Creationists are all so full of the smelly stuff they can not smell it any more.

 

[razeontherock]

All creationists want is answers why is that? we know they were all kept away from evolution and science when they were growing up

Could you keep the flaming down to a dull roar please? This is more than enough to get booted for

 

[AV1611VET]

I've seen you make actual arguments in a thread instead of trolling. So, don't act like your only two options are to troll or leave a thread.

Fair enough ... I'll change it.

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

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

¿Es eso mejor?

 

[becon]

All creationists want is answers why is that? we know they were all kept away from evolution and science when they were growing up

Could you keep the flaming down to a dull roar please? This is more than enough to get booted for

I'm sorry did I get it wrong? so you were all taught about evolution and science when you were growing up but decided that was all wrong and it was really done with magic, yes I can just see children making that decision for themselves,
but to keep believing it they would need to remain child like, is that closer to the truth?

Creationism is mind blowing which ever way you look at it, are you sure it has nothing to do with L. Ron Hubbard?
it sure sounds like something he would come up with.

 

[Tiberius]

Fair enough ... I'll change it.

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

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

¿Es eso mejor?

When you look at the evidence and gain knowledge of something that you were ignorant about before, you are learning...

But you don't take that option, do you?

 

[Astridhere]

Having just read the actual paper and the review you linked, it appears you have been working hard down in the "quote mine".

When everything is put into context, all both say is that "captured" chimpanzees are not a good proxy for hominid/chimpanzee comparisons but wild chimpanzees are.
Darls, if you know better than your own well credentialed reseachers you had best have it out with them. The point here is more and more are your researchers finding that erectus is the 'outgroup'.

Well then you go ahead and explain the human ancestry fossil evidence that all looks the same.

You see you simply and absolutely cannot defend your science. You lot will aside on any point and nit pick as if you may be having something to say. Indeed you do not. The huge sexual dimorphism found in homo erectus as well as teeth erruption being similar to wild chimps is simply additional support and not the point per se.

The point is
1.You cannot explain why the fossil evidence did support ancestry to a chimp-like creature and now ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp.
2. You cannot articulate what an intermediate should look like
3. You cannot explain why Ardi, Homo Habils and Turkana Boy, as well as many other skulls all look the same, with no more variation than we see in race or breed.

You evolutonists woffle on continually about the great fossil evidence you have for human ancestry. When it comes down to it you cannot defend your science.

 

[Astridhere]

Well as you're so good at asking questions but not answering them how about you strut your stuff here?

All creationists want is answers why is that? we know they were all kept away from evolution and science when they were growing up but why don't they look for answers themselves? why keep asking others?
Because you lot like to woffle about the fantastic fossil evidence for human ancestry when clearly you have no idea what it actually supports. Like sheep to the slaughter you will believe anything the Gods of evolution tell you regardless of the evolutionary rubbish bin of delusions past like knuckle walking ancestry. You will not answer becuase youa re unable to. This is your supposed evidence. Defend it and stop wimping out like Loudmouth did.
You don't even need to tell others you are looking to see what evolution is all about just do it, it's all garbage anyway so what have you got to lose? get some real ammunition to throw at those Godless evolutionists, it's wrong so you really should be able to find plenty of holes in it, that's what all the other creationists keep telling you and they should know because they ALL know about evolution don't they? creationists tell you nothing but lies lies and more lies.
Look back and one can plainly see I have supported my claims with EVIDENCE. You have offered opinion and woffle. Clearly you are on the run.
The silliest thing about the creation v science argument is the fact that creationists have no schooling and they are trying to fight against something they don't understand that can not be beaten, even if it could it would take more than creationists can ever hope to muster to find out how to do it.
Here is ignorance at its best. Only boofheads spook no creationist is educated. John C Sanford is just one example. He was an evo turned YEC. Here are more... and this list is not exhaustive. These are well credentialed in evolutionary fields of science and have better credentials than you. You are playing an old line and evading the points you are unable to address.

Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists

Creationists are all so full of the smelly stuff they can not smell it any more.
Well then you had best come up with something intelligent to say as a refute. Ridicule is not winning you any points here, You are just as gobsmacked as the rest in defending what you misrepresent as science.

Here we go again a woffler that is making ridiculous claims without an ability to answer some simple questions. Evolutionists like nothing better than to show creationists how it is. These fossils are your evidence and you are unable to defend them as any sort of human ancestor or relative. You lot cannot even answer a few simple questions and the squirming in obvious.

It appears when evolutionists are gobsmacked they stop talking science and try to defend their philosophy with ridicule, asides, evasion and ignorance.

If my point is correct (please look back on my fossil evidence that demonstrates the same species misrepresented as some line of evolution. I will repost if you like) then indeed you have NO fossil evidence in support of ancestry to a chimp like creature or anything else. Rather, if Ardi through to Erectus are all the same, Ardi being an ape with ape feet, then what you actually have is evidence for creation. No intermediates supports a creative prediction, not an evolutionary one. Ardi's skull looks just like habilis and Turkana Boy. There is no evolution.

Now either you have something to say about the points I have made or you are going to go around in circles chasing your behind while getting yourself no where.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Look at the title of the thread, Astrid. What does it say?

I am asking you what features a fossil would need in order for YOU to accept it as transitional. I have given my requirements. Now it is your turn. Don't cop out.

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.

Why does that prevent them from being transitionals?

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.

Why does that prevent Sediba from being transitional?

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.

You have claimed that they are NOT transitional. Where have you presented the criteria that you are using to determine this? Nowhere. I it quite obvious that there is no fossil that would ever fit your criteria, because you have none. You have dogmatic beliefs, not a defensible argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

You actually might want to present some evidence proving that they really are intermediates.

How can we do that when creationists can not even tell us what an intermediate should look like? When creationists tell us what features an intermediate should or should not have then we will have a reason to present the fossils.

The title of this thread is "What proof would you need?". It is asking what features a fossil would need in order for you to accept it as transitional in this particular instance. So what is it? Or does the evidence even matter?

We have the same evidence btw.

However, it seems that the definition of transitional is quite different between the camps, or really non-existent in the creationist camp.

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

So what features would make it so?

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

You look to see if the fossil has a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. In this case, a mixture of human and chimp features. Is this the same definition that creationists are using?

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.

This is no different than what evolution predicts. Evolution produces a nested hierarchy meaning that you will always be in the same taxon as your ancestors. Humans evolved from a shared ancestor with chimps. That ancestor was an ape. Chimps and humans are still apes. Humans also evolved from a common ancestor with bears. That common ancestor was a placental mammal. Humans and bears are still placental mammals. See how that works?

 

[Split Rock]

The point is
1.You cannot explain why the fossil evidence did support ancestry to a chimp-like creature and now ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp.
2. You cannot articulate what an intermediate should look like
3. You cannot explain why Ardi, Homo Habils and Turkana Boy, as well as many other skulls all look the same, with no more variation than we see in race or breed.

.

You really see no difference? Why are you even comparing a juvenile like Turkana boy to the others anyway? Here's an adult female skull of H. ergaster:
http://www.southernbiological.com/Assets/images/Products/Models/BoneClones/BH011.jpg
See no difference with Ardi? http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jan-feb/29/ardi.jpg

Here is a graph showing average cranium size. Can you explain that away?
http://brainmind.com/images/brainEvolution456.jpg

Here's another: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_brains.html

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Nope. The direct comparison between human and chimp DNA shows that the two genomes differ by 98.5% when looking at base substitutions and 95% when insertions and deletions are considered. Those are the facts. Finding that genes differ by 6% is a different measurement. Genes make up a small percentage of the genome (~3% if memory serves).

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

You can call it whatever you want. The point is that it is a belief, not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested or falsified. Common design can not explain the nested hierarchy, nor can it explain the pattern of shared characteristics found in the fossil record. Evolution can explain these observations in a testable and falsifiable manner. That's the difference.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here we go again a woffler that is making ridiculous claims without an ability to answer some simple questions.

Says the person who can not list the features that a transitional fossil should and should not have. You claim that there are no transitionals. How did you determine this? What are the criteria that you are using? I have listed the criteria I am using, now it is your turn. Don't cop out.

Evolutionists like nothing better than to show creationists how it is.

Oh the irony. I keep asking you over and over for YOUR definition of transitional. Yours, not mine. I am trying to get you to tell me how it is, but you won't. Why is that?

Or maybe a simpler question will suffice. Why do basal ape features in hominids disqualify them as transitionals? You keep pointing to ape-like features and then claiming that they are not transitional because they have ape-like features. Are you saying that a transitional needs to be identical to modern humans? Are you saying that a real transitional will lack transitional features?

These fossils are your evidence and you are unable to defend them as any sort of human ancestor or relative.

H. erectus has chimp-like features that no modern human has. H. erectus has modern human features that no chimp has. H. erectus is transitional. Consider it defended.

If a mixture of chimp and human features is not transitional in your book, then you need to tell us what definition you are using becuase it differs from the one that all scientists are using.

If my point is correct (please look back on my fossil evidence that demonstrates the same species misrepresented as some line of evolution. I will repost if you like) then indeed you have NO fossil evidence in support of ancestry to a chimp like creature or anything else. Rather, if Ardi through to Erectus are all the same, Ardi being an ape with ape feet, then what you actually have is evidence for creation. No intermediates supports a creative prediction, not an evolutionary one. Ardi's skull looks just like habilis and Turkana Boy. There is no evolution.

So a transitional has to be identical to modern humans according to your definition? Any feature that is more like other apes than the same feature found in humans automatically disqualifies the fossil as intermediate? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Split Rock]

So a transitional has to be identical to modern humans according to your definition? Any feature that is more like other apes than the same feature found in humans automatically disqualifies the fossil as intermediate? Is that what you are saying?

I think she is using the standard creationist technique of pointing to contoversies in determing how many different species the transitional fossils fall into as an indication that there are none. Its a dumb argument, but one often used along side of "X is just an ape and Y is just a human."