• 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.

What proof would you need?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married


No actually SHE is asking you to defend your science which apparently you lot are unable to do.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married


Here we go again the same old same old asides, ignorance and evasion.

The criteria I used to demonstrate this is to put the bloddy fossils up along side each other that demonstrates they are all alike. You lot come up with all sorts of woffle when all one has to do is open their eyes. It is up to you lot that reckon you know so much to refute me. You haven't.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married


Loudmouth....This is where you abandoned the disussion. It was after you demanded a description from me of an intermediate, when you yourself are unable to articulate a description yourself yet you are happy to go along with the revolving door of human fossils. Intermediate to what exactly are they? You do not know what the common ancestor looked like. Instead you posted a representative picture which has the value of zilch as the Habilis skull looks just like Ardis skull, sketches are flawed... and there is no evolution. Small diffferences are similar to individual differences in any species. Dentition and jaws are related to environment and diet.

Now stop goosing around and explain why these skulls above demonstrated no more than variation within race or breed. They are all much the same. There is no evolution. There is no brain expansion, there is only libraries of woffle and misrepresentation. There is also no need for pages and pages and libraries of bull when quite clearly they are all the same. This is why you lot love this stuff. It is all based on bull twoddle and complicated nonsense which is what it takes to turn clear evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery.

If observed evidence for creation will not get you to reconsider, then nothing will.

I'll let you off the other questions as quite clearly you have no idea.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No actually SHE is asking you to defend your science which apparently you lot are unable to do.

Defend it from what? What exactly is your point? That scientists can be wrong and have made mistakes before, that we don't know 100% of everything related to evolution, that there is still controversy over who the human ancestors are? Is that it?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Loudmouth....This is where you abandoned the disussion. It was after you demanded a description from me of an intermediate, when you yourself are unable to articulate a description yourself . . .

I have articulated it in several posts now. Here is a quote from a post just a few above this one:

"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."

Specifically, the chimp-like features are a smaller cranium and pronounced eye brow ridges. The human-like features are the pelvis and pretty much the rest of the skeleton past the head. H. erectus has a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features which makes it transitional.

There is my definition and articulation. Now it is your turn. Don't cop out.

You do not know what the common ancestor looked like.

But I do know what chimps and humans look like, and I know what the fossils look like. Therefore, I can predict that a hominid transitional should have a mixture of chimp and human featuers just like H. erectus has.

Instead you posted a representative picture which has the value of zilch as the Habilis skull looks just like Ardis skull, sketches are flawed... and there is no evolution.

Evidence for a lack of evolution please.

Small diffferences are similar to individual differences in any species. Dentition and jaws are related to environment and diet.

I guess you are ignoring the differences between humans, other Homo species, and Australopithecines? The differences are pretty obvious.

Now stop goosing around and explain why these skulls above demonstrated no more than variation within race or breed.

You yourself have admitted that H. erectus is outside of H. sapiens values. That is what makes it transitional. It has chimp-like features that are outside of modern human values, such as the brow ridges and smaller cranium.
There is no evolution.

Evidence please.

There is no brain expansion,

So you are saying that the Australopithecines have a brain the same size as modern humans, or the same as H. erectus? You would be wrong if you made such a claim.

There is also no need for pages and pages and libraries of bull when quite clearly they are all the same.

Show me one H. erectus that is the same as one A. afarensis. Just one.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Here we go again the same old same old asides, ignorance and evasion.

Says the person who won't answer a single question I ask even when I answer her questions multiple times.


These are all a single species?




Please explain how all of these can be the same species.
 
Upvote 0

Orogeny

Trilobite me!
Feb 25, 2010
1,599
54
✟24,590.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The criteria I used to demonstrate this is to put the bloddy fossils up along side each other that demonstrates they are all alike.
Setting two things next to each other, seeing that they share some similarities, and saying 'Yup, they're the same thing' is not a criterion. I could put a lime, a citron, and an orange next to each other, and they would share many more features than not. Yet this does not make them the same species. Your criterion racks rigor, so it fails.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married



Afarensis from Wiki. Then Ardi along side




An example of an Erectus from Wiki.


Erectus from Wiki



Turkana Boy


Turkana Boy


A Female Bornean Orang.



Female Chimp skull and there is much variation.

The point of course being that none of them look human or even nearly human.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Says the person who won't answer a single question I ask even when I answer her questions multiple times.



These are all a single species?




Please explain how all of these can be the same species.


I did not say every single fossil you lot offer up in this silly line up are all the same species. I did say that the skulls I offered up demonstrate the same species traits with no more variation than we see in mankinds races today back to Ardi.

Even you know this lot of skulls above are not all human ancestors. You can see how easy it is to misrepresent any fossil to align with the current thinking and flavour of the month as in 1470, Habils. It is very likely that many of these are misrepresented, including Turkana Boy that was reconstructed from crushed pieces. Even with a biased reconstruction they all still look like apes apart from the homo sapiens. Even the Neanderthal are not good examples in this line up. "L" is obviously another misconstruction with a flatter face than even mankind has today. That reminds me of the 1470 debarkle. "J" has the same brain case as "D".

Indeed your researchers have no idea which may or may not be in the human line. They have just thrown them all in there and hoped for the best. Hence you lot are unable to describe what any transitional human, what any transitional chimp, what any transitional ornag, should look like. Hence you have stuff all evidence for ornag or chimp ancestry. Chimps and orangs, and likely other ape ancestors, are no doubt represented in your lovely, yet misrepresentative, line of fossils.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married


Your criterion changes like the wind and fossil no 1470 is just one example of it.

You lot come up with all sorts of nonsense trying to demonstrate mankind evolved from another creature.

Indeed you lot used the same line up to demonstrate mankinds evolution from something like a chimp as well as ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp eg Ardi.

Sediba instead of africanus.
Possibly Pivotal Human Ancestor Debated - Science News


That is really all I need to say on the matter.

Your researchers get their algorithms out and start crunching traits turned into numbers. What is more close to what they try to figure out. This is all based on the assumption of ancestry. Take the assumption away and what you have is a bunch of apes that resemble each other and mankind that stands alone.
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You lot come up with all sorts of nonsense trying to demonstrate mankind evolved from another creature.
You believe that a man was created by magic from dirt and we are simply progeny of that event.

I accept that we are progeny of a long line of living beings. A very, very long line. The one thing we all have in common is that our parents lived long enough to give birth to us. Now go backward in time. Go back. Your grandparents... follow the line. How far back can you imagine? Double it. Keep going. Person after person fighting to survive. Eventually not living in towns or houses but living around fires. Perhaps in caves.

Now... here's the thing. I know you don't believe it. Frankly, that's your loss. The earth is over four and a half BILLION years old. As we make fossil finds back in time we stop finding human fossils. Why? Why aren't they around? As the fossils get older they get... different. Did a god just create different animals at different times and then erase them and start over again and again and again? Or... did life just change? Are the fossils we find at different times in the past simply our ancestors, or the ancestors of the life we see around us? Or... perhaps just ancestors of life that has gone extinct?

I accept that the men who lived in those caves, they were my ancestors. Tens of thousands of years before your myth says they were to have been there. And before them came other life. As you keep doubling the span that you can conceive of you start to see how life can change. How the fossils we find are the ancestors of life that exists today. And that's what we have in common. All our ancestors lived. They didn't die as children, they didn't get eaten, they didn't die a million different ways before they had kids.

The fact that you can't accept evolution just shows you can't open your mind to such astounding panoramas as this. The vast history of millions of years containing trillions of generations of life.

Ok... your loss.

Indeed you lot used the same line up to demonstrate mankinds evolution from something like a chimp as well as ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp eg Ardi.
Yup. Sorry... you don't get it.

That is really all I need to say on the matter.
Right. 6,000 years and magic. I get it. Tiny little mind.

You really shouldn't try to make fun of what you don't understand.
 
Upvote 0

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
45
✟31,514.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
You lot come up with all sorts of nonsense trying to demonstrate mankind evolved from another creature.

And this is somehow unreasonable compared to believing that man was literally poofed into existence by a god?
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
No actually SHE is asking you to defend your science which apparently you lot are unable to do.

I guess that's why you ignored the links I provided showing how average cranium size increased over the course of hominid evolution.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,650
52,516
Guam
✟5,129,449.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I guess that's why you ignored the links I provided showing how average cranium size increased over the course of hominid evolution.
Haven't we been through this?
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I thought you're point was they all looked the same. Obviously they do not. Now you claim none of them look human. Of course none of them look human... they aren't! They are transitional between non-human ape and human. H. erectus, for example, looks more human than A. aferensis. No one is claiming it IS human.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single

It is an inference, not an assumption. And if you take that inference away, "all you have" is a bunch of apes who walked upright and made tools like humans do.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Well that's great. You have just offered a description that falsifies all your proposed ancestors. Why? Because the common ancestor is not chimp like.

Not chimp like in what way? Brow ridges like a chimp? Yep. Prognathus like a chimp? Yep. A pelvic girdle somewhere between humans and chimps? Check.

So what exactly has been falsified?

As you see in the fossil skulls presented they are all the same.

No, they aren't. For example, H. erectus has a larger cranium than Australopithecines. Also, the foramen magnum in H. erectus is closer to humans than it is in Australopithecines. There are many differences between the skulls, and H. erectus is closer to humans than Australopithecines making H. erectus transitional between modern humans and Australopithecines.

In the rest of the skeleton we can see major differences between Austropithecines and H. erectus. For example, the chest is more human-like in H. erectus (barrel shaped) than the chimp-like chest found in Australopithecines (funnel shaped). The arm length is more human like in H. erectus. There are a ton of differences between H. erectus and Australopithecines with H. erectus being more human-like and Australopithecines being more chimp-like.

If this is not transitional, then please tell us what features a real transitional will have. I have listed the features that I think are transitional. Now it is your turn. Don't cop out.

However in the examples I put up this is not the case. They are all much the same and the brain case is proportionally the same in all of them.


This is clearly false (brain size, foramen magnum, and we can throw in semicircular canals as another example), and there are major differences in the post-cranial skeleton that you are also ignoring such as the ones listed above and others in addition such as wrist morphology.

Sorry, but ignoring the differences completely defeats your argument.

The other evidence from your own researchers that supports my claim as opposed to yours is that Ardi and Lucy have been dethroned and are no longer human ancestors.

There is no way to tell which fossils are ancestors or descendants of another. What can be determined is if they are transitional or not. I have listed my criteria, now it is your turn. Don't cop out.

What you should be putting up is that you do not know. That is actually the truth. I cannot use chimp like features at all as Ardi, if he is anything like an ancesor at all, is not like a chimp at all.

Brow ridges, prognathus, and small cranium say otherwise. Those are chimp features. Period.

I see that you have copped out again. You said that you would give us a list of features that a real transitional should have. Where is that list? Still evading I see.

Anything chimp like cannot be a human ancestor as the one thing evolutionary researchers maintain is that the common ancestor was NOT like a chimpanzee.


You are absolutely wrong. What you confused two things. Researchers have stated that the common ancestor was probably more bipedal than chimps. This DOES NOT mean that the common ancestor was completely unlike chimps. You are equivocating. Bipedal does not equal not chimp-like. There is more to a chimp than just their pelvis.

Another example is wrist morphology. A chimp has a structure in their wrist that locks it in place for knucklewalking. Australopithecines have this feature:

Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER 20419)11 and A. afarensis (AL 288-1)12 retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking. This distal radial morphology differs from that of later hominids and non-knuckle-walking anthropoid primates, suggesting that knuckle-walking is a derived feature of the African ape and human clade.
Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER 20419)11 and A. afarensis (AL 288-1)12 retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking. This distal radial morphology differs from that of later hominids and non-knuckle-walking anthropoid primates, suggesting that knuckle-walking is a derived feature of the African ape and human clade.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v404/n6776/full/404382a0.html?free=2
So we have a chimp like wrist in Australopithecines that are lacking in Homo species, including modern humans. Nothing like chimps you say? How wrong you are.

Well they cannot becuase chimps supposedly evolved from a creature that indeed looks nothing like a chimp.


How much longer are you going to keep telling this porky?

I have put up a line of skulls that demonstrate there is no evolution.


You left out the changes in the foramen magnum, prognathus, and cranium size. Once those are included, there is evolution seen in those fossils. How strange, a creationist who leaves out data that falsifies creationism. Hmf.

I am saying that erectus has the same shape braincase as Ardi, Habilis, afarensis.

It is not the same size. The cranium size for H. erectus is intermediate between modern humans and Australopithecines.


The point of course being that none of them look human or even nearly human.

What a laugh. H. erectus is so much like modern humans that many creationists classify them as H. sapiens.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,650
52,516
Guam
✟5,129,449.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm sure we have.
QV starting here please:
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

So basically you have gone on and on with your opinion and had nothing to say that refutes me. WELL DONE! That is definitely the sort of evolutionist I like to waste my time responding to!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.