What proof would you need?

[Astridhere]

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

Actually this is fine as you lot believe a living factory poofed into existence by itself, something evolutionists like to hand wave away.

I believe an almighty God can 'poof'. You believe dead non living matter can 'poof'. I still see myself as having the upper hand.

 

[Astridhere]

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

You can't hold anything in your memory for 5 minutes. There is no point speaking with you.

 

[Astridhere]

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.

Remember..obviously not, this post was a reply to other points. Like I said there is no point speaking with you.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact that you cannot defend your science adequately demonstrates whom has the upper hand here.

Says the person who can not even list the criteria creationists use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not.

We don't need to defend the science from those who are in denial. The science has clearly shown that these fossils are transitional. You have not offered a single piece of evidence demonstrating that they are not transitional, including a single set of criteria to show that they are not transitional.

Thus far, your only argument against this evidence is to find features in transitionals that are more like other apes than modern humans. In other words, you are arguing that transitional features in fossils disqualify them as being transitional. You cite any deviation from modern humans as evidence against a fossil being transitional as if a transitional should be identical to modern humans.

Science does not need to defend itself against those who blindly reject conclusions based on religious beliefs. Science does not reject transitional fossils because they have transitional features, which is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually this is fine as you lot believe a living factory poofed into existence by itself, something evolutionists like to hand wave away.

I guess you have never heard of biological reproduction?

I believe an almighty God can 'poof'. You believe dead non living matter can 'poof'. I still see myself as having the upper hand.

You are equivocating again. We are talking about evolution, not abiogenesis.

 

[Astridhere]

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.

Three posts and nothing to say. In fact tool use by some homonids is now being revised due to a lck of ability to grasp. ...Surprised. I am not!

Apes use tools now..so what? This is another straw grab just like bipedalism being tied to brain increase has been falsified.

Humans have been around since Lucy as the Laetoli footprints suggest.

 

[Doveaman]

And for the record, what happened to the wealth of evidence that supported Phlogiston or prenatal Thalidomide?

Remember, in science a flawed theory can also be supported by a wealth of evidence.

 

[Doveaman]

There is only one theory of evolution.

You need to get out more.

Would you state what you think the definition of a scientific theory is?

Speculations that become a belief.

 

[Doveaman]

We all evolved from Kunta Kinte?

So the black race survived all those millions of years, eh?

How disgusting and offensive.

To who?

It is this so-called ‘intermediate human’ that is disgusting and offensive:

 

[razeontherock]

I believe an almighty God can 'poof'. You believe dead non living matter can 'poof'. I still see myself as having the upper hand.

And here's the thing: G-d "poofing" would look exactly like inorganic matter poofing. Science merely observes the hand of God

 

[Doveaman]

I believe an almighty God can 'poof'. You believe dead non living matter can 'poof'. I still see myself as having the upper hand.

And here's the thing: G-d "poofing" would look exactly like inorganic matter poofing. Science merely observes the hand of God

 

[Astridhere]

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?

Listen up. If your fossils show evidence of chimp like features and the common ancestor was not chimp like then it is quite easy to extrapolate that chimp traited fossils are relatives of chimps.

Then you have to overcome the hurdle of an ornag having more in common with mankind than a chimp. You have to wave this away in favour of DNA.

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.
No, that is what you lot assert. The skulls demonstrate a different picture.
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.
Let's stick to skulls. Really you have no idea because your fossils are often pieced together from different individuals. Turkana Boy was found in pieces over an area and assumed to be the same individual. Turkana Boy was not capable of sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability. These are the hallmarks of mankind, not the shape of a reconstructed and biased skeleton that can be reconfigured in many ways from pieces.

Evos are the only ones that accept dim witted apes can light fires, which is a complex task.
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.

Again, I am not going to sort out your scenarios for you. Your definition is as good as any because your researchers cannot agree on anything, including fossil classification.

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.

Hey you have bipeds 8myo while the common split date is 5mya. It appears chimps evolvd from bipeds. Maybe all of todays apes evolved from bipeds. You have no idea. Turkana Boy demonstrates an ape head that appears to be in no way human. Evos can go on about this and that and dismiss the obvious which is the Turkana Boy skull looks like an apes and was not capable of sophisticated speech due to evidence of a small neural canal. He is not human, could not light fires and used tools no more than apes do today.

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.


Look at the link below
Brow ridges, prognathus, and small cranium say otherwise. Those are chimp features. Period.
These are also features of orangs and other apes.
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.

I did not say I would list anything. I said I'd offer a definition and as I stated I am happy with yours.
You nor I can give a plausible defintion of an intermediate because you have no idea what you are comparing an intermediate to. It used to be chimp like, now with Ardi that is rubbish. If apes were bipeds before the split and bipedalism is a human trait then chimps may well have descended from humans according to this myth.


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.
However we share more in common with an orangutan. Convergent evolution again I suppose.
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.

This is all nonsense really. Look at all the banter and debate about it.

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

We have selected 17 osteological features that were most likely present in the hand of Pan-Homo LCA (Table 1). This initial reconstruction is based purely on extant comparative data. Many of the selected features are shared by out-groups to the hominins (the Asian apes and in some cases other non-hominid primates), and these features are strongly supported as homologies by parsimony (Fig. 2). Other selections assume that most features shared by Gorilla and Pan are probably homologous and thus would have appeared in the Gorilla-Pan-Homo LCA (Fig. 2, Node 3) and in the Pan-Homo LCA (Fig. 2, Node 4). It is possible that such features may be homoplastic in Pan and Gorilla if they are adaptively related to the shared behavior of knuckle-walking. However, the appearance of these features in the hominin clade would provide very strong evidence of their homology (Richmond & Strait, 2000; Richmond et al. 2001). We have left out several features (e.g. related to the ulnar portion of the wrist, metacarpophalangeal and interphalangeal joint morphology) that we think require more detailed, quantitative morphological assessments before reasonable inferences about their evolution can be made. In certain cases, we have also left out features that have been described as synapomorphies of the African apes such as the ‘knuckle-walking ridges’ on the metacarpal heads of Pan and Gorilla(Tuttle, 1967, 1969b). Such features are probably homoiologies.
The evolutionary history of the hominin hand since the last common ancestor of Pan and Homo

This is the algorithmic nonsense your data is comprised of



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.

There is more debate about the foramen magnum that I care to speak to here.

There is great overlap....

Actually, the article does not place a great emphasis on the anterioposterior position of the foramen magnum. This is sensible, because chimpanzees and australopithecines overlap considerably in this position compared to other basicranial landmarks like the bicarotid line. TM 266 is within the region of overlap, both in the original distorted version and in the reconstructed version.

Thoughts on the Sahelanthropus reconstruction | john hawks weblog

This is not science. It is straw grabbing based on the myth of common descent

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


Well the skulls demonstrate brain case size all over the place. It is algorithms that come up with brain sizes..not science.

What a laugh. H. erectus is so much like modern humans that many creationists classify them as H. sapiens.
That is their one big mistake. One just has to look at Turkana Boy, the changing of their view based on the twoddle offered by evo researchers. Turkana Boy is an ape, even by biased reconstruction and is more likely a Leakey fraud. These are experienced at misrepresentation eg rudolfensis

After all that you may like to read this...

Erectus unhinged - debates over human ancestors - Cover Story

In contrast, the earliest H. sapiens specimens display marked increases in brain size, changes in cranial bones that signify shifts in brain organization, and a more flexed cranial based, indicating a vocal tract capable of producing a greater variety of speech sounds -- all signs of substantial genetic changes that produced a new species in a relatively short time, Rightmire holds.
Another study, conducted by Steven R. Leigh of Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., lends some support to Rightmire's contention that a measurable split occurs between H. erectus and H. sapiens. Leigh examined 20 H. erectus skulls from Africa, China and Indonesia that span a broad time range, as well as 10 early H. sapiens skulls. Significant expansion of brain size from the oldest to the most recent specimens occurs in the latter group, whereas the three regional samples of H. erectus show no such increases, Leigh reports in the January AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY.
Thoughts on the Sahelanthropus reconstruction | john hawks weblog


The article demonstrates the debate and straw grabbing in an effort to make apes out of men.

Chimp traits should denote chimp ancestors. Orang traits should denote orang ancestry. If all this hulabaloo had any credibility then your ancestry would be to an orangutan.

If your science was not such a muddle of terms to address anomolies you would have no science at all.

 

[Orogeny]

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.

You keep saying these things, but don't provide any evidence or reason WHY we're wrong. Would you please choose a couple of 'my' criteria, list them, and then list what it is that makes them invalid?

 

[Loudmouth]

Listen up. If your fossils show evidence of chimp like features and the common ancestor was not chimp like then it is quite easy to extrapolate that chimp traited fossils are relatives of chimps.

Then show us the common ancestor and show how the common ancestor had not chimp like features. As it stands, a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features meets the criteria of the definition for transitional fossil.

Then you have to overcome the hurdle of an ornag having more in common with mankind than a chimp.

Why would I have to overcome a hurdle that doesn't exist? We also have transitional fossils with a mixture of chimp and human features, not human and orang features. We also have genetic evidence demonstrating that chimps are more closely related to humans than orangs. The fossil evidence matches the genetic evidence. These transitional fossils falsify creationism.

No, that is what you lot assert. The skulls demonstrate a different picture.

The skulls demonstrate a larger cranium for H. erectus than A. afarensis:

• Ardipithecus ramidus: ca. 300-350 cc.

• Australopithecus. afarensis: 390-500 cc; av. 440 cc

• A. africanus: 435-530 cc; av. 450 cc

• A./P robustus: 520 cc, one specimen

• A.P. boisei: 500-530 cc; av. 515 cc.
• H. habilis: 500-800 cc; av. 680 cc.
• H. erectus: 750-1250 cc; av. 1000 cc
• Neanderthal: 1300-1750 cc. av: 1450
• H. (s.) sapiens: 900-2350 cc. av. 1400
• Fossil Hominins: From Ardipithecus to Homo

​

H. erectus is right in between Australopithecines and modern humans. You know, transitional.

Let's stick to skulls. Really you have no idea because your fossils are often pieced together from different individuals. Turkana Boy was found in pieces over an area and assumed to be the same individual.

This baloney is not going to fly. We are comparing species to species. This includes the entire morphology of the entire species. You don't get to invent fantasies in order to ignore the evidence.

Again, I am not going to sort out your scenarios for you. Your definition is as good as any because your researchers cannot agree on anything, including fossil classification.

I see that you can not defend your claim that these fossils are not transitional. This means that they are transitional.

Hey you have bipeds 8myo while the common split date is 5mya. It appears chimps evolvd from bipeds. Maybe all of todays apes evolved from bipeds.

And that is a problem how?

These are also features of orangs and other apes.

Well whatdya know, a transitional between basal apes and modern humans that has basal ape features. Isn't that EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD SEE?

Turkana Boy demonstrates an ape head that appears to be in no way human.

Humans also have ape heads BECAUSE HUMANS ARE APES. Perhaps you should visit my thread entitled "What Horses?" to better understand the mistake you keep making. Also, you are once again pointing to transitional features. A transitional should have a head more like a basal ape. That's the entire point. That is what makes it transitional.

Or are you once again arguing that a transitional fossil should be identical to modern humans?

I did not say I would list anything. I said I'd offer a definition and as I stated I am happy with yours.

Then H. erectus is transitional. I guess we can end this discussion.

This is all nonsense really. Look at all the banter and debate about it.

How can you debate something if you leave it out of your analysis?

This is the algorithmic nonsense your data is comprised of

Denial isn't helping your argument.

There is more debate about the foramen magnum that I care to speak to here.

There is great overlap....

In order to assess the effectiveness of anteroposterior foramen magnum position in distinguishing hominids from nonhominid apes, this study examined whether or not the positions of biporion and bicarotid relative to basion sufficiently distinguished Pan troglodytes from recent Homo sapiens and Plio-Pleistocene hominids. The distances from basion to the biporion chord (BSBIP) and from basion to the bicarotid chord (BSBIC) were measured on samples of chimpanzee (n = 69) and recent human (n = 42) crania and a sample of Plio-Pleistocene hominid fossils (n = 8). The data were used to test the hypothesis that BSBIP and BSBIC measurements do not sufficiently distinguish P. troglodytes from hominids. While basion to biporion (BSBIP) does not effectively distinguish P. troglodytes from Plio-Pleistocene hominids and humans when used univariately, basion to bicarotid (BSBIC), when used univariately or bivariately with BSBIP, can be used to test whether or not an unknown specimen is a hominid. These results are used to evaluate the hominid status of Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus.
Foramen magnum position variation in Pan troglodytes, Plio-Pleistocene hominids, and recent Homo sapiens: Implications for recognizing the earliest hominids - Ahern - 2004 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library

​

Hmm, it seems that these fossils are more like humans than other apes. I guess this means they are human, right?

Well the skulls demonstrate brain case size all over the place. It is algorithms that come up with brain sizes..not science.

Ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.

After all that you may like to read this...

Erectus unhinged - debates over human ancestors - Cover Story

In contrast, the earliest H. sapiens specimens display marked increases in brain size, changes in cranial bones that signify shifts in brain organization, and a more flexed cranial based, indicating a vocal tract capable of producing a greater variety of speech sounds -- all signs of substantial genetic changes that produced a new species in a relatively short time, Rightmire holds.
Another study, conducted by Steven R. Leigh of Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., lends some support to Rightmire's contention that a measurable split occurs between H. erectus and H. sapiens. Leigh examined 20 H. erectus skulls from Africa, China and Indonesia that span a broad time range, as well as 10 early H. sapiens skulls. Significant expansion of brain size from the oldest to the most recent specimens occurs in the latter group, whereas the three regional samples of H. erectus show no such increases, Leigh reports in the January AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY.
Thoughts on the Sahelanthropus reconstruction | john hawks weblog

How does this disqualify H. erectus as a transitional? Can I also show the differences between contemporary cranial sizes in chihuahuas and wolves as evidence that they do not share a common ancestor? Are you saying that H. erectus needs the same cranial size as modern humans in order to be transitional?

 

[Loudmouth]

It is this so-called ‘intermediate human’ that is disgusting and offensive:

This is as close as creationists have come to actually defining what an intermediate should look like. Go figure.

 

[Psudopod]

Listen up. If your fossils show evidence of chimp like features and the common ancestor was not chimp like then it is quite easy to extrapolate that chimp traited fossils are relatives of chimps.

Which common ancestor are you talking about? Sure, if you go back far enough you'll find a creature with no chimp characteristics, but we're discussing hominids. Hominids which bare both human and chimp traits.

Then you have to overcome the hurdle of an ornag having more in common with mankind than a chimp. You have to wave this away in favour of DNA.

By what standards? Genetics, measurable morphology? Or Astridhere thinks Turkana boy looks more like an orang than a chimp?

Turkana Boy was not capable of sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability. These are the hallmarks of mankind,

You're clearly still labouring under the misunderstanding that having extra features excludes something from a classification. Daffadils have big yellow flowers but they're still plants Asdridhere. Dalmations have spots but they are still dogs. Sophisticated speech does not preclude humans from being apes.

Again, I am not going to sort out your scenarios for you. Your definition is as good as any because your researchers cannot agree on anything, including fossil classification.

So you'll accept his definition of transitional? Okay, show how the fossils discussed are not transitional then.

You nor I can give a plausible defintion of an intermediate because you have no idea what you are comparing an intermediate to. It used to be chimp like, now with Ardi that is rubbish. If apes were bipeds before the split and bipedalism is a human trait then chimps may well have descended from humans according to this myth.

Yes we can. Chimps are the closest relative of humans living today. Thus at some point our ancestors were the same, so would share morphologic similarities between the two species. In much the same way that Italian and French languages are decended from Latin, a laguage which is neither, but shares similarities with both.

Ardi is not rubbish. Ardi may not be ancestral, but that doesn't make it rubbish.

Have you ever seen a chimp wading though deep water? It's pretty much bidedal motion.

There is great overlap....

Actually, the article does not place a great emphasis on the anterioposterior position of the foramen magnum. This is sensible, because chimpanzees and australopithecines overlap considerably in this position compared to other basicranial landmarks like the bicarotid line. TM 266 is within the region of overlap, both in the original distorted version and in the reconstructed version.

Thoughts on the Sahelanthropus reconstruction | john hawks weblog

Please explain why overlap of features is a problem.

Well the skulls demonstrate brain case size all over the place. It is algorithms that come up with brain sizes..not science.

Evidence please? Have you got a list of recoded cranial capacities that show this "all over the place" pattern?

Turkana Boy is an ape, even by biased reconstruction and is more likely a Leakey fraud. These are experienced at misrepresentation eg rudolfensis

No one's disputing he's an ape! It would be much more problematic if an transitional between humans and other apes wasn't an ape!

Now, any evidence that Leaky fabricated this fossil? It's not nice to throw around accusations with no evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have defined a transitional hominid fossil as a fossil containing human-like and chimp-like features. I have shown that Australopithecines and other Homo species have a mixture of human-like and chimp-like features. They fit the definition I am using.

If creationists disagree with this definition then now is the time to offer up the definition we should be using. If you disagree, tell us what differences we should see between modern humans and a real transitional.

 

[AV1611VET]

Remember, in science a flawed theory can also be supported by a wealth of evidence.

Thank you -- that is so true!

 

[Split Rock]

Remember..obviously not, this post was a reply to other points. Like I said there is no point speaking with you.

And you continue to ignore my points... how surprising! You are right... there is no point in discussing anything with you. You're head is stuck in the dirt. Bye-Bye!

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank you -- that is so true!

So do you reject the scientific theory that thalidomide causes birth defects?