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.
And this is somehow unreasonable compared to believing that man was literally poofed into existence by a god?
I guess that's why you ignored the links I provided showing how average cranium size increased over the course of hominid evolution.
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.
The fact that you cannot defend your science adequately demonstrates whom has the upper hand here.
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.
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!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.
Remember, in science a flawed theory can also be supported by a wealth of evidence.And for the record, what happened to the wealth of evidence that supported Phlogiston or prenatal Thalidomide?
You need to get out more.There is only one theory of evolution.
Speculations that become a belief.Would you state what you think the definition of a scientific theory is?
To who?How disgusting and offensive.We all evolved from Kunta Kinte?
So the black race survived all those millions of years, eh?
I believe an almighty God can 'poof'. You believe dead non living matter can 'poof'. I still see myself as having the upper hand.
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
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.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.
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
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
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?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.
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.
No, that is what you lot assert. The skulls demonstrate a different picture.
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.
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.
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.
These are also features of orangs and other apes.
Turkana Boy demonstrates an ape head that appears to be in no way human.
I did not say I would list anything. I said I'd offer a definition and as I stated I am happy with yours.
This is all nonsense really. Look at all the banter and debate about it.
This is the algorithmic nonsense your data is comprised of
There is more debate about the foramen magnum that I care to speak to here.
There is great overlap....
Well the skulls demonstrate brain case size all over the place. It is algorithms that come up with brain sizes..not science.
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
It is this so-called intermediate human that is disgusting and offensive:
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.
Turkana Boy was not capable of sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability. These are the hallmarks of mankind,
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.
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.
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
Well the skulls demonstrate brain case size all over the place. It is algorithms that come up with brain sizes..not science.
Turkana Boy is an ape, even by biased reconstruction and is more likely a Leakey fraud. These are experienced at misrepresentation eg rudolfensis
Thank you -- that is so true!Remember, in science a flawed theory can also be supported by a wealth of evidence.
Remember..obviously not, this post was a reply to other points. Like I said there is no point speaking with you.
Thank you -- that is so true!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?