What proof would you need?

[Loudmouth]

Fair enough -- hypotheses don't do this:

... Thalidomide does.

How did you determine that thalidomide does this?

 

[Loudmouth]

I know that. That's why I said a "scientific" theory is speculations that become a belief.

False. It is where hypotheses are tested. Once tested, they become part of larger theories.

Or do you really think that germs causing disease is just speculation that has become a belief? Gravity? Are atoms also just a belief? Are you really saying that you reject all scientific theories?

You make observations and speculate on them.

False. You make an observation, construct a hypothesis, and then test it. It is the testing part that makes it science and different from the strawman version of science that you are trying to construct.

Really? So we fall down because of a theory?

Falling down is the observation. The theory is that it is caused by gravity. Do you reject this theory?

 

[Astridhere]

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.


I am sick of explaining this Loudmouth. It is not hard for the reasoning mind to grasp. The common ancestor is now belived to be nothing like a chimp. Ardi looks nothing like a chimp. Ardi hardly looks like an ape in its representation, or rather misrepresentation. Ardis skull looks just like Habilis skull. They are almost identical. Your habilis is sketched as if it is becoming human, yet Ardi is not. It is all biased nonsense. In fact Ardi may not even resemble the common ancestor and Dawkins thinks Ardi is a gorilla ancestor and most agree Ardi is not in the human line. You have absolutely no idea what you are comparing any fossil to. Therefore any comparison to chimps is nothing more than straw grabbing in desperation.

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.



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.



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.



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



And that is a problem how?



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



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?



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



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



Denial isn't helping your argument.

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?

The post I made demonstrates the likelys, maybe's, probablys and the fact that similarities are ignored. That is the point.

I won't answer every line. What I will do is demonstrate the nonsense you uphold as science below.


Ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.

Yep. I am glad you agree with me. Look below

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?

Here is the latest flavour of the month....

Sediba Hominid Skull Hints at Later Brain Evolution

While some features of Australopithecus sediba were more human-like, most notably the precision-grip hand, the brain was more ape-like, says Emory University anthropologist Dietrich Stout.

The researchers estimate that the brain was 420 cubic centimeters. "That's tiny and about what you'd expect for a chimpanzee," Stout says

While the A. sediba brain clearly was not a human configuration, a surface bump shows possible foreshadowing of Broca's area, a region of the human brain associated with speech and language, Stout says. "It's a big leap, however, to go from a surface bump to really understanding what the cells were doing beneath it," he adds.

Use of simple stone tools by hominids began about 2.5 million years ago. Was A. sediba a toolmaker? Its hands appear associated with that activity, Stout says, but the evidence is still incomplete. "For now, A. sediba raises more questions than it answers."
Sediba hominid skull hints at later brain evolution




Below is what your researchers call ' a more human hand' from Sediba 2mya.


Direct ancestor of Homo genus? Fossils show human-like hand, brain and pelvis in early hominin

This is Ardi demonstrating that indeed Ardi's hand were more humanlike 4.4mya than Sediba, the newest flavour of the month.

The article suggests

"The brain defines humanity, leading early anthropologists to expect that the brain changed first, and then the rest of the body followed," Stout says. "More recently, it has been assumed that the brain and other human traits evolved together."

The A. sediba find suggests a more "mosaic" pattern of evolution, he says. "The more modern hand paired with a primitive brain is a cautionary tale for what inferences can be drawn about a whole body from fossil fragments."

So what you have here is a 2 million year old supposed human ancestor with an ape sized brain with hands less human than Ardi. Go figure!

The brain, it's ability to support higher reasoning ability and sophisticated language are the hallmarks of humanity. Turkana Boy is also on the outer and is not continuous with humanity. Turkan Boys cranial vault appears smaller than Rudolfensis downsized to 526cc. It is only bias, misrepresentation, myth and non plausible scenarios that prop TOE and save it from total and continual falsification.

Sediba does not have chimp like hands, nor human like hands, nor Ardi like hands.

Sediba

Ardipithecus

Sediba and Ardi's skull have the same cranial vault and both demonstrate ape sized brains as the article speaks to.

Turkana Boy has no nasal bone or chin. Now look below. Rudofensis, the Leakey joke, has a downsized brain simply based on the jaw realignment as opposed to the cranial vault. The cranial vault on Rudolfensis is larger than Turkana Boys, yet Turkana Boy is meant to have an almost human sized brain. Rubbish!

The new reconstruction suggests H. rudolfensis' jaw jutted out much farther than previously thought. The researchers say the cranial capacity of a hominid can be estimated based on the angle of the jaw's slope and they have downsized KNM-ER 1470's cranial capacity from 752 cubic centimeters to about 526 cc. (Humans have an average cranial capacity of about 1,300 cc.)


This is exactly what has happend with Turkana Boy. These have reconstructed the jaw according to a preconceived assumption. In fact Turkana Boys skull is the only skull represented on an angle with the jaw line not horizontal, but tilted down to maximise the misrepresentation of its humanity.


This is the kind of nonsense we creationists have to put up with.

There is no evidence of evolution. What you have above is a bunch of apes that your researchers are desperatly trying to humanize without success, except for the gullible that believe in this non plausible nonsense. Gorillas have been found to have a brain size around 600cc. Turkana Boy has no more a large brain than Rudolfensis or Sediba or any ape for that matter.

Evolutionists really have lost the science of observation and allow mythical algorithms and nonsense to rule their world at the expense of the observed and obvious evidence that mankind did not evolve from any ape like creature.
​

 

[Loudmouth]

The beauty of evolutionary theory is no matter what supportive theory you propose there is always research to challenge and debate it.

If only you could challenge it. Rather, you point at transitional features and claim it disqualifies the fossil as transitional. Even worse, you make empty accusations of people putting an ape skull on a human body. This is not debate. This is denial.

Hence what you call science is no more than flavour of the month and just like mankinds knuckle walking ancestry was so 'irrefutable' 10 years ago that only the stupid and ignorant would deny it is now demonstrating exactly whom is stupid and ignorant. That irrefutable evidence now resides in the grand garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past.

All of the fossils discussed in this thread are transitional. They have not been thrown in any garbage bin. The initial theory that the common ancestor was not bipedal has been seriously challenged. This doesn't mean that this falsifies a common ancestor. We still have H. erectus with a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features, exactly what a transitional should have. Your reaction? Point to the transitional features and claim that it disqualifies the fossil as a transitional. It makes no sense.

One difference between evos and creationists is that evolutionists in their desperation will falsify a theory and invent another flavour of the month while creationists call the falsification for what it is... a demonstration that evolutionists will believe anything their Gods propose as long as it is evolutionary.

No flavor of the months here. H. erectus has been transitional since the day it was found. It remains transitional. Nothing has changed.

The research I post from evolutionists demonstrates there is debate and contradiction because you are trying to support a false assumption, that being, common ancestry between man and chimps.

No one is debating whether or not the fossils are transitional. They are. What they are arguing is the precise relationships between the fossils.

 

[Loudmouth]

common ancestor is now belived to be nothing like a chimp. Ardi looks nothing like a chimp.

Both of these are false. First, no one is claiming that the common ancestor looked nothing like chimps. I dare you to find one citation that states this. Second, Ardi does share chimp features such as longer arms, prognathus, larger canines than humans, smaller brain, and brow ridges.

Ardis skull looks just like Habilis skull. They are almost identical.

More porkies from Astrid. The canines are different as well as the brain size, not to mention the postcranial skeleton is much more human like in H. habilis than in Ardi.

You have absolutely no idea what you are comparing any fossil to.

I am comparing it to chimps and humans. You do know what those species look like, don't you?

The post I made demonstrates the likelys, maybe's, probablys and the fact that similarities are ignored. That is the point.

There are no maybes when it comes to the morphological features in these transitional fossils. They have a mixture of chimp and human features. This makes them transitional.

While some features of Australopithecus sediba were more human-like, most notably the precision-grip hand, the brain was more ape-like, says Emory University anthropologist Dietrich Stout.

The researchers estimate that the brain was 420 cubic centimeters. "That's tiny and about what you'd expect for a chimpanzee," Stout says

While the A. sediba brain clearly was not a human configuration, a surface bump shows possible foreshadowing of Broca's area, a region of the human brain associated with speech and language, Stout says. "It's a big leap, however, to go from a surface bump to really understanding what the cells were doing beneath it," he adds.

Use of simple stone tools by hominids began about 2.5 million years ago. Was A. sediba a toolmaker? Its hands appear associated with that activity, Stout says, but the evidence is still incomplete. "For now, A. sediba raises more questions than it answers."
Sediba hominid skull hints at later brain evolution

So A. sebida had a mixture of human-like and chimp-like features. Sounds transitional to me. Remember that defintion you agreed to?

Here is the latest flavour of the month....
Sediba Hominid Skull Hints at Later Brain Evolution

While some features of Australopithecus sediba were more human-like, most notably the precision-grip hand, the brain was more ape-like, says Emory University anthropologist Dietrich Stout.

The researchers estimate that the brain was 420 cubic centimeters. "That's tiny and about what you'd expect for a chimpanzee," Stout says

While the A. sediba brain clearly was not a human configuration, a surface bump shows possible foreshadowing of Broca's area, a region of the human brain associated with speech and language, Stout says. "It's a big leap, however, to go from a surface bump to really understanding what the cells were doing beneath it," he adds.

Use of simple stone tools by hominids began about 2.5 million years ago. Was A. sediba a toolmaker? Its hands appear associated with that activity, Stout says, but the evidence is still incomplete. "For now, A. sediba raises more questions than it answers."
Sediba hominid skull hints at later brain evolution

Below is what your researchers call ' a more human hand' from Sediba 2mya.

Compare that to a chimp hand, why don't you.

Direct ancestor of Homo genus? Fossils show human-like hand, brain and pelvis in early hominin

It is very doubtful that Ardi is a direct ancestor, but there is really no way to tell anyway. What is not in doubt is the transitional nature of Ardi. You do understand what the differences is between transitional and ancestral, don't you?

So what you have here is a 2 million year old supposed human ancestor

with an ape sized brain with hands less human than Ardi. Go figure!

A fossil with a mixture of chimp and human features? Sounds transitional to me.

The brain, it's ability to support higher reasoning ability and sophisticated language are the hallmarks of humanity. Turkana Boy is also on the outer and is not continuous with humanity.

So a transitional fossil has to be identical to modern humans? Since when? Are you really serious about this? Are you really going to say that a transitional between humans and our common ancestor with other apes was identical to modern humans? Really?

Turkana Boy has no nasal bone or chin.

But it does have a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features which makes it a transitional.

The new reconstruction suggests H. rudolfensis' jaw jutted out much farther than previously thought.

So then it has a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features. This makes it a transitional.

The researchers say the cranial capacity of a hominid can be estimated based on the angle of the jaw's slope and they have downsized KNM-ER 1470's cranial capacity from 752 cubic centimeters to about 526 cc. (Humans have an average cranial capacity of about 1,300 cc.)

Baloney. The size of the cranium is determined by the cranial bones.

There is no evidence of evolution.

Yes, there is. We have fossils with a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features, otherwise known as transitional fossils. When you keep pointing to these chimp-like features in combination with a human-like skeleton you are only making my point for me.

 

[Psudopod]

I am sick of explaining this Loudmouth. It is not hard for the reasoning mind to grasp. The common ancestor is now belived to be nothing like a chimp. Ardi looks nothing like a chimp. Ardi hardly looks like an ape in its representation, or rather misrepresentation.

1 - chimps, and humans of course, are apes. Saying it "barely looks like an ape" makes no sense in this context.

2 - why on earth would we expect the ancestor to look exactly like a chimp. It's an ancestor, a completely different species! Finding a modern chimp back that far in evolutionary history would be a problem.

Ardis skull looks just like Habilis skull. They are almost identical. Your habilis is sketched as if it is becoming human, yet Ardi is not.

What about the complete skeleton? Are they completely identical as whole organisms? And why are you moaning about sketches. Address evidence, not art!

It is all biased nonsense. In fact Ardi may not even resemble the common ancestor and Dawkins thinks Ardi is a gorilla ancestor and most agree

I have no idea why you get so hung up on things not being in the ancestoral line. Actaully, I think I do, I think it comes from not being ablew to refute the actual evidence so pointing out disagreements on edge is all you can do to make it appear there's any issues with the theory of evolution.

Anyway, let me put it like this: suppose, when researching your family tree, it initially looks like your great x 5 grandfather was a man named John Doe. Later on you discover evidence that he was not infact your direct ancestor, instead it was Jack Doe. Discovering this doesn't make your family tree false, it doesn't make human reproduction false, it doesn't change anything except your great x 5 grandfather's identity.

Ardi is not in the human line. You have absolutely no idea what you are comparing any fossil to. Therefore any ]comparison to chimps is nothing more than straw grabbing in desperation.

See a previous post of mine. Thanks to genetics, we can work backwards. We know chimps are our closest living relatives, so at some point in history their lived a creature that was not chimp or human, but had features of both. And oh look, that's exactly what we find.

 

[AV1611VET]

How did you determine that thalidomide does this?

My Boolean standards dictates I accept the conclusion of scientists on this one.

 

[Loudmouth]

My Boolean standards dictates I accept the conclusion of scientists on this one.

You having standards would be a first. So what really convinced you that the scientists were right? Could it be . . . oh, I don't know . . . EVIDENCE!!!???

 

[RickG]

There's the evolution theory where present lifeforms evolved from prehistoric lifeforms, and there's the evolution theory where present lifeforms did not evolve from prehistoric lifeforms.

Like I said, there is only one theory of evolution. Creationism has no theory of evolution, only the misrepresentation of what science says about evolution.

I subscribe to the later.
I know that. That's why I said a "scientific" theory is speculations that become a belief.

You make observations and speculate on them. If the speculations are continually supported by new observations, the speculations become a belief.

It appears that your interpretation of of what a scientific theory constitutes is a belief. Science doesn't work on beliefs.

 

[RickG]

The beauty of evolutionary theory is no matter what supportive theory you propose there is always research to challenge and debate it.

Hence what you call science is no more than flavour of the month and just like mankinds knuckle walking ancestry was so 'irrefutable' 10 years ago that only the stupid and ignorant would deny it is now demonstrating exactly whom is stupid and ignorant. That irrefutable evidence now resides in the grand garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past.

One difference between evos and creationists is that evolutionists in their desperation will falsify a theory and invent another flavour of the month while creationists call the falsification for what it is... a demonstration that evolutionists will believe anything their Gods propose as long as it is evolutionary.

The research I post from evolutionists demonstrates there is debate and contradiction because you are trying to support a false assumption, that being, common ancestry between man and chimps.

The research you post is misrepresented. Again, I suggest that you are not familiar with the material you reference in hope that you have a basic misunderstanding, rather than deliberately misrepresenting it yourself.

To not believe in evolution is one thing, and there is nothing wrong with that, I honor that position. But to deliberately misrepresent what the science actually says about it is bearing false witness. The study you cited and elaborated on did not support anything you claimed it did.

 

[CabVet]

To not believe in evolution is one thing, and there is nothing wrong with that, I honor that position. But to deliberately misrepresent what the science actually says about it is bearing false witness. The study you cited and elaborated on did not support anything you claimed it did.

 

[Astridhere]

I think the worst thing about it all is that every country in the world and every college and university in those countries are pushing evolution as if they know it's true, they must know that creationists have got loads and loads of conflicting evidence to show that evolution is false? what are they thinking? why oh why don't they listen? it's not as if creationists haven't been out and about looking for new evidence all over the world and conducting experiments and running tests.............hang on, come to think about it they haven't have they? they've done nothing but sit and complain about evolution without one shred of evidence against it.

And yet I have actually posted the skulls and demonstrated the similarity and comparisons.


Again I say to you bla bla bla Astrid is wrong, is very easy to say. How about you demonstrate with more than your algorithmic nonsense just why you lot say there is increasing brain development when quite clearly I have demonstrated that the cranial vault in the specimens are comparatively the same.

In fact Turkana Boys cranial vault is smaller than Sediba. How do I know? I can see it. You can see it, everyone can see it.

I strongly suggest that observation is worth more than your algorithms that are required as the only magic means of poofing apes into men.

 

[Astridhere]

If only you could challenge it. Rather, you point at transitional features and claim it disqualifies the fossil as transitional. Even worse, you make empty accusations of people putting an ape skull on a human body. This is not debate. This is denial.



All of the fossils discussed in this thread are transitional. They have not been thrown in any garbage bin. The initial theory that the common ancestor was not bipedal has been seriously challenged. This doesn't mean that this falsifies a common ancestor. We still have H. erectus with a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features, exactly what a transitional should have. Your reaction? Point to the transitional features and claim that it disqualifies the fossil as a transitional. It makes no sense.

However chimps evolved their traits independently, including knucklewalking and orangs share more with mankind than chimps. You have absiolutly no idea what chimps or humans evolved from nor what it looked like. It could have still been squirrel like for all you know. Please explain and evoke your plethora of excuses that hand wave away annomolies?


No flavor of the months here. H. erectus has been transitional since the day it was found. It remains transitional. Nothing has changed.

Is that so? In fact your researchers cannot make up their minds if Turkana Boy is Erectus or Ergaster. Erectus is looking more on the outer.

No one is debating whether or not the fossils are transitional. They are. What they are arguing is the precise relationships between the fossils.
I am debating it and many researcher like ergaster instead. Of course they still see adding sticky tape to their theory keeps it credible while of course I know it does not.



Why is the cranial vault the same in Rudlofensis, Sediba, Rudlofensis, Ardi? Yet Turkana Boy is meant to have a larger brain. It is evolutionary nonsense derived from intoxicated algorithms.

You lot say they are transitional as you are desperate. Where are all your chimp or orang ancestrs? Nowhere to be seen and likely in with us.

Would you be so kind as to demonstrate exactly how Sediba, Rudolfensis, Ardi have similar sized cranial vaults and Turkana Boys is smaller than theirs yet you continue to claim there is an increase. Where is it? Nowhere to be seen other than in the minds of evolutionists asnd their algorithms. Rudofensis brain capacity is now substantially reduced just due to a jaw realignment and his cranium is larger than Turkana Boy.

Why are none of your erectus found with hands or feet. Do you know what I reckon? I reckon feet and hands have been found and most certainly should have been found by now. These researchers have tossed them aside I reckon rather than get unemployed and tossed out of biology labs.

Regardless, I have posted the skulls that demonstrate sameness is cranial vault size. All you have done is verbalized your disapproval with not much more than opinion, outdated information and devotion to a myth.

You show us why the obvious is not obvious once your algorithms are evoked turning the obvious into a myth.

 

[Astridhere]

Loudmouth..this is just for you.....


The centerpiece of the diverse collection of primate, animal and plant fossils is the near-complete skeleton of a human ancestor that demonstrates our earliest forebears looked nothing like a chimpanzee or other large primate, as is now commonly believed. Instead, the findings suggest that the last common ancestor of humans and primates, which existed nearly 2 million years earlier, was a primitive creature that shared few traits with modern-day members of either group.
Recent Evolution Articles | Fossils radically alter ideas about the look of man's earliest ancestors - Los Angeles Times

Here is another one that demonstrates how you guys have no idea what a transistional fossil may or may not look like, let alone continual comparisons with a chimpanzee. As I have said from the start the same fossils are used to demonstrate ancestry to a creature that was chimp like and now to a creature that looked nothing like a chimp at all.

Fossil upends theories about evolution of human ancestors

"What we're seeing here is something that we never could have predicted from either a modern human or a modern chimpanzee," said Tim White, a professor at the University of California in Berkeley and coauthor of several of the papers in Science, in an online video presentation. "The only way to learn about this creature is through the paleontological record."

As a result, it was frequently posited that the common ancestor would look like an ape. Now, it appears that approach may be more misleading than illuminating.

If Ardi resembles the common ancestor of humans and apes, then apes must have evolved much more than previously thought since separating from hominids.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2009/1001/p02s21-usgn.html


So you requested and I provided. You have persisted post after post with this. Now let this be the end of you guys trying to pretend you actually know what you are going on about when you say transitional human.

By the way ...your definition provided by you an evolutionists, obviously is totally inadequate and outdated! You cannot even provide a decent definition of the term yet you demand a definition of transitional from a creationist whom does not even believe in them.
IOW your definition of transitional.. sucks!

I am not the brightest star in the sky and I do not have scientific quals yet even I know chimp traits no longer apply as a human ancestry comparison due to good old Ardi. You are one of the few that simply cannot get your head around the implications of more recent research that is not really that new.

Now, please show me how Turkana Boy and Sediba, Rudlfensis, Ardi's cranial vaults are comparitivly different with something more credible that algorithmic myth building.

 

[Jazer]

Gravity is a theory
Really? So we fall down because of a theory?

Gravity is more of a push then a pull so we fall "down" because we are pushed by gravity. Even though Newtons so called law of gravity was good enough to get us to the moon. Einsteins theory of gravity falsified Newton's theory. Of course Einstein lived in a world where the old school was not getting the job done. They had to come up with new theorys to resolve the issues they had to deal with at the time.

 

[Tiberius]

The Bible doesn't say that.

Or science and the Bible are right, and you are wrong.

Orly?

Let's have a look then. When did God create the water animals, according to the Bible?

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

And when did God create the land animals? According to the Bible?

1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Now, perhaps I am a little confused, but does this happen before or after God created the water animals?

Because it really seems to me that God created land animals (such as the animals that science tells us evolved into whales) in Gen 1:25, and he created aquatic animals (such as the whales) five verses earlier!

How can the Bible be in agreement with science here if the Bible says that whales came earlier than the animals they evolved from?

 

[Tiberius]

My Boolean standards dictates I accept the conclusion of scientists on this one.

So then you agree that thalidomide causes those effects by means of scientific principles.

 

[Astridhere]

Loudmouth..this is just for you.....


The centerpiece of the diverse collection of primate, animal and plant fossils is the near-complete skeleton of a human ancestor that demonstrates our earliest forebears looked nothing like a chimpanzee or other large primate, as is now commonly believed. Instead, the findings suggest that the last common ancestor of humans and primates, which existed nearly 2 million years earlier, was a primitive creature that shared few traits with modern-day members of either group.
Recent Evolution Articles | Fossils radically alter ideas about the look of man's earliest ancestors - Los Angeles Times

Here is another one that demonstrates how you guys have no idea what a transistional fossil may or may not look like, let alone continual comparisons with a chimpanzee. As I have said from the start the same fossils are used to demonstrate ancestry to a creature that was chimp like and now to a creature that looked nothing like a chimp at all.

Fossil upends theories about evolution of human ancestors

"What we're seeing here is something that we never could have predicted from either a modern human or a modern chimpanzee," said Tim White, a professor at the University of California in Berkeley and coauthor of several of the papers in Science, in an online video presentation. "The only way to learn about this creature is through the paleontological record."

As a result, it was frequently posited that the common ancestor would look like an ape. Now, it appears that approach may be more misleading than illuminating.

If Ardi resembles the common ancestor of humans and apes, then apes must have evolved much more than previously thought since separating from hominids.

Fossil upends theories about evolution of human ancestors - CSMonitor.com


So you requested and I provided. You have persisted post after post with this. Now let this be the end of you guys trying to pretend you actually know what you are going on about when you say transitional human.

By the way ...your definition provided by you an evolutionists, obviously is totally inadequate and outdated! You cannot even provide a decent definition of the term yet you demand a definition of transitional from a creationist whom does not even believe in them.
IOW your definition of transitional.. sucks!

I am not the brightest star in the sky and I do not have scientific quals yet even I know chimp traits no longer apply as a human ancestry comparison due to good old Ardi. You are one of the few that simply cannot get your head around the implications of more recent research that is not really that new.

Now, please show me how Turkana Boy and Sediba, Rudlfensis, Ardi's cranial vaults are comparitivly different with something more credible that algorithmic myth building.

Here you go CabVet you have alot of nothing to say to me and others....

Loudmouth has offered you lot a definition of a transitional human being chimp-like with increasing human traits. I have posted info demonstrating whatever the common ancestor look like, according to current thinking the common ancestor was not chimp like at all and likely not even ape like.

Clearly Loudmouth has demonstrated well that he sees evidence of chimp-like traits in Erectus, and the rest, with increasing human traits. MMmmm!

What appears obvious to me is that indeed the supposed human ancestor will not have chimp like traits. It may be like Ardi, it may be nothing like Ardi but now you guys are stuck with support that this supposed common ancestor now very likely looks nothing like a chimp for sure.

Like you, I cannot offer a plausible definition of what any common chimp/human ancestor may or may not look like because there is no definite comparison. What I can offer is a definition of what this mythical common ancestor did not look like.

The chimp/human common ancestor did not look like a chimp. Based on this evolutionary assumption the one feature humans ancestors back to the split will not have is many chimp features or traits.

Therefore I put to you evolutionists that by your own woffle and assertions that the fossil evidence once supported chimp-like ancestry. This being further supported also by Loudmouths claims and definition, and even more recent chimp/human comparisons that these intermediates are all chimp ancestors or relatives within the bush. This is the most parsinomous explanation and the only one evolutionists cannot get their head around.

Not only does mankind's ancestors look nothing like a chimp you now have to explain all the woffle of how some creature nothing like a chimp turned into the modern chimp you lot reckon is so close to us.

Then you have to explain where the Orangutan features crept in seeing as mankind shares more morphology with orangs than they do with chimps today. You may need to invent a few more magical terms to get yourselves out of this one,...seriously.

I know you lot cannot see the obvious implications of your evolutionary history as it is just hand waved away like as if these evos are in a dreamland.

Now you lot are going to have to demonstrate what fossils have no or few chimp like traits and how they may relate to Ardi an ape already ousted from the direct human lineage. Other than an Ardi like guess you lot are in the dark.

None of you can change evidence for chimp-like to not chimp-like evidence without embarassment.

Likewise none of you will speak to the mystery of the many skulls having the comparativly similar cranial vaults some larger than Turkana Boy with any observed science, you can only offer algorithmic nonsense. We observe no dramatic change in cranial vaults with Erectus.

So thanks Loudmouth and your supporters you have demonstrated very well that Sediba, Ardi, Rudolfensis, Erectus, Ergaster, Turkana Boy, Lucy and the rest can only be chimp and chimp-like relatives in the bush or a dead end. If these skulls have many chimp-like similarities they cannot be human intermediates. It is that simple.

There is no reason for me to reconsider. Perhaps you evolutionists should!

 

[Psudopod]

However chimps evolved their traits independently, including knucklewalking and orangs share more with mankind than chimps.

Evidence for the first statement? We have a list of fossils that show both human and chimp features, proving that not all traits were independently. Obviously some traits will, that goes without saying.

As for your second statement, you still haven't confirmed what basis you are making this on. Are humans closer to orangs geneticly, morphologically?

You have absiolutly no idea what chimps or humans evolved from nor what it looked like. It could have still been squirrel like for all you know.

Nope. Squirrels are not as closely related genetically, so while we do share an ancestor with them further down the line, we would not expect early hominids to share squirrel features. Which is exactly what we find. They share chimp features, not squirrel ones.

Please explain and evoke your plethora of excuses that hand wave away annomolies?

No flavor of the months here. H. erectus has been transitional since the day it was found. It remains transitional. Nothing has changed.

Is that so? In fact your researchers cannot make up their minds if Turkana Boy is Erectus or Ergaster. Erectus is looking more on the outer

Whether a single fossil specimin is one species or another does not change whether it is transitional. If you understood what transitional was you wouldn't make comments like this.

I am debating it and many researcher like ergaster instead. Of course they still see adding sticky tape to their theory keeps it credible while of course I know it does not.

What part of the theory of evolution is being challenged, Astridhere? The direct path of human ancestory does not affect evolution as a whole. That's like claiming because you don't know who your great great great great grandfather is human reproduction is being challenged.

Why is the cranial vault the same in Rudlofensis, Sediba, Rudlofensis, Ardi? Yet Turkana Boy is meant to have a larger brain. It is evolutionary nonsense derived from intoxicated algorithms.

It's not. Rudlofenis is estimanted to have an average cranial capacity of about 700, Seiba is 420-450. Turkana boy has a capacity of 880. Remember of course Turkana boy is not a fully grown adult.

And do you actually know what an algorithm is? Hint - you can't get it intoxicated and you don't use one to measure cranial capacity.

You lot say they are transitional as you are desperate. Where are all your chimp or orang ancestrs? Nowhere to be seen and likely in with us.

The habitats of chimps and orangs mean their remains do not fossilise easily. Do you understand fossilisation? Do you know appricate what conditions are needed for it? How rare it is? And if the homo fossils are actually chimp and orang ancestors, why do they have human morphology?

Would you be so kind as to demonstrate exactly how Sediba, Rudolfensis, Ardi have similar sized cranial vaults and Turkana Boys is smaller than theirs yet you continue to claim there is an increase. Where is it? Nowhere to be seen other than in the minds of evolutionists asnd their algorithms. Rudofensis brain capacity is now substantially reduced just due to a jaw realignment and his cranium is larger than Turkana Boy.

They don't.

Regardless, I have posted the skulls that demonstrate sameness is cranial vault size. All you have done is verbalized your disapproval with not much more than opinion, outdated information and devotion to a myth.

You've claimed this with no source, and a quick bit of research proves it's completely false.

The centerpiece of the diverse collection of primate, animal and plant fossils is the near-complete skeleton of a human ancestor that demonstrates our earliest forebears looked nothing like a chimpanzee or other large primate, as is now commonly believed. Instead, the findings suggest that the last common ancestor of humans and primates, which existed nearly 2 million years earlier, was a primitive creature that shared few traits with modern-day members of either group.
Recent Evolution Articles | Fossils radically alter ideas about the look of man's earliest ancestors - Los Angeles Times

This is a quote a newspaper. Where is the actual research? The bolded comment is the same sort of ignorance you have been spouting, so it's likely the reported understands evolution as well as you. Again, why would we expect a distant ancestor to look exactly like its modern decentants?

"What we're seeing here is something that we never could have predicted from either a modern human or a modern chimpanzee," said Tim White, a professor at the University of California in Berkeley and coauthor of several of the papers in Science, in an online video presentation. "The only way to learn about this creature is through the paleontological record."

As a result, it was frequently posited that the common ancestor would look like an ape. Now, it appears that approach may be more misleading than illuminating.

If Ardi resembles the common ancestor of humans and apes, then apes must have evolved much more than previously thought since separating from hominids.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2009/1001/p02s21-usgn.html

The researcher's quote is sensible, and doesn't say anything controvercial, whereas the two lines from the journalist below it are typical rubbish. You can't talk of an ancestor between humans and apes, as humans are apes.

By the way ...your definition provided by you an evolutionists, obviously is totally inadequate and outdated! You cannot even provide a decent definition of the term yet you demand a definition of transitional from a creationist whom does not even believe in them.
IOW your definition of transitional.. sucks!

You haven't suggested anything better, you haven't even said why it "sucks". You accepted it earlier until you realised that you couldn't pretend there weren't any tranistionals if you did. So instead of saying "this is where your definition falls down, this is a better one", you just go "uh-uh!" And don't pretend not believing in something is an adequate reason for refusing to answer the question. I don't believe in unicorns, manitcores or any other fictional beast but I can define them easily.

 

[Psudopod]

Loudmouth has offered you lot a definition of a transitional human being chimp-like with increasing human traits. I have posted info demonstrating whatever the common ancestor look like, according to current thinking the common ancestor was not chimp like at all and likely not even ape like.

No one who understands what they are talking about whould say the ancestors of modern chimps and humans whould look exactly like their modern decendants. It just has morphological features of both lines. Of course the chimp line is going to become more chimp like and the human line is going to be come more human - chimps and humans are very similar, but still different, so those differences are going to evolve down the line. Why are you acting like this is a problem, it's exactly as expected.

And the only "evidence" I can see you have posted of it not being ape like is a couple of poor comments from journalists.

Clearly Loudmouth has demonstrated well that he sees evidence of chimp-like traits in Erectus, and the rest, with increasing human traits. MMmmm!

Yes, he has. Just because you've stuck your fingers in your ears and gone "nuh-uh" does not dispute what he has written.

What appears obvious to me is that indeed the supposed human ancestor will not have chimp like traits. It may be like Ardi, it may be nothing like Ardi but now you guys are stuck with support that this supposed common ancestor now very likely looks nothing like a chimp for sure. [/

Like you, I cannot offer a plausible definition of what any common chimp/human ancestor may or may not look like because there is no definite comparison. What I can offer is a definition of what this mythical common ancestor did not look like.

The chimp/human common ancestor did not look like a chimp. Based on this evolutionary assumption the one feature humans ancestors back to the split will not have is many chimp features or traits.

Therefore I put to you evolutionists that by your own woffle and assertions that the fossil evidence once supported chimp-like ancestry. This being further supported also by Loudmouths claims and definition, and even more recent chimp/human comparisons that these intermediates are all chimp ancestors or relatives within the bush. This is the most parsinomous explanation and the only one evolutionists cannot get their head around.

Not only does mankind's ancestors look nothing like a chimp you now have to explain all the woffle of how some creature nothing like a chimp turned into the modern chimp you lot reckon is so close to us.

Then you have to explain where the Orangutan features crept in seeing as mankind shares more morphology with orangs than they do with chimps today. You may need to invent a few more magical terms to get yourselves out of this one,...seriously.

I know you lot cannot see the obvious implications of your evolutionary history as it is just hand waved away like as if these evos are in a dreamland.

Now you lot are going to have to demonstrate what fossils have no or few chimp like traits and how they may relate to Ardi an ape already ousted from the direct human lineage. Other than an Ardi like guess you lot are in the dark.

Why not? Chimps are our closest relatives genetically, so at some point the past our lines diverged. Thus we should see creatures that have mophological features of both lines, and as that line gets closer to modern humans, they will become more human and less chimp. Which is exactly what we see in the fossil record.

None of you can change evidence for chimp-like to not chimp-like evidence without embarassment.

Is this you admitting that the hominid fossils share both human and chimp features?

Likewise none of you will speak to the mystery of the many skulls having the comparativly similar cranial vaults some larger than Turkana Boy with any observed science, you can only offer algorithmic nonsense. We observe no dramatic change in cranial vaults with Erectus.

Except that this is completely false. Or are you claiming that because capacity is in the hundreds of cubic centimetres for nearly all hominids that this consitutes similar, even though this varies from a couple of hundred to a thousand cubic centimentres? That's the only way you could claim similarity.

So thanks Loudmouth and your supporters you have demonstrated very well that Sediba, Ardi, Rudolfensis, Erectus, Ergaster, Turkana Boy, Lucy and the rest can only be chimp and chimp-like relatives in the bush or a dead end. If these skulls have many chimp-like similarities they cannot be human intermediates. It is that simple.

What about their human feaures? Or are you going to sweep those under the rug with all the other evolutionary evidence you ignore?

There is no reason for me to reconsider. Perhaps you evolutionists should!

Other than the fact you are completely wrong, of course not!