What proof would you need?

Astridhere · Dec 9, 2011

Notindoc said:
Talking about an over inflated sense of self worth and entitlement having zilch to say and absolutely nothing of any substance to contribute, remind me again what you have contributed other than making it warm in here?

Quite clearly you, CabVet, Psudopod and others have no idea how to debate.

Ignoring information and points in some twisted inapproriate response only makes you feel better. However it does not address anything I have said.

At least Loudmouth has some understanding and ability to discern information and respond, even if he cannot get his head around the common ancestor not being chimpanzee like.

I could chat with you lot for days and post as much research from your own as I wished and you simply would not comprehend it, let alone be able to assimilate or understand anything that was said.

You lot need to butt out and let the big guy evos strut their stuff because quite clearly from all these responses since my last post, none of you lot have any idea about your own evolutionary sciences. Much less are you able to mount any refute to anything I have said.

Loudmouth challenged me to find articles that clearly define the human/chimp ancestor was not chimp-like because he didn't believe me and could not observe or discern it for himself from Ardi.

I have produced such an article and quite clearly your researchers agree that Ardi is not chimp-like, nor even really ape like.

Hence any comparison of mankind to chimpanzee can only be comparing traits that have evolved independently in each suppossed ancestral line and mean absolutely nothing.

To put it bluntly your evolutionary comparisons are crapp and so are your assertions that any fossil may be a human ancestor!

Chimp like traits could only have 'evolved' in the chimp line because the common ancestor was not chimp like.

Of all you evos here now, Loudmouth is clearly the only one worth having an intelligent conversation with so I will wait for his response if he can respond at all. He at least has some understanding of the evolutionary science he defends.

If I miss your response Loudmouth please repost. This lot here are about as entertaining as talking to a 5 year old about evolution.

Astridhere · Dec 9, 2011

Jazer said:
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.

Clearly Jazer, naturalists can no longer distinguish between observed science that produces the factual information that gets rockets to the moon and apples to fall to the ground, from the theoretical, that results in ridiculous and non plausible theories such as singularities and multiple dimensions.

This lot bamboozle themselves into thinking evolutionary theory is any more than the theoretical and they confuse TOE with the factual as they are unable to discern the difference anymore.

Likewise they compare the theoretical side of evolutionary theory, that which is not observed, to gravitational theory, which contains scientificaly proven assertions as well as theoretical ones, and think they are making some point.

You can see it. I can see it. Naturalists just remain bamboozled and unaware of the difference between real science and the theoretical.

Loudmouth · Dec 9, 2011

Astridhere said:
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.

A peer reviewed article please. We all agree that journalists get the science wrong all of the time. I want to hear from the scientists themselves, not the journalists who mangle what the scientists say.

Just a quick question for you. You are claiming that Ardi is an ape, correct? If so, how did you determine this? Is it because Ardi shares features with other apes, including chimps?

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.

So you are saying that Ardi does not have any ape features? What is Ardi, if not an ape?

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.

Humans look like an ape because we are an ape.

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

Humans are apes, so yes, there was evolution that occurred. There is no reason that chimps could not evolve from that common ancestor just as humans did. What we should find in transitional fossils in the human lineage is a mixture of human and chimp features, and we do. This is true whether or not the common ancestor was more human or chimp like.

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.

You have yet to list your criteria for which features a transitional should or should not have. Where are those criteria? You claim that these fossils are not transitional, even though the fit the definition you previously agreed to.

Psudopod · Dec 9, 2011

Quite clearly you, CabVet, Psudopod and others have no idea how to debate.

Excuse me? In what way do I not know how to debate? I've taken your posts and addressed your points, I've explained things and I've been polite to you. This is just rude. If you don't want to address what I've written, fine, don't bother, but accuse me of not knowing how to debate.

Psudopod · Dec 9, 2011

This lot bamboozle themselves into thinking evolutionary theory is any more than the theoretical and they confuse TOE with the factual as they are unable to discern the difference anymore.

Likewise they compare the theoretical side of evolutionary theory, that which is not observed, to gravitational theory, which contains scientificaly proven assertions as well as theoretical ones, and think they are making some point.

Evolution is a fact and a theory. Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population and this is a demonstratable fact. Evolution is also a theory which explains the patterns of biological diversity.

Gravity on the other hand, though we can mathmatically model the effects, we have no real idea what it is, in essence. The point people are making when they compare the theory of gravity to the theory of evolution is that evolution is considerably better understood and evidenced than gravity, yet most people don't have any beef with gravity because it doesn't contradict their interpretation of the bible.

Tiberius · Dec 9, 2011

How in the world does Gravity work as a push?

Tiberius · Dec 9, 2011

Ahem, Astrid, since when did any scientist in the field of biology claim we are descended from chimps? Humans and chimps are descended from a common ancestor. It is not required that this ancestor looked just like a chimp.

And reading the Wikipedia article for Ardipithicus, I note that it says that Ardi lived more recently than the most recent common ancestor between chimps and humans. That means that we can't use it as a basis for what the chimp ancestor looked like at the time, not really. It was already developing features that we see more fully developed in modern Humans, such as reduced canine teeth and an upright posture.

And regarding the fossil chimpos, the fact is that chimps today live in areas that are not really the best for the creation of fossils. Fossilisation is very rare, happening only when certain conditions are met. If an animal lives in an area that doesn't have these conditions, then it will rot away or be eaten by scavengers before it can fossilise. If the ancestors of chimps lived in similar climates then we would not find many fossils of them.

And the fossils of the chimps are three teeth. Yep, just three teeth. Not really enough to make much of a statement about their physiology, so you can't claim that they couldn't have come from the same branch as Humans.

And even without much fossil evidence for the common ancestry between humans and chimps, you are ignoring the huge amount of genetic evidence we have that tells us that Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor.

Tiberius · Dec 9, 2011

Astrid, please learn how to use the quote tags!

Astridhere · Dec 10, 2011

Tiberius said:
Ahem, Astrid, since when did any scientist in the field of biology claim we are descended from chimps? Humans and chimps are descended from a common ancestor. It is not required that this ancestor looked just like a chimp.
I know that. The claim 10 years ago was human ancestry to a chimp like knucklewalking creature. The evidence for that irrefutable claim now resides in the rubbish bin of evoutionary delusions past and is dead. However Loudmouth is insistent that the common ancestor was chimp like and transitionals are chimp like and clearly according to your own they are not. In fact all this discussion is based on an Ardi type common ancestor which may also look nothing like Ardi at all. The bottom line to the point is you cannot define what a transitional looks like because you have got no idea what the common ancestor looked like other than it was not chimp like and not very ape like either. Loudmouth will not have it and continues on with this chimp like nonsense even when your own researchers do not agree.

I know how to use quote tags but they do not work. Just reply to the bottom bit. That is where the truth and point is.

And reading the Wikipedia article for Ardipithicus, I note that it says that Ardi lived more recently than the most recent common ancestor between chimps and humans. That means that we can't use it as a basis for what the chimp ancestor looked like at the time, not really. It was already developing features that we see more fully developed in modern Humans, such as reduced canine teeth and an upright posture.
Again you are straining the wrong point...which is... you have no idea what the common ancestor looked like and therefore are only speculating on what fossil may or may not be in the human line as opposed to being a chimp ancestor
And regarding the fossil chimpos, the fact is that chimps today live in areas that are not really the best for the creation of fossils. Fossilisation is very rare, happening only when certain conditions are met. If an animal lives in an area that doesn't have these conditions, then it will rot away or be eaten by scavengers before it can fossilise. If the ancestors of chimps lived in similar climates then we would not find many fossils of them.
Oh you lot dream up some non plausible scenarios to explain every annomoly be it missing fossils, the huge difference in Y chromosome, and functional erv's that are not junk anymore. Don't forget selection of a virus that crossed the germ line and maintains mammalian pregancy is selection for a decrease in fitness to begin with, not a fitness advantage.

Back to your point.. the human line was not eaten, only all their hands and feet happen to have disappeared. How ridiculous an explanation. I think evolutionists will believe any ridiculous story so long as it is evolutionary. There are no chimps ancestors because they have been bundled up with us.
And the fossils of the chimps are three teeth. Yep, just three teeth. Not really enough to make much of a statement about their physiology, so you can't claim that they couldn't have come from the same branch as Humans.
Even better. In this case you have absolutely no evidence for chimp ancestry. Go for it. I think you are on my side of the fence.
And even without much fossil evidence for the common ancestry between humans and chimps, you are ignoring the huge amount of genetic evidence we have that tells us that Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor.
Oh no, I am not ignoring your misrepresentations and extrapolations of observed science into myth at all. I'll give you a little demo below. We can do the DNA thing once Loudmouth concedes a victory to me, or he gives up. He is the best here and not doing very well I might add.

I am not ignoring anything. I have spoken about DNA at length way back. You lot like to side wind all around the place. The best way to deal with evolutionists is to pin them down to one little point and have it out.

So far, the point of skulls being evidence for human ancestry finds you lot are lost and can only offer nonsense and algorithms that clearly defy observation.

Here's a glimpse of the DNA misrepresentation you lot also like to think is so fantastic that you disregard differences before the algorithm is even run.

New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims
Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data

As for the what the heck a trasitional fossil should or shouldn't look like, re skull fossil evidence, you evolutionists clearly have no idea, nor can you do any more than speculate and guess. This is your science.

Tiberius · Dec 10, 2011

You know, when you reply to a post using quote, it doesn't include anything in the first post that you quoted.

So that means that if I was to quote what you said, all the bits where, in your post, you reply in red inside the quoted part from me will not appear in my post when I try to quote you! It makes it a big and annoying job of cutting and pasting and then applying my own quote tags.

So learn to use the quote tags! I'm not going to respond to you until you do. it's not that hard.

Once you have the "reply to post" page up, simply select the part of my post that you want to have appear in quote tags. Then click the

button. Now you will see quote tags applied automatically! So easy!

Please do it this way! I'm not going to respond to you if you don't. Oh, and don't tell me that the quote tags don't work. They work just fine for everyone else. If you knew how to use them then you;d be able to get them to work too.

RickG · Dec 10, 2011

Astridhere said:
I am not ignoring anything. I have spoken about DNA at length way back. You lot like to side wind all around the place. The best way to deal with evolutionists is to pin them down to one little point and have it out.

So far, the point of skulls being evidence for human ancestry finds you lot are lost and can only offer nonsense and algorithms that clearly defy observation.

Here's a glimpse of the DNA misrepresentation you lot also like to think is so fantastic that you disregard differences before the algorithm is even run.

New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims
Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data

As for the what the heck a trasitional fossil should or shouldn't look like, re skull fossil evidence, you evolutionists clearly have no idea, nor can you do any more than speculate and guess. This is your science.

You seem to be very consistent with your sources of information which are:

1. Non science sources.
2. If from a science source it is misrepresented.

BTW, ICR does no research of their own. They take already published science and misrepresent it. If one has to deceive and lie to support ones religious beliefs something must be wrong.

RickG · Dec 10, 2011

Loudmouth said:
This is a bunch of bla bla bla. You need to support this.

Genetic studies clearly show that chimps are more closely related to humans than orangs. What do we find in the fossil record? Transitionals with a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features just as we should see if humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.

A transitional by any other name is still transitional. Whether we call it H. ergaster or H. erectus it is still transitional. Turkana boy has a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features. It is transitional. Always has been transtional. Always will be transitional. Period.

More bla bla bla. All you can do is mock algorithms. You can't explain how the analysis is wrong.

I am not the one who needs to ignore the postcranial skeleton. That would be you. That reeks of desperation. You want so badly to focus just on skulls so no one can see the human-like features in these transitionals. You also desperately want people to ignore the differences in cranium size in these transitionals which beautifully demonstrate increasing brain size over time.

To sum it up, you are desperately trying to cover up the obvious transitional features in these fossils.

We are looking at brain size, not cranial vault size. Please try to keep up.

Why are H. erectus fossils found with human-like pelvises, arm lengths, and femurs? Why do you ignore the fossil information we do have and desperately point at the information we don't have? The facts are that H. erectus has a combination of chimp-like and human-like features, the exact definition of transitional that you agreed to. Are you going back on that again?

More fantasies. You are only showing how desperate you really are to make these fossils go away.

You mean transitional fossils share features between them? How awful . . . oh, wait . . . that is exactly what we should see in transitional fossils. Go figure.

Projection much? Who is inventing stories about scientists throwing out fossils? Who is desperately trying to ignore the human-like features in H. erectus? All of this because they want to uphold a 2,000 year old creation myth?

Says the person who ignores the human-like pelvis in hominid transitionals.

Astridhere said:
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.

Just one question and I would appreciate an honest straight forward "yes" or "no" answer. Do you think any of the above you posted supports an argument against evolution?

Astridhere · Dec 10, 2011

RickG said:
You seem to be very consistent with your sources of information which are:

1. Non science sources.
2. If from a science source it is misrepresented.

BTW, ICR does no research of their own. They take already published science and misrepresent it. If one has to deceive and lie to support ones religious beliefs something must be wrong.

No 2 'If from a science source' demonstrates yiu have no idea what a science source is.

You lot, especially Loudmouth, have gone on for pages and pages unable to accept the obvious.

Clearly, Ardi was not a knuckle walking creature. You lot have goosed around this one little point as if evolutionists were frightened critters unable to even evaluate the obvious nor assimilate information from multiple sources as if it would unhinge some earthquake of death on you all.

I hope all creationists are noting this behaviour.ie Evolutionists unable to deal with their own research findings and spending over a week in denial.

I have posted many articles that have reported well credentialed researchers plainly stated it is unlikely that the common ancestor was chimp like. These have been published in Science Magazine and others.

Do you think your constant and unending pitiful requests for more and more articles will resolve your inadequacies and inability to deal with new information?

You lot, are absolutly unable to deal with this information.

Astridhere · Dec 10, 2011

RickG said:
Just one question and I would appreciate an honest straight forward "yes" or "no" answer. Do you think any of the above you posted supports an argument against evolution?

YES. I think my posts support an argument against evolution and do support the creation of mankind and apes as distinct creatures. You have no demonstration of chimp ancestry, only excuses, and your human fossils are a revolving door with no base line to determine what fossil belongs to what ancesty. Indeed Turkana Boy the ape had plently of time, according to punctuated evolution theory, to evolve into a chimp and you have no evidence to suggest otherwise as you have no chimp ancestry back past 500,000 years.

Clearly the fossil evidence supports the creation of mankind and apes as individual creations because the fossil record satisfies the prediction that if creation is truth there will be no transitional fossils. There 100% isn't any fossil evidence to support half of the theorised tree.

My posts demonstrates that what fossil evidence you have now is no more than speculation and wishlisting. There may be evidence for your theory. However you do not have it at present.

The question put to you lot initially was this.

How does the fossil record support an ancestry to a creature that was chimp like and now the same fossil evidence supports ancestry to a common ancestor that was not chimp like? This is ridiculous and evolutionists are unable to grasp the implications of the Ardi find.

You evos have squirmed, tried to change subject, demanded a definition of 'transitional' when you evolutionists are unable to supply a decent one yourselves, and demanded multiple sources of information to demonstrate a well accepted point of view that your own evo researchers accept these days.

Here is confirmation that your reseachers are unable to determine what the common ancestor looked like, as well as the impossibility of differentiation.

The reconstruction of facial morphology and the determination of its taxonomic and phylogenetic significance is fraught with difficulty when the fossil evidence is close to the formation of a lineage. This is because of the likelihood of both homoplasy and a paucity of defining derived features. It is therefore difficult to list the facial morphology that would be hypothesized to distinguish the LCA of chimp/bonobos and modern humans from stem members of either the hominin or panin lineages. The facial morphology of the current candidate LCA taxa (Ar. ramidus, Ar. kabadda, O. tugenensis and S. tchadensis) have been reviewed. In light of the problem summarized above and the paucity of the fossil evidence of the face in the hypodigms of these four taxa, it is not possible to determine with any confidence whether any of them is the LCA, or a stem taxon in either lineage, or a member of an extinct, and until now unrecognized, hominid lineage. Even if the fossil record were better for this period, the problems of homoplasy mean that it might be unrealistic to think that facial morphology will neatly resolve the systematic ambiguities presented by these putative early hominin taxa.

The facial skeleton of the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor

I strongly suggest that

1. Your fossils demonstrate a familial similarity to a creature that was chimp like not that long ago. You lot have gone on and on about this for decades. The obvious concludes that these fossils belong in the chimpanzee side of the evo bush as they were proven by you lot to have chimp like traits. The human line should not have marked chimpanzee traits due to the common ancestor not being chimp-like.

2. There are no chimpanzee fossils found apart from teeth dated as recently as 500,000 years. This is impossible. The chimp side of the bush should be as equally convincing in demonstrating chimp lineage back to the common ancestor. It isn't and far from it.

3. Humans share more morphology with an orangutan. In other words morphology in light of homoplasy and convergent evolution, is not a good predictor of ancestry to begin with. The research above supports this claim.

You lot have unhinged the irrefuteable evidence you once had for ancestry to a chimp like creature with the finding of Ardi's partial skeleton. That evidence now resides in the rubish bin. You are unable to redefine the base of your proposed comparisons as to what creature may be in the chimp or human line.

The obvious impossibility of having no evidence for chimp ancestry and that none of your numerous fossils belong in the chimp ancestry line lends very strong support to my claim that at least some, if not all, of your fossils, are chimp relatives.

I am looking at one small point here, the skull evidence that you lot so proudly produce as demonstrating the gradual evolution to mankind.

It is easy to reconstruct a misrepresentation based on common thinking. Rudofensis is a case in point. Hence, I suggest that many of your reconstructions are not valid anyway but only reflect the thinking of the time. The fact that you can use algorithms to suggest a growing brain capacity contained in comparartively similar cranial vaults has no more credibility than suggesting a pygmy is not as human as a 7ft basketball player. It is ridiculous. The huge sexual dimorphism found in Homo erectus, lends futher support that these supposed ancestors were much more ape like than previously thought and share more in common with each other than they do with mankind.

The huge and remarkable differences in Y chromosome being at least 30% different and up to 50%, the chimp genome being 10-12% larger, differences in surface composition, differences in protien expression, different hot spots, the increasing differences being found continually only adds further support to my claim.

So YES, I do believe Ardi has falsified your most recent thinking and demonstrated, at least, that evolutionists have no idea what evidence for ancestry looks like and are grasping at straws at best.

RickG · Dec 10, 2011

Astridhere said:
No 2 'If from a science source' demonstrates yiu have no idea what a science source is.

You lot, especially Loudmouth, have gone on for pages and pages unable to accept the obvious.

/quote]

Having been a member of the scientific community doing basic research, I think I just might know what is a legitimate science source and what is not. The ICR doesn't even come close to representing any science.

RickG · Dec 10, 2011

Astridhere said:
YES. I think my posts support an argument against evolution and do support the creation of mankind and apes as distinct creatures.

Well then, assuming that you have actually read the sources you cite, that is the actual peer review science, you really have trouble understanding what the research is about, because everyone of those I have checked, support evolution. It appears you like spending quite a bit of time in the "quote mine" and cherry picking information. Your Gish Gallops may fool the layman, but those of us who actually understand the science.

Tiberius · Dec 10, 2011

Astridhere said:
Clearly, Ardi was not a knuckle walking creature.

Where was it ever said that a human ancestor of that age MUST be a knuckle walker?

Astridhere · Dec 11, 2011

RickG said:
Well then, assuming that you have actually read the sources you cite, that is the actual peer review science, you really have trouble understanding what the research is about, because everyone of those I have checked, support evolution. It appears you like spending quite a bit of time in the "quote mine" and cherry picking information. Your Gish Gallops may fool the layman, but those of us who actually understand the science.

Your aside and winding nonsense is no refute. Of course they all support evolution in evolutionary related articles. That is not the point to the post and well you know it. The point apparent from the articles is that the common ancestor is NOT chimp like. Of course your researchers are looking for new lines to pedal and misrepresent to the public.

The point being, as previously stated, only a fool would believe evidence for mankinds ancestry to a chimp-like ape can be supported by the same evidence that supports ancestry to a creature not like a chimp and hardly like an ape, despite forthcoming woffle. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour meaning any evolutioanry support is going to end up in the garbage eventually. Yours is a real anything goes kind of psuedo science. This finding was unexpected and not predicted until Ardi. So now new woffle ensues that will end up in the rubbish bin ....like these......

"Third, how many alleged human ancestors must be debunked before the world views these false evolutionary claims with appropriate incredulity. Chapters one and two of the Apologetics Press book The Truth About Human Origins deals definitively with Aegyptopithecus Zeuxis, Dryopithicus africanus, Ramapithesu brevirostris, Orrorin tugenensis, Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithicus anamensis, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, Kenyanthropus platyops, Lucy, Homo habilis, Homo erectus,Neanderthals, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Java Man, and Rhodesian Man (2003). In addition, Hobbit Man has been debunked (see Harrub, 2004; Harrub, 2005) and “Lucy’s Baby” is no longer viable (see Harrub, 2006)."

In more recent news, a lemur fossil named Ida was hailed as not just “a discovery of great significance” (“The Link,” 2009),until these claims were reduced to ashes by opponents within the evolutionary camp (see Lyons and Butt, 2009; Lyons, 2009b; Butt, 2009).

The latest reports of the 4.4 million-year-old Ardi are standard, run-of-the-mill, evolutionary propaganda that lack scientific integrity and, more basically, a foundation of truth. Already, we are being treated to “qualifying” statements such as, “it may take years to confirm exactly where Ardi fits in the history of human evolution” (Sample, 2009). Yale paleontologist Andrew Hill said: “We thought Lucy was the find of the century but, in retrospect, it isn’t” (as quoted in Sample). Would that we could fast-forward a few years (or a few weeks as in Ida’s case) and see what discrediting remarks Ardi will elicit “in retrospect.” In addition, the stories being spun are already contradictory. For instance, Schmid says that Ardi’s anatomy shows that “the development of their arms and legs indicates that they didn’t spend much time in the trees” (2009, emp. added). While, on the other hand, Sample stated: “Though Ardi would have spent much of her time in the trees, her pelvis was adapted to walking upright...” (2009, emp. added).

"In other places, we have documented admissions from evolutionists, showing examples of the fabrication and exaggeration so prevalent in the field of evolutionary paleontology (see Butt, 2008b; Lyons, 2009a)."
Apologetics Press - Ardi Joins a Long, Infamous List of Losers

Seriously and in reality I do not have to refute evolution because your researchers love to discredit each others work, or rather flavour of the month, themselves... I know,.... evolutionsists some how call continual falsifications a scientific advancement in clarity..and the only science that does, I may add.

The chimp like features that you lot woffled on and on about for decades whilst you assumed the common ancestor was chimp like, right up to finding Lucy, the debunked queen, has demonstrated that all these fossils you hold up as human ancestors or relatives are more likely to be the missing chimpanzee fossils.

Unfortunately you evos have nothing more than a wish list to demonstrate otherwise.

RickG · Dec 11, 2011

Astridhere said:
You are not a scientist at all. If you were you would know this stuff. It is not made up it is what published articles speak to. You obviously have no idea what one looks like.

Click to expand...

I am not an anthropologist or biologist, my credentials are in physical earth science with concentration in paleoclimatology (M.S., M.Ed. Univ. Memphis, 1975, 1977). My academic field relies heavily on geochemistry and paleontology to mention a few. I have spent most of my working career (40 yrs) in the fields of chemistry, engineering or education. I know how to source credible science understand and apply it.

The facial skeleton of the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor

Click to expand...

Samuel N Cobb
Functional Morphology and Evolution Unit, Hull York Medical School, The University of Hull, Hull, UK
Correspondence Samuel N. Cobb, Functional Morphology and Evolution Unit, Hull York Medical School, The University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull. HU6 7RX. E:
Accepted January 17, 2008.
The facial skeleton of the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor

Click to expand...

That is an example of credible article published in a credible peer review journal. It does what all disciplines of science do, argue the details. That is how science advances. It in no way discredits evolution. Arguing whether facial features or teeth are the best method for determining a split in hominid evolution is not an argument against evolution. It is an attempt to find where that actual split occurs and by what means are best for determining it.

Below is an article published in Scientific American. I cannot believe I have cornered you into denial.

The first full analysis of a 4.4-million-year-old early human paints a clearer picture of what the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees may have looked like, which is not, after all, that much like a chimp at all.
Long-Awaited Research on a 4.4-Million-Year-Old Hominid Sheds New Light on Last Common Ancestor: Scientific American

Click to expand...

This is the same situation as the previous link you posted. It doesn't discredit evolution, it supports it.

You do not have any more science quals than I do, it appears. Laboratory assistants do not count as scientists.

Click to expand...

I've never been a lab assistant, but I have managed a few labs over my career.

I can see you writhing as I write. Denial of current common evo thinking demonstrates you are neither a scientist nor are you able to refute me with any more than hot air.

The chimp like traits you lot sprooked about for decades has produced the noose for an evolutionary hanging. Any fool can see that fossil evidence to chimp like and then not chimp like are the rantings of desperate people. Supported by the obviously lacking chimp ancestry you actually have evidence of stuff all more than an over active imagination.

Now please let me know just how big an idiots these researchers above are. I just may agree! Do you know just how much I am loving this!

Go on call these evo researchers fools and morons because the likes of you disagrees.

Click to expand...

You might want to review the forum rules concerning those last few comments. Just a suggestion.

Astridhere · Dec 11, 2011

Psudopod said:
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.
Chimps have large canines and the woffle went on and on about how teeth reduction and that this is a 'human trait'. Unfortunately for you Ardi has reduced canines already. Hence all the garble about reducing caninines showing the way is rubbish.
And the only "evidence" I can see you have posted of it not being ape like is a couple of poor comments from journalists.

This statement has been disproven as my articles are most certainly published.eg Scientific America. See my more recent posts

Yes, he has. Just because you've stuck your fingers in your ears and gone "nuh-uh" does not dispute what he has written.
No he hasn't. Denial is not a good look

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.
I have already spoken to DNA comparisons which mean nothing and are contrary to morphology as orangs are closer to mankind than chimps. This is just one of a plethora of contradictions that are hand waved away by invented magical terms like homoplasy and convergent evolution

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

Let me reiterate the obvious spoken about for 2 weeks. If a homonid has chimp traits then it does not belong in the human line. If a homonid including erectus or ergaster or any of them has large canines they do not share a mix of human morphologies at all. What they are are chimp relatives. Huge sexual dimorphism has been found in 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.
OFGS... Turkana Boy is misrepresented as being found complete. Indeed it was not. It was found in scattered pieces over a huge area and presumed to be the same individual.

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

And just what exactly are human features. We all should know according to YOUR researchers that Lluc is a 12myo ape had reduced facial morphology. With Ardi, 4.4myo, we know that ape like canines were not around at that time. A female Bornean Orangutan looks more human than most of your erectus fossils. Erectus has been abandoned by many scientists in favour of Ergaster. Ardi kicked many so called human ancestors off their perch.

If you are talking about the cranial vault there is stuff all difference in many of them as I have already demonstrated. They have no more variation than one sees in race or breed. Rudolfenesis has been reconstructed that many times one has a good base to argue any reconstruction will reflect flavour of the month.

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

I am not wrong. You lot can't even make sense of the human line let alone present any evidence that chimps had any ancestors at all.

This is a sample of the endless prattle evolutinists come up with. Here is more info for you to ignore.

"Ardi also has much smaller canine teeth than modern apes, suggesting that her species was monogamous and didnt need large teeth for fighting over mates."

Discovery of Oldest Hominid Fossil May End Search for Chimp-like Missing Link

However Erectus has been found to have HUGE sexual dimorphism akin to gorillas.
New Kenyan Fossils Challenge Established Views On Early Evolution Of Our Genus Homo

Is this Sediba hand what you call more human like? What a ridiculous joke. This apes, Sediba, hand is less human than Ardi's.

The debate about Florensisenis, most recently cast out of the human line looks more human than Turkana Boy, with less ridging.

Hobbit and human skull
Newest Studies Indicate "Hobbit" Was Not Human, Possibly Homo Habilis

Turkana Boy skulls.

You lot rant and rave about teeth, cranial vaults, eyebrow ridging, reduction in sexual dimorphism and noses and the whole lot of it is straw grabbing and contradictory rubbish.

What's more you have stuff all evidence for chimp ancestry. You evos put up a host of excuses as to why you have only found 1 chimp ancestor dated to 500,000ya, if the teeth belong to a chimp at all.

I am telling you all this is garbled inconsistent nonsense.

Every inconsistency is hand waved away with invented terms. Why are no 'so called human traits' homologous in apes but must be ancestral? Oh wait ..yes they are!!! In fact if the comon ancestor was not ape or human like, then all specific traits evolved independently. I have already put up research that speaks to chimps being bad comparisons nowadays, which you have ignored.

The reason why all these chimp like taits are found in fossils, most of them single bones or fragments, is because they are more likely to be chimp relatives.

Unfortunately for evolutionists you have no more than a wish list to demonstrate otherwise.

What proof would you need?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Godspeed, Spacebat

Godspeed, Spacebat

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency