Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Darls, if you were not ignorant you would not be requesting the same information from multiple sources.
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.
So are you saying that Ardi indeed has chimp like traits and the researchers quoted from Scientific American are idiots or lying? Pages and pages of this because you are unable to accept Ardi did not have chimp traits.
I want to see you argue this against the info I have provided. This will be making shmooks of researchers with better credentials than you. I love it!
This is the same situation as the previous link you posted. It doesn't discredit evolution, it supports it.
I've never been a lab assistant, but I have managed a few labs over my career.
You might want to review the forum rules concerning those last few comments. Just a suggestion.
Nothing you have supports evolution as my last post supports.
I did not break forum rules by asking you to call your reseachers morons and explain the errors of their ways. Ardi kicked a stack of so called human ancestors off their perch and I am sure there is more to come.
You are no scientist as you are unable to assimilate information and requesting the same information from multiple sources as if I am telling fibs. This highlights you are no scientist at heart but want to strain a point that has already been established by evolutionary researchers.
Your researchers have produced evidence of an over active imagination, and that is about it.
If you flip a coin that has EVOLUTION on one side and CREATION on the other, then you can correctly assume that if it is not EVOLUTION, it is CREATION -- and vice versa.Evolutionists and evolution being wrong supports creationism being right how exactly?
Evolutionists and evolution being wrong supports creationism being right how exactly?
If you flip a coin that has EVOLUTION on one side and CREATION on the other, then you can correctly assume that if it is not EVOLUTION, it is CREATION -- and vice versa.
According to the Bible, it is not EVOLUTION.
I don't doubt that at all.According to 100 other religions, the Bible is wrong.
Nothing you have supports evolution as my last post supports.
I haven't been making claims about evolution one way or another to you.
All I have done is ask if the sources you post are sources that you think support you position against evolution. You replied yes.
I sourced your citations and read them. They do not citicize evolution in any way, and I pointed this out to you. In fact they support evolution. All the articles do is disagree with some details of some other published science and give an alternative view presenting the evidence they have. As I said before, new information is surfacing all the time, that is how science advances.
You can hee haw and Gish gallop all you won't. The fact remains that you are citing published peer review science claiming that it does not support evolution when in fact it does. I do not care whether you or anyone believes in evolution or not, that is not the point. Having been a part of the scientific community most of my adult life, I do care when I see deliberate misrepresentation of published science, regardless of the field of study.
Furthermore, question my credentials one more time and I will request Mod intervention. I worked long and hard to earn them. Understand?
Cool -- let's see how you walk:Binary understanding is lame and is why you fail.
Cool -- let's see how you walk:
Other than evolution or creation, how did I end up here?
(This should be interesting.)
I'll keep my dignity, my friend, and ask again: Other that creation or evolution, how do you think we got here?What kind of question is that anyway?? Your problem is that you think evolution and creation are both sides of the same coin. It doesn't work that way.
You can either provide reasonable reasons to accept an hypothesis and hope not to be disproven or you quit while you still have dignity and try to come up with a hypothesis that agrees with observations.
I fear creationists have long lost any dignity though.
I'll keep my dignity, my friend, and ask again: Other that creation or evolution, how do you think we got here?
Care to answer it or not?
I'll keep my dignity, my friend, and ask again: Other that creation or evolution, how do you think we got here?
Care to answer it or not?
Whatever your stance on the evolution/creationism debate, what proof or evidence would you need to see to be convinced, however begrudgingly, that the opponents view is true? Additionally, what proof or evidence would convince you that your current view is false?
For evolutionists, it could be an ordinary species of mouse whose cells have something wholly unrelated to DNA. For Creationists, it could be a giraffe giving birth to a walrus.
So, what would change your mind?
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.
I know that it defeats the purpose of your thread, and I apologize in advance. But nothing would change my mind, as there will always be insufficient and incorrect evidence to support evolution.
astridhere said: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.
This statement has been disproven as my articles are most certainly published.eg Scientific America. See my more recent posts
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
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.
psudopod said: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.
astridhere said: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.
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.
Cool -- let's see how you walk:
Other than evolution or creation, how did I end up here?
(This should be interesting.)
And on the other side of that coin is what?One of the other 1,500 creation myths.
Any of them.Which version of creation?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?