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.
How is a feature in modern chimps evidence of anything in modern humans. You've got something mixed up here.
I am sorry that I am not going to bother putting up a reply to you. I have had a gut full of evolutionists that have absolutely no idea of what they are on about wasting my time.
For your information, up untill Ardi, comparisons with modern chimps was all they had as a comparison and chimps were used ad nauseum.
Hence you are wasting time as you have no idea what you are talking about.
You have now posted a scientific source, but it's not Scientific American. While SciAm is a thousand times better than ICR, it's still just a magazine, not a scientific paper.
I've never come across anyone who says humans are closer morphologically to orangutans and you've never expanded on what these morphologies are. And no, you haven't refuted that chimps are our closest genetic relatives.
Yes you keep saying this, but you haven't given a good reason why. You can't claim something doesn't have a mix of morphologies if you just point at one feature! The point is having features we find in humans increasing as time progresses (bipedalism, increasing brain capacity etc) and and reducing chimp features such as canines and forehead ridges. This is the transitional nature.
[/color]
What has the location of one fossil specimin got to with the average cranial capacity across all hominids? Try and address the point!
Cranial capacity is only part of it. If you look at more than just the skulls you see the increasingly human pelvis as we gained larger brains and more upright stance.
Can you back up your comment about cranial capacity with sources please. At the moment this is nothing more than your assertion.
If these fossils are just from chimp ancestors, why do they have human characteristics, such as human like pelvises?
Even Turkana Boy does not have a human pelvis. Its pelvis can only deliver small brained offspring. ..additionally..His pelvis appears asymetrical like as if the two halves are from different individuals.
Secondly, the common ancestor has not been shown to have no chimp features, just less chimp features than previously thought.
Is that so? Then you had better read below. Indeed you have absolutley no idea what the common ancestor looked like and derived features are no more than speculative, especially with Ardi being dethroned
Finally, genetics confirms chimps as our closest relatives.
Genetics based on chimps as the bootstrap, in other words biased, demonstrates that chimps have some regions that are similar to mankind more than other species despite the ornag being closer morphologically. However, some creature was going to be more similar than another to mankind. This does not prove anything as far as ancestry goes unless you apply the assumption of ancestry to the finding.
All regions show deletions and insertions. That is how you lot hand wave away the fact that they are not similar at all, really. Algorithms ignore the differences and compare what is deemed as similar. Algorithms count as similar hits less than 60% in some cases and graph them as 'the same'. This of course is after ignoring any deletions and insertion and dissimilarity to begin with. You should know this.
Additionally the chimp is 30% dissimilar in the Y chromosome, 10-12% larger, different surface composition and I had been all over this before.
I asked for a description of what exactly is a human trait. I have had a gut full of you evolutionists woffling on and saying absolutely nothing.
I have spoken to comparative genetics with no substantial refutes.
The bottom line is that evolutionists can no more than speculate on what is or isn't a human ancestor. You have had headlines of new missing links found that have ended up being other primates to evos embarassment. There is so much overlap and so many features that are shared amongst all primates including apes, new and old world monkeys that whole lot of you taxonomy is based on finding ancestral ghosts.
You do not have evidence. You have a wish list.
Why? Fossilisation is a rare process and chimps live in an environment that is not only poor for fossiliation but difficult to go digging for them now. Frankly I'm amazed we've found one.
OH so you are amazed at a few teeth being found dated to 500,000 years and stuff all. You obviously have no idea!
Strange how come so many supposed human ancestors fossilized but chimps did not. Ardi, Lucy are chimp sized yet they managed to be fossilized.
You've never qualified what morphology humans share with orangutans and why this is more than chimps. Could you actually provide some details?
I have had a gut full of would be evolutionists. I have had a gut full of posting common knowledge you lot should know.
By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say.
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
Of course not. The fossils are still there, you've been posting pictures of them! The only thing that has changed is our understanding of when bipedalism started developing.
Again you have no idea. I have already spoken to the revolving door of human ancestors. If you had any recent understanding of the science you supposrt you would know it and would need an unqualified creationist to inform you.
"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 Lucys Baby is no longer viable"
Apologetics Press - Ardi Joins a Long, Infamous List of Losers
You can add Ardi to the list of loosers.
You lot reckon bipeds were around 8mya and I can challenge that. Then you can find research to challenge me. Then I can find research to challenge anything you say. This strikes me as a delusional science..all of it.
The commonly accepted split date is 6mya. Therefore perhaps chimps evolved from a biped. You lot really have no idea past speculation. All evolutionary discussions are about facing off one theory after another. Speculation and chaos is not science
So why all the human traits? Why do these skeletons point to a progression that gets closer and closer to modern humans if they are chimp ancestors.
Your researcher have no idea what a human trait is. There is way to much overlap in the primate world
Perhaps you ought to do what real researchers do and look at all the evidence.
Perhaps you should do BIO101. I obviously know more about your science than most of you evolutionists do.
Why do you keep implying this is a computer model? We get the average capacities from measuring the skulls of the fossils we find.
I have spoken at length about that nonsense. Bigger brains in comapratively same cranial vaults is like suggesting a pygmy is less human that a basketball player. The observed evidence demonstrates how many so called ancestors are the same and no more differenct than races. Indeed many researchers agree that there are too many species named. Algorithmic nonsense turns observed evidence into evo myth. Algorithms do not look at differences. They tune into similarities alone based on the presumption of ancestry. They are all nonsense. Read my signature.
What, that chimps aren't human? Find me any one who's disputing that. The point is they are the most closely related creatures still in existance to modern humans.
.and comparative genetics tells you we did not evolve from modern chimp species. Hence the requirement of a common ancestor myth.
How would it be if you used one post to show us how/why creationism is true? just one post?
I have. No transitions between ape and man. No transitions between common ancestor and chimp.
Use the same critical methods on creationism as you try to use with evolution, can't be done can it?
Baramins with discontinuity as the basis for separate kinds. Your 150 years of falsifications and instability is nothing to toot your horm over.
there's nothing there even to look at because all you have is words.
have. No transitions between ape and man. No transitions between common ancestor and chimp.
Baramins with discontinuity as the basis for separate kinds. Your 150 years of falsifications and instability is nothing to toot your horm over.
Again I am sick of time wasters
And I'll say again that the choice is not evolution vs creation, it is science vs creationism.
Creationism is the choice to ignore evidence that threatens one's religious prejudices. It sets up a strawman amalgam of scientific evidences and conclusions that it calls "Evolution" or "Darwinism."
Science, including the theory of evolution by natural selection, is not in opposition to the idea of Creation by God. It is silent on the issue -- by design. Science is a modelling of the laws of nature. Supernatural events, such as the creation of the universe (or a marble), ex nihilo, by God do not follow the laws of nature, and do not have anything to teach us about them.
"Darwinism" or "Evolution" is supposed by Creationists to have been set up, not according to the evidence, but despite it, for the specific purpose of tearing down belief in God. And yet, Creationists have never presented any original evidence, that they can show that "Darwinists" have ignored, but only re-interpretations or denials of Science's evidence.
150 years of changing ideas, falsifications and debate demonstrates that indeed it is evolutionists that have no idea what the heck they are on about.
Your predictions have been proved wrong so many times your science belongs in a comic strip eg gradualism out the window, Y chromosome similarity out the window, junk DNA out the window, knuckle walking ancestry gone Mendellian inheritance as the only form of inheritance gone. advantageous alleles gone with the uptake of viral sequences that caused lessening of fitness. All rubbish.
You have stuff all answers to anything. However in typical hypocritical style you would have the world believe that creationists are at any less of an advantage because you have 150 year of nonsnese, instability and changed thinking behind you.
150 years of changing ideas, falsifications and debate demonstrates that indeed it is evolutionists that have no idea what the heck they are on about.
Your predictions have been proved wrong so many times your science belongs in a comic strip eg gradualism out the window, Y chromosome similarity out the window, junk DNA out the window, knuckle walking ancestry gone Mendellian inheritance as the only form of inheritance gone. advantageous alleles gone with the uptake of viral sequences that caused lessening of fitness. All rubbish.
However in typical hypocritical style you would have the world believe that creationists are at any less of an advantage because you have 150 year of nonsnese, instability and changed thinking behind you.
This is false. We have shown that these fossils have a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features which makes them transitional according to the definition you accepted for transitional. H. erectus has a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features. The pelvis is much more human like than the pelvis found in any other ape. The brain size is much more like humans than any other ape. The dentition is much more like humans than any other ape. This is what makes H. erectus transitional, and you have done nothing to cast any doubt on the mixture of characteristics in H. erectus.
I will say it again for about the 100th time. A mixture of chimp like traits will never demonstrate humanity. You have no idea what a human trait may look like and I have spoken to it at length
IOW, if a fossil differs at all from modern humans then you reject it as a transitional. This means that you reject transitional fossils, even if they are transitional.
You have only blurted vagueness. Just where is the humanity in any of these apes. Please specify or go away.
Says the person who rejects transitional fossils, even when they are transitional.
As yet you have not provided one.
And that is the beauty of science, we are humble and improve theories and hypotheses as we get better evidence. Evolution is stronger than it has ever been, no matter how much smoke you throw at it.
Denial won't change the fact that science is based in observation and religion is based on personal belief.
Yet not a word that you posted here can be used to falsify this:
Biological Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.
And you can only extrapolate that a change in beak size or colour and immunity to disease will result in an ape becoming human or a mouse deer poofing into a whale. Population genetics does not prove anything and Mendellian inheritance is not all there is to it all. Instead of different human species you have races because otherwise you evos would look really silly.
I will say it again for about the 100th time. A mixture of chimp like traits will never demonstrate humanity. You have no idea what a human trait may look like and I have spoken to it at length
You have only blurted vagueness. Just where is the humanity in any of these apes. Please specify or go away.
As yet you have not provided one.
You still do not get it, do you Loudmouth? You are absolutely unable to get over your chimp like talk. You are no more educated than I in the sciences. In fact I am more able to uptake information in your own field than you.
The authors also fail to show that the common Ardipithecus/Australopithecus characters provide evidence of an ancestor-descendant relationship and are exclusive to the hominid lineage and shared-derived with humans.
Your researchers now talk about derived traits, not chimp like traits, for the reasons we have been discussing for weeks and you clearly are unable to assimilate.
And you can only extrapolate that a change in beak size or colour and immunity to disease will result in an ape becoming human
am sorry that I am not going to bother putting up a reply to you. I have had a gut full of evolutionists that have absolutely no idea of what they are on about wasting my time.
For your information, up untill Ardi, comparisons with modern chimps was all they had as a comparison and chimps were used ad nauseum.
Hence you are wasting time as you have no idea what you are talking about.
Sorry if you do not know that chimps WERE the ONLY comparison up until recently with the publication of Ardi then you have absolutely no idea at all.
Indeed the point that you lot cannot do comparisons with modern chimps as you lot have been is the basis of one of my points which totally elludes you.
Even Turkana Boy does not have a human pelvis. Its pelvis can only deliver small brained offspring. ..additionally..His pelvis appears asymetrical like as if the two halves are from different individuals.
Is that so? Then you had better read below. Indeed you have absolutley no idea what the common ancestor looked like and derived features are no more than speculative, especially with Ardi being dethroned
I have no reason to change my view.
I have no reason to change my view. The evidence for common ancestry is non credible and unstable. The evidence for creation is clear.
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.
Again, I apologize, and it's not my intention to stir you up or anything. It's just how I view the subject personally, based on my observations of the world.
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?