What proof would you need?

Loudmouth · Dec 12, 2011

Astridhere said:
A creationist prediction is if creation is truth there will be no transitionals.

So what features would a fossil need to falsify this prediction? If you can't answer this question then there is no prediction.

So far so good. Half of this ape to human myth is missing. My point, without anything else, is established without evoutionists being able to refute other than offer excuses.

Clearly Ardi is not a knuckle walker. Ardi has reduced canines, far more reduced that many supposed human ancestors.

Unless, of course, the common ancestor did have reduced canines. I guess you left that out? Can you tell us why a common ancestor could not have reduced canines?

Ardi's hands are more human-lke than Sediba, the latest flavour of the month as a human ancestor dated to 2mya.

So then Ardi has human features? I guess that makes Ardi transitional. Consider creationism falsified.

Then there are the ignorant that despite multiple articles are still woffling on about published reseach.

So says the person who can't even settle on a definition for "transitional fossil". Talk about woffling.

So currently with stuff all evidence for chimp ancestry other than a plethora of excuses creation is supported very strongly as there are no intermediates to demonstrate the chimp side of the bush. That is the fact lovey.

We do have transitionals on the human side, however. That is enough to falsify creationism.

Your human line is a revolving door with researchers unable to speak to what exactly a human trait is.

You mean the line between humans and other apes is so blurred that they can't tell the difference? Sounds transitional to me.

Ardi does not have long knucklewalking arms so all the woffle for decades about arm reduction from knucklewalkers to human was only ever delusional woffle.

So you are saying that Ardi is human?

Chimp like traits mean chimp relationships, not human.

You mean relationships such as a prognathus and brow ridges?

The evolutionary landscape is becoming more humorous and entertaining as time goes on.

So says the person that can't even define what a transitional fossil should look like. Talk about instability.

Psudopod · Dec 12, 2011

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.

Human like, Astridhere, human like. Of course it isn't exactly like a modern human, Turkana boy is not a modern human. And evidence that the pelvis is two seperate bones please.

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.

No, its a comparison of genetic material. It doesn't matter what assumptions of ancestory you like, what matters is the genetics.

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.

No, I should not know this because this doesn't bare any resembalence to reality.

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.

No, I do have an idea that's why I understand that fossiliation is a rare process that requires certain conditions. And the size of the creature is not one of them!

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

One controversial study not backed up is not common knowledge.

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.

You tell me I have no understanding of science and you post something from Apologics Press. I hope that was a joke not a serious response,

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.

Ignoring your continued ignorance on what an algorithm is, when are you going to post the evidence that they are all the same?

Astridhere · Dec 13, 2011

Loudmouth said:
[/color]

Humans are apes. You might as well ask for an example of a mammal turning into a horse. Just so we are clear on how the clade is arranged:

Loudmouth putting up some chart is not articulating exactly what it is you are suggesting are human traits.

You've gone on and on and offered nothing more than vague remarks, pictures and now graphs. What is wrong with you? Are you unable to speak to a few so called human traits? Or is it you already know exactly how I am going to discredit anything you offer by simple observation?

Now come on! I have demonstrated skulls, including Turkana Boy, Rudlofensis, Habilis that are not so different dating back to Ardi. I have demonstrated leg proportions on Mankind being more similar to Ardi than Turkana Boy. I have bothered to demonstrate and all you can do is put up an old graph and sidewind away about clades.

I think you are telling me that you cannot defend your fossils. I think you are unable to think laterally. In this case meaning you cannot speak for yourself and hope that simplistic replies will cover your obvious lack of ability.

Tiberius · Dec 13, 2011

The DNA evidence defends the fossils.

Astridhere · Dec 13, 2011

Psudopod said:
[/b]

Human like, Astridhere, human like. Of course it isn't exactly like a modern human, Turkana boy is not a modern human. And evidence that the pelvis is two seperate bones please.

I said it appears to be different.

As you can see the pelvis is misaligned. That is why I suggest it. Do not forget this thing was found in shattered chards over a large area. The leg proportions are not human or near human. Ardi has more similar leg proportions to mankind that this ape. You lot say its arms are a little longer than mankind. What you should be saying is they are ony slightly shorter than Ardi's and this thing is just a kid of any age from 8 to 15 and likely has more apeing up to do.

No, its a comparison of genetic material. It doesn't matter what assumptions of ancestory you like, what matters is the genetics.

Genetics demonstrates that the Y chromosome is radically different and requires magic terms to tern the obvious into an evolutionary mystery.

My comparisons are observed. You do not have DNA from Turkana Boy, pal. So I have no idea what you are on about. Comparative genomics is a hoot. Indels and deletions are the excuse to cover over the fact that human & chimp genes are very dissimilar.
Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees | john hawks weblog
DNA Study Contradicts Human/Chimp Common Ancestry
New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims

No, I should not know this because this doesn't bare any resembalence to reality.
Then you have been intoxicated by the loudness of your mythical results but actually know nothing about algorithms yourself nor about insertion values and just what is and isn't compared.

No, I do have an idea that's why I understand that fossiliation is a rare process that requires certain conditions. And the size of the creature is not one of them!
Exactly and that is why if you have found lots of so called humans you should have found a plethora of chimp ancestors. Guess what? You've found one. Laughable!

One controversial study not backed up is not common knowledge.

Then you obviously also do not know that this is not debated by the scientific community, only by those that want to prattle on about what they know nothing about. It is only DNA that aligns chimps closer to mankind. This is another Loudmouth chimp-like moment.
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

You tell me I have no understanding of science and you post something from Apologics Press. I hope that was a joke not a serious response,

I have posted off many sites actually. Now are you going to demonstrate utter ignorance by alleging that you do not have a revolving door. Even your own researchers know this is the case. Again not the ignorant, they just like to woffle on for the sake of it.

Ignoring your continued ignorance on what an algorithm is, when are you going to post the evidence that they are all the same?

I do not have to post evidence of them being all the same. Indeed I do not even know what you are talking about. I think you do not know what you are talking about either.

Here is a little snip

"Phenotypic variation in humans isn't as simple as we thought it would be," Hernandez said. "The idea that human adaptation might proceed by single changes at the amino acid level is quite a nice idea, and it's great that we have a few concrete examples of where that occurred, but it's too simplistic a view."
Subtle shifts, not major sweeps, drove human evolution

Well this was a waste of time. This is the creationist teaches the evos thread I think.......

When are any of you actually going to refute any evidence I put up.

I have put up comparisons and you lot ignore it. I do not believe any of you can refute me. My evidence is observed. Yours is made from mythical magic and hand waves away of the obvious.

Show me and speak to these human traits you reckon Turkana Boy has and I'll show you how observation is bamboozled by myth that is not based on observation.

Astridhere · Dec 13, 2011

Tiberius said:
The DNA evidence defends the fossils.

You again. I hope you are not trying to impresss me with your silly comment

..... and what DNA evidence would that be. You are lucky they got DNA from Neanderthal.

Hey..I think some of you actually believe that all the DNA gobble is from DNA from Turkana Boy and perhaps Ardi. Dear, all you have is algorithmic best guessing. I doubt you even know what a 'bootstrap' is...No, it has nothing to do with shoes!

Blackwater Babe · Dec 13, 2011

Neanderthaal DNA
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=neanderthal%20dna&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsfeed.time.com%2F2011%2F07%2F26%2Fdna-evidence-confirms-humans-and-neanderthals-mated%2F&ei=qSvnToCaDKiViQf4-6zWAg&usg=AFQjCNFbyzwDsHpl5l1z7LynIiham1KftA

Blackwater Babe · Dec 13, 2011

Neanderthaal DNA
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...-6zWAg&usg=AFQjCNFbyzwDsHpl5l1z7LynIiham1KftA

Blackwater Babe · Dec 13, 2011

Sorry double post.

Tiberius · Dec 13, 2011

Astridhere said:
You again. I hope you are not trying to impresss me with your silly comment

..... and what DNA evidence would that be. You are lucky they got DNA from Neanderthal.

Hey..I think some of you actually believe that all the DNA gobble is from DNA from Turkana Boy and perhaps Ardi. Dear, all you have is algorithmic best guessing. I doubt you even know what a 'bootstrap' is...No, it has nothing to do with shoes!

The DNA comparisons between different modern animals speak to their common ancestors.

And I find it interesting that you didn't actually do anything to explain why DNA evidence is invalid, you just insulted me.

Psudopod · Dec 13, 2011

Well this was a waste of time. This is the creationist teaches the evos thread I think.......

No, this is Astridhere post links that she thinks is destroying evolution but in fact say nothing of the sort and most of them do not even question evolution in the slightest, apart from the creationist ones which contain the same sort of mistakes you make.

When are any of you actually going to refute any evidence I put up.

The actual evidence (not the rubbish from ICR or Apologics press) doesn't need refuting. People aren't (despite your constant claims to the contary) dismissing the actual research. What people are dismissing is your interpretation of the research, that it is in any damaging to the theory of evolution. It isn't even damaging to the theory of evolution. The fact that an early ancestor was more bipedal that we initally expected is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that humans and chimps are closely related genetically, and it doesn't change the existing fossils we have.

I have put up comparisons and you lot ignore it. I do not believe any of you can refute me. My evidence is observed. Yours is made from mythical magic and hand waves away of the obvious.

You've posted pictures of skulls and claimed "They're all the same!" This doesn't need refuting, it's obvious to a layman that the skulls are not the same. Anyone who reads up on them will see the average cranial capacity is different for different species and shows a progressive increase from oldest to youngest. You tend to ignore most of the rest of the fossil, such as the pelvis which is which shows an increase in the size of the young born and also the progression of bipedalism, along with the spinal column. You've gone on about the y chromosome, and ignored the rest of the genome. Yes, the y chromosome does show a lot of variance. That doesn't need refuting because its not something anyone is disagreeing with. What we disagree with is that it somehow refutes all the rest of the genetic comparison between chimps and humans.Human Chromosome 2 for example is a fusion of two seperate chromosomes in chimps: Human and Ape Chromosomes

Show me and speak to these human traits you reckon Turkana Boy has and I'll show you how observation is bamboozled by myth that is not based on observation

Turkana boy has a shape closer to modern humans, in terms of limb proportion. He has a considerbly larger skull than chimps (though smaller than modern humans). He had a projecting nose, like humans and unlike chimps and was bidedal.

Astridhere · Dec 13, 2011

Tiberius said:
The DNA comparisons between different modern animals speak to their common ancestors.
In a way some do regardless of the biased assumptions they are based on. For example almost every species tested demonstrates ancestry to a single individual and that supports creation. It is assumed and hoped there were other cohorts along side these individuals, but you are unable to prove this.
And I find it interesting that you didn't actually do anything to explain why DNA evidence is invalid, you just insulted me.
It insults me when you lie about my integrity, especially after all the work I put into supporting my calims only to see you lot offer simplistic responses, ignore what I provide and generally avoid any challenge I put to you.

I find it interesting that you are unable to defend your fossil evidence.

I most certianly did put up links that contest the genetic evidence.

Perhaps you might actually read it and refute me that rather than tell porkies.

To help clarify actual data associated with the ongoing controversy, the Institute for Creation Research has become actively involved in human-chimp DNA similarity research. Based on the CBS report, the ICR life sciences team obtained the same 40,000 chimp DNA sequencesindividual random fragments (about 735 bases each) from the chimpanzee genome sequencing project. For an initial test of the chimp data, we generated 1,600 DNA alignments with the human genome using the software BLASTN with default parameters.

In contrast to the results presented at the CBS meeting, we only obtained a genome-wide sequence identity of 89 percent. The CBS report did not indicate which BLASTN parameters were used. Perhaps those parameters were more stringent and only produced alignments of extremely high similarity. While high levels of BLASTN stringency are useful for querying a few sequences of known identity to obtain fairly exact matches, they produce very biased data in whole genome queries.

Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data

See creationists can play with algorithms also.

Life is a food chain. We uptake nutrients from other life forms. Hence life must be similar in basic structure. You have simply found the species that is most similar. We also adapt via epigenetic inheritance and HGT. Therefore, again all life must be created on a similar structure otherwise the whole shebang would not work.

Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data

I have posted evidence of the huge differences in the Y chromosome, 30% at least, that you lot just wave away with a new buzz word 'wholesale renovation'. Yet again your own biased research has not fulfilled evos predictions. Yet again evos need to evoke myth to turn evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery.

It would not matter to the adherers of myth if the human/chimp difference was 1%, 5%, 50% or 90%. Whatever you find, regardless of it being unpredicted, you lot say that supports evolution.

The chimp genome is 10-12% larger, has a different surface composition, has a unpredicted remarkable difference in the Y chromosome, has different hot spots, different protein expression, has sequences that appear similar to viral sequences, ervs, that provide function.

You lot used to ram ervs into creationists asking why did God make useless DNA that not so long ago evolutionists called 'junk'. Creationists have always predicted that eventually you find function to these so called ervs, and you have. Do not forget that mammalian pregnancy is maintained through an erv. In other words a fall in fitness provided the mechanism to maintain mammalian pregnancy and all this nonsense about advantageous alleles is not consistent.

Now instead of lying and suggesting I do not support my assertions how about you at least speak to what I have presented and provide some support.

Algorithms must have an assumption at their base and any result is only as good as the assumption the model is based on.

Clearly the genomic evidence supports creation. Non plausible scenarios and hand waves is all that supports evolution. I have no need to reconsider my view. I believe you should.

Phred · Dec 13, 2011

Astridhere said:
I find it interesting that you are unable to defend your fossil evidence.

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

I most certianly did put up links that contest the genetic evidence.

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Perhaps you might actually read it and refute me that rather than tell porkies.

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

To help clarify actual data associated with the ongoing controversy, the Institute for Creation Research has become actively involved in human-chimp DNA similarity research. Based on the CBS report, the ICR life sciences team obtained the same 40,000 chimp DNA sequencesindividual random fragments (about 735 bases each) from the chimpanzee genome sequencing project. For an initial test of the chimp data, we generated 1,600 DNA alignments with the human genome using the software BLASTN with default parameters.

In contrast to the results presented at the CBS meeting, we only obtained a genome-wide sequence identity of 89 percent. The CBS report did not indicate which BLASTN parameters were used. Perhaps those parameters were more stringent and only produced alignments of extremely high similarity. While high levels of BLASTN stringency are useful for querying a few sequences of known identity to obtain fairly exact matches, they produce very biased data in whole genome queries.

Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

See creationists can play with algorithms also.

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Life is a food chain. We uptake nutrients from other life forms. Hence life must be similar in basic structure. You have simply found the species that is most similar. We also adapt via epigenetic inheritance and HGT. Therefore, again all life must be created on a similar structure otherwise the whole shebang would not work.

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

I have posted evidence of the huge differences in the Y chromosome, 30% at least, that you lot just wave away with a new buzz word 'wholesale renovation'. Yet again your own biased research has not fulfilled evos predictions. Yet again evos need to evoke myth to turn evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery.

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

It would not matter to the adherers of myth if the human/chimp difference was 1%, 5%, 50% or 90%. Whatever you find, regardless of it being unpredicted, you lot say that supports evolution.

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

The chimp genome is 10-12% larger, has a different surface composition, has a unpredicted remarkable difference in the Y chromosome, has different hot spots, different protein expression, has sequences that appear similar to viral sequences, ervs, that provide function.

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

You lot used to ram ervs into creationists asking why did God make useless DNA that not so long ago evolutionists called 'junk'. Creationists have always predicted that eventually you find function to these so called ervs, and you have. Do not forget that mammalian pregnancy is maintained through an erv. In other words a fall in fitness provided the mechanism to maintain mammalian pregnancy and all this nonsense about advantageous alleles is not consistent.

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Now instead of lying and suggesting I do not support my assertions how about you at least speak to what I have presented and provide some support.

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Algorithms must have an assumption at their base and any result is only as good as the assumption the model is based on.

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Clearly the genomic evidence supports creation. Non plausible scenarios and hand waves is all that supports evolution. I have no need to reconsider my view. I believe you should.

that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.-p. 137 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Astridhere · Dec 13, 2011

Psudopod said:
No, this is Astridhere post links that she thinks is destroying evolution but in fact say nothing of the sort and most of them do not even question evolution in the slightest, apart from the creationist ones which contain the same sort of mistakes you make.
The links provide the basis for you to refute which you never do. You simply ignore them and resort to prattle.

The actual evidence (not the rubbish from ICR or Apologics press) doesn't need refuting. People aren't (despite your constant claims to the contary) dismissing the actual research. What people are dismissing is your interpretation of the research, that it is in any damaging to the theory of evolution. It isn't even damaging to the theory of evolution. The fact that an early ancestor was more bipedal that we initally expected is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that humans and chimps are closely related genetically, and it doesn't change the existing fossils we have.

Interpretation is paramount. The Y chromosme is a great example. The data as it stand supports chimps and apes as individual creations. It takes a hand waving term like 'wholesale renovation' to turn the obvious evidence for creation into an evolutionary puzzle.

Ardi and the other apes were no more bipedal than many apes are today. You lot are just straw grabbing.

You've posted pictures of skulls and claimed "They're all the same!" This doesn't need refuting, it's obvious to a layman that the skulls are not the same. Anyone who reads up on them will see the average cranial capacity is different for different species and shows a progressive increase from oldest to youngest.
You have hit the nail on the head here. I posted the comparisons and indeed they are all no more different than the variation in race. This can be observed. You do need to look to the algorithmic conclusions of evo researchers because observation clearly disproves any evolutionary claim.

Ethiopian Fossil Skull Indicates Homo Erectus Was Single, Widespread Species 1 Million Years Ago

According to you lot every adaptation is a new species and your researchers like nothing better than to be the one to put a name to it. However the truth is many of your so called homonids are no more different than a human pygmy and a 7 foot European. You call these different races otherwise you lot would really silly.

A female Bornean orangutan skull looks more human than Turkana Boy or Ardi for that matter, apart from the teeth. Teeth and jaw lines adapt to environment and diet and not an indicator of ancestry any more.

Female Bornean orang.

See the Orang and how its chin is squared up. All other skulls are squared up in their presentation. Ardi's is the only example to have its chin not horizontally squared up in its presentation. Can you see why? If you squared it up like the rest it would look even more ape like than presented. Turkana Boy has not chin either just like any other ape.
You tend to ignore most of the rest of the fossil, such as the pelvis which is which shows an increase in the size of the young born and also the progression of bipedalism, along with the spinal column.
I have not ignored it. I have addresed it. The pelvis is misaligned for a start and you can observe it. Erectus could not give birth to big brained children. Turkana Boy has an extra verterbra like other apes. Its legs less comparatively proportional to humans than to Ardis.

Have you ever heard of chaos theory....

That is not to say that evolution is random - far from it. But the neat concept of adaptation to the environment driven by natural selection, as envisaged by Darwin in On the Origin of Species and now a central feature of the theory of evolution, is too simplistic. Instead, evolution is chaotic.
The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist

The theory of evolution has not predictive capacity and just sooths says with any non plausible scenario to address annomolies by inventing moe and more terms to justify itself eg homoplasy, convergent evolution, wholesale renovation, acclerated evolution.

You've gone on about the y chromosome, and ignored the rest of the genome. Yes, the y chromosome does show a lot of variance. That doesn't need refuting because its not something anyone is disagreeing with. What we disagree with is that it somehow refutes all the rest of the genetic comparison between chimps and humans.Human Chromosome 2 for example is a fusion of two seperate chromosomes in chimps:
Again no I haven't ignored anything. I will insult you if you keep insulting me with lies, arrogance and ignorance.

This research on the Y chromosome is well accepted by your own. John Hawks is a very well credentialed evolutionist and teacher.

So much for 98 percent. Let me just repeat part of that: humans and chimpanzees, "comparable to the difference ... in chicken and human".
Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees | john hawks weblog

Here is the published research in Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

Turkana boy has a shape closer to modern humans, in terms of limb proportion. He has a considerbly larger skull than chimps (though smaller than modern humans). He had a projecting nose, like humans and unlike chimps and was bidedal.
I have already stated and demonstrated with evo research that chimps no longer make a good comparison because the common ancestor was not like a chimpanzee.

Indeed Ardi does not look like any species here today but despite all the woffle about bipedalism Ardi still had ape feet, despite the fact that bipeds are supposedly 8myo. Ardi and Turkana Boy are just variations of apes. You do know, don't you, that these reconstructions can take on any variation that evos want them to? You do also know, don't you, that Turkana Boy was not found intact but scattered over a large area and presumed to be the same individual by the Leakeys that falsified their reconstruction of Rudolfenesis. It took a creationist, Bromage, to highlight this fraud, otherwise you are left with a creature dated earlier than erectus that has more of a flattened face than erectus or Turkana Boy.

Ardi was invented from this

Turkana Boy similarly was pieced together from partials and fragments scattered over a large area. That my dear, is the fact of it. Turkana Boy could just as easily have been reconstructed to resemble anything you evos want in your attempts to humanize apes.

There is no reason for me to change my view.

Astridhere · Dec 13, 2011

Loudmouth said:
Both halves are more human-like than any other non-human ape. That is what makes H. erectus transitional. Notice I said human-like, not exactly like humans.

These are chards put together found over a large area. The find is not credible anyway, especially being found by the Leakeys. A pig has more similar internal anatomy to mankind than a chimp.

Read this article about a creature that is apelike to the waste yet appears to be a biped. This creature is now just an ape and not becoming human at all.

A skeleton of a juvenile hominoid three years old from Dikika, Ethiopia, was described and dated at 3.3 Myr (Alemseged, et al., 2006), and assigned to Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, White and Coppens, l978. The facial angle, hyperprognathism, height and mandibular notch of the ascending ramus, and dentition do not conform to the normal, ontogenetic development of a hominid. The gorilla-like scapula, long curved fingers, knee joint morphology and confluent leg bones do not indicate habitual bipedal locomotion. The Dikika juvenile does not agree with the diagnosis of A. afarensis", not even of a hominid. An alternative assessment of its morphological pattern suggests it is really an ape, making it the oldest and most complete skeleton of a juvenile anthropoid ape ever found.

A new look at the hominoid skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia - a knol by Bill#

Doesn't change the fact that we do have transitionals with a mixture of shared ape features and derived human features. Whether the common ancestor was more human-like or more chimp-like it doesn't change the fact that these fossils are transitional.

You have one complete fossil that is not complete at all but found in pieces over a huge area and presumed to be the same individual.

Then you need to explain is how an ape like Ardi style common ancestor that has been reconstructed to appear kind of human evolved into a chimp. If anything what your research demonstrates, if it has any credibility, is that chimps evolved from more human like creatures. This would align with the fall. If you had more chimp ancestry you may have a theory. However with one half of the bush missing you cannot really clearly claim anything. Maybe Turkana Boy was evolving into a chimp or orang or any other ape.
To use an analogy, it doesn't matter if the common ancestral language of Spanish and French was more Spanish-like or more French-like. A mixture of shared french/spanish features and derived french features is a transitional between french and the common ancestral language of spanish and french.

All you seem to be arguing with respect to Ardi is that Ardi is human. Is that really what you want to be saying? If you say that Ardi is an ape then you have to admit that Ardi shares features with chimps since chimps are also apes.
I am telling you that Ardi does not share features with chimps and your researchers already agree with me

So what features in a fossil would cause you to change your view? Or is it possible for your views to change?

Human and ape

Modern observed apes already share morphology with mankind, yet clearly one can tell the difference in life. There is no confusion when these creatures are living. Sketches mean nothing. There are many apes all of which share different variations of human anatomy not least of which is the orang. It is a shame all your convincing intermediates mysteriously ALL went extinct.

sandwiches · Dec 13, 2011

Astridhere said:
Human and ape

Modern observed apes already share morphology with mankind, yet clearly one can tell the difference in life. There is no confusion when these creatures are living. Sketches mean nothing. There are many apes all of which share different variations of human anatomy not least of which is the orang. It is a shame all your convincing intermediates mysteriously ALL went extinct.

Writer is unconvinced of evolution because humans aren't identical to orangutans or chimpanzees. Interesting.

Phred · Dec 13, 2011

Astridhere said:
Modern observed apes already share morphology with mankind, yet clearly one can tell the difference in life. There is no confusion when these creatures are living. Sketches mean nothing. There are many apes all of which share different variations of human anatomy not least of which is the orang. It is a shame all your convincing intermediates mysteriously ALL went extinct.

Actually, the intermediaries didn't go extinct. They evolved into something else. That's the point. If they were still here we wouldn't be.

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2011

Astridhere said:
These are chards put together found over a large area. The find is not credible anyway, especially being found by the Leakeys. A pig has more similar internal anatomy to mankind than a chimp.

It appears that these fossils are so obviously transitional that you have to pretend that they don't exist. You can't defend your denial any longer. It is time you dealt with the facts, not pretend that they don't exist.

You have one complete fossil that is not complete at all but found in pieces over a huge area and presumed to be the same individual.

The pieces that were found were transitional which makes it a transitional fossil.

am telling you that Ardi does not share features with chimps and your researchers already agree with me

So are Ardi and chimps both apes or not? If they don't share any features then how they both be apes?

Human and ape

Horse and mammal. Can you name the differences between horses and mammals?

Modern observed apes already share morphology with mankind, yet clearly one can tell the difference in life.

One can also clearly see that Australopithecines and other Homo species have a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features. That is what makes them transitional.

One can also see the differences between chihuahuas and modern wolves, and yet both modern wolves and modern chihuahuas share a common ancestor. Clearly, having differences does not preclude two organisms from sharing a common ancestor.

There are many apes all of which share different variations of human anatomy not least of which is the orang. It is a shame all your convincing intermediates mysteriously ALL went extinct.

Yes, just like all of those intermediates between wolves and chihuahuas went extinct.

I still have not seen you list the criteria you are using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. Don't cop out. Start listing them. You said you would, so now it is time to be a person of their word.

What differences should there be between modern humans and a transitional species in our lineage? Can you even answer this simple question, or are you going to evade it again and again?

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2011

Astridhere said:
Interpretation is paramount. The Y chromosme is a great example.

What are you on about? Why can't two species hare a common ancestor and have y-chromosomes that are 10% different in length? Please explain.

Ardi and the other apes were no more bipedal than many apes are today.

How does this disqualify Australopithecines and other Homo species as being transitional?

Then you need to explain is how an ape like Ardi style common ancestor that has been reconstructed to appear kind of human evolved into a chimp. If anything what your research demonstrates, if it has any credibility, is that chimps evolved from more human like creatures. This would align with the fall. If you had more chimp ancestry you may have a theory. However with one half of the bush missing you cannot really clearly claim anything. Maybe Turkana Boy was evolving into a chimp or orang or any other ape.

So Ardi is human now? Talk about instability.

However the truth is many of your so called homonids are no more different than a human pygmy and a 7 foot European. You call these different races otherwise you lot would really silly.

There is a difference in the ratio between brain size and height. H. erectus brain size is several standard devations from the human norm once height is considered. Australopithecines are even further from the modern human norm than H. erectus which makes H. erectus transitional.
There is no reason for me to change my view.

This research on the Y chromosome is well accepted by your own.

The research on the whole genome comparison is also well accepted, and it shows a 98% difference for substitutions and a 95% difference when indels are included. Pointing to the smallest chromosome and finding a 10% difference does not make the rest of the genome 10% different. Surely you understand this?

Also, you have yet to explain how this indicates a supernatural origin for either species.

A female Bornean orangutan skull looks more human than Turkana Boy

Only a dishonest person would claim this. A quick inspection of the sagital crest, canines, prognathus, brain size, etc. will clearly show that Turkana boy is more similar to humans than orangs, and this is just in the cranium. The postcranial skeletons are even more divergent. But you already knew this because you have been told this several times. So why continue with the porkies? What are you trying to prove by lying about these comparisons?

Erectus could not give birth to big brained children.

That's what makes H. erectus transitional. Thanks for pointing it out.

There is no reason for me to change my view.

What features would a fossil need to have to change your view?

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2011

Astridhere said:
Loudmouth putting up some chart is not articulating exactly what it is you are suggesting are human traits.

I am showing you that humans group within the ape clade, not outside of it. Pointing to ape features does not exclude a fossil from being transitional. In fact, a transitional should be an ape. Everytime you state that a transitional fossil is an ape you are confirming the transitional nature of the fossil.

Are you unable to speak to a few so called human traits?

More so than you are. You seem to ignore them, especially those found in H. erectus which has a pelvis more like humans than any other ape. Or did you forget that?

Now come on! I have demonstrated skulls, including Turkana Boy, Rudlofensis, Habilis that are not so different dating back to Ardi.

You demonstrated no such thing. You made the assertion, but backed it up with nothing.

I have demonstrated leg proportions on Mankind being more similar to Ardi than Turkana Boy.

So Ardi is transitional then?

I think you are telling me that you cannot defend your fossils.

So says the person who claims they are all frauds so she doesn't have to deal with them. You also can't defend your claim that they are not transitional. You can't even define what transitional is.

What proof would you need?

Contributor

Godspeed, Spacebat

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Godspeed, Spacebat

Well-Known Member

Junior Mint

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Junior Mint

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency