What proof would you need?

[Astridhere]

I think she is using the standard creationist technique of pointing to contoversies in determing how many different species the transitional fossils fall into as an indication that there are none. Its a dumb argument, but one often used along side of "X is just an ape and Y is just a human."

No actually SHE is asking you to defend your science which apparently you lot are unable to do.

 

[Astridhere]

Look at the title of the thread, Astrid. What does it say?

I am asking you what features a fossil would need in order for YOU to accept it as transitional. I have given my requirements. Now it is your turn. Don't cop out.



Why does that prevent them from being transitionals?



Why does that prevent Sediba from being transitional?



You have claimed that they are NOT transitional. Where have you presented the criteria that you are using to determine this? Nowhere. I it quite obvious that there is no fossil that would ever fit your criteria, because you have none. You have dogmatic beliefs, not a defensible argument.

Here we go again the same old same old asides, ignorance and evasion.

The criteria I used to demonstrate this is to put the bloddy fossils up along side each other that demonstrates they are all alike. You lot come up with all sorts of woffle when all one has to do is open their eyes. It is up to you lot that reckon you know so much to refute me. You haven't.

 

[Astridhere]

I did not request a picture.

You have gone on and on about my/creationists describing an intermediate human. However you are unable to articulate what a transitional fossil should like yourself.

How do you know if any fossil is transitioning from a common ancestor, which you have no idea about, into either an ape or human?Further to that we all know how valid your sketchings are after the initial misrepresentations of Neanderthal were falsified by DNA.

So let's look at this guy. I think it is Homo Habilis.


Homo Habilis skull.

Ardi's skull above

Above demonstrates how skulls are reconstructed to suit whatever evolutionists believe as flavour of the month.

Above female Bornean Orangutan. Orangs have more morphology in common with humans than chimps.


Now you explain what you are saying demonstrates the transition from some unknown ape to Ardi to Lucy to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to mankind.

How do you know these above are not simply apes or modern day ape ancestors? We know about convergent evolution, parallel evolution, Lluc had flat facial features 12 million years ago and indeed a female Bornean Orangutan skull looks more human than most of your erectus and habilis skulls.eg no sagital keel.

Where is the demonstration of human ancestry given even Turkana Boy, Homo erectus/ergaster, looks just the same as the rest?

Now don't cop out of this Loudmouth. Can you or can you not articulate, as to what makes any of these transitional from a common ancestor of chimps and humans you have no description of, to mankind and modern day chimps? How does the fossil record support ancestry to chimp like and ancestry to nothing like a chimp?

Loudmouth....This is where you abandoned the disussion. It was after you demanded a description from me of an intermediate, when you yourself are unable to articulate a description yourself yet you are happy to go along with the revolving door of human fossils. Intermediate to what exactly are they? You do not know what the common ancestor looked like. Instead you posted a representative picture which has the value of zilch as the Habilis skull looks just like Ardis skull, sketches are flawed... and there is no evolution. Small diffferences are similar to individual differences in any species. Dentition and jaws are related to environment and diet.

Now stop goosing around and explain why these skulls above demonstrated no more than variation within race or breed. They are all much the same. There is no evolution. There is no brain expansion, there is only libraries of woffle and misrepresentation. There is also no need for pages and pages and libraries of bull when quite clearly they are all the same. This is why you lot love this stuff. It is all based on bull twoddle and complicated nonsense which is what it takes to turn clear evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery.

If observed evidence for creation will not get you to reconsider, then nothing will.

I'll let you off the other questions as quite clearly you have no idea.

 

[sandwiches]

No actually SHE is asking you to defend your science which apparently you lot are unable to do.

Defend it from what? What exactly is your point? That scientists can be wrong and have made mistakes before, that we don't know 100% of everything related to evolution, that there is still controversy over who the human ancestors are? Is that it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth....This is where you abandoned the disussion. It was after you demanded a description from me of an intermediate, when you yourself are unable to articulate a description yourself . . .

I have articulated it in several posts now. Here is a quote from a post just a few above this one:

"H. erectus has chimp-like features that no modern human has. H. erectus has modern human features that no chimp has. H. erectus is transitional. Consider it defended."

Specifically, the chimp-like features are a smaller cranium and pronounced eye brow ridges. The human-like features are the pelvis and pretty much the rest of the skeleton past the head. H. erectus has a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features which makes it transitional.

There is my definition and articulation. Now it is your turn. Don't cop out.

You do not know what the common ancestor looked like.

But I do know what chimps and humans look like, and I know what the fossils look like. Therefore, I can predict that a hominid transitional should have a mixture of chimp and human featuers just like H. erectus has.

Instead you posted a representative picture which has the value of zilch as the Habilis skull looks just like Ardis skull, sketches are flawed... and there is no evolution.

Evidence for a lack of evolution please.

Small diffferences are similar to individual differences in any species. Dentition and jaws are related to environment and diet.

I guess you are ignoring the differences between humans, other Homo species, and Australopithecines? The differences are pretty obvious.

Now stop goosing around and explain why these skulls above demonstrated no more than variation within race or breed.

You yourself have admitted that H. erectus is outside of H. sapiens values. That is what makes it transitional. It has chimp-like features that are outside of modern human values, such as the brow ridges and smaller cranium.

There is no evolution.

Evidence please.

There is no brain expansion,

So you are saying that the Australopithecines have a brain the same size as modern humans, or the same as H. erectus? You would be wrong if you made such a claim.

There is also no need for pages and pages and libraries of bull when quite clearly they are all the same.

Show me one H. erectus that is the same as one A. afarensis. Just one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here we go again the same old same old asides, ignorance and evasion.

Says the person who won't answer a single question I ask even when I answer her questions multiple times.

The criteria I used to demonstrate this is to put the bloddy fossils up along side each other that demonstrates they are all alike. You lot come up with all sorts of woffle when all one has to do is open their eyes. It is up to you lot that reckon you know so much to refute me. You haven't.

These are all a single species?

Please explain how all of these can be the same species.

 

[Orogeny]

The criteria I used to demonstrate this is to put the bloddy fossils up along side each other that demonstrates they are all alike.

Setting two things next to each other, seeing that they share some similarities, and saying 'Yup, they're the same thing' is not a criterion. I could put a lime, a citron, and an orange next to each other, and they would share many more features than not. Yet this does not make them the same species. Your criterion racks rigor, so it fails.

 

[Astridhere]

I have articulated it in several posts now. Here is a quote from a post just a few above this one:

"H. erectus has chimp-like features that no modern human has. H. erectus has modern human features that no chimp has. H. erectus is transitional. Consider it defended."

Well that's great. You have just offered a description that falsifies all your proposed ancestors. Why? Because the common ancestor is not chimp like. Therefore if erectus is actually chimp like in any way then it is more likely to be the ancestor of a chimp. Alternatively orangs have more traits in common with mankind than a chimp.

As you see in the fossil skulls presented they are all the same. Ardi's skull may be smaller. However comparatively Ardi, Afarensis, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus all have skulls that show no less similarity to each other than the variation is race we onserve today.



Specifically, the chimp-like features are a smaller cranium and pronounced eye brow ridges. The human-like features are the pelvis and pretty much the rest of the skeleton past the head. H. erectus has a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features which makes it transitional.
However in the examples I put up this is not the case. They are all much the same and the brain case is proportionally the same in all of them.

The other evidence from your own researchers that supports my claim as opposed to yours is that Ardi and Lucy have been dethroned and are no longer human ancestors. So even your biased researchers are working out some convolution that demonstrates they do not have the necessary traits to be human ancestors. That leaves erectus. Turkana Boy's skull is just the same as the rest.
There is my definition and articulation. Now it is your turn. Don't cop out.

What you should be putting up is that you do not know. That is actually the truth. I cannot use chimp like features at all as Ardi, if he is anything like an ancesor at all, is not like a chimp at all. This is just one of the reasons you have an evolving door of human ancestors. Evos speculate so much based on absolutly no knowledge. It is actually impossible to describe an intermediate without knowing what skull shape the common ancestor had as a comparison.

I am happy to stick with your definition of transitional as it falsifies all your presented fossils as human ancestors. Anything chimp like cannot be a human ancestor as the one thing evolutionary researchers maintain is that the common ancestor was NOT like a chimpanzee.

But I do know what chimps and humans look like, and I know what the fossils look like. Therefore, I can predict that a hominid transitional should have a mixture of chimp and human featuers just like H. erectus has.


Well they cannot becuase chimps supposedly evolved from a creature that indeed looks nothing like a chimp.


Evidence for a lack of evolution please.

Done. I have demonstrated a line of fossils back to Ardi that all lok the same. One cannot see this so called evolving brain case getting bigger at all in comparison to the size of hugely sexually dimorphic creatures. They are all the same. You can see it Loudmouth. It is all a scam.

I guess you are ignoring the differences between humans, other Homo species, and Australopithecines? The differences are pretty obvious.

Show me then. I have put up a line of skulls that demonstrate there is no evolution.

You yourself have admitted that H. erectus is outside of H. sapiens values. That is what makes it transitional. It has chimp-like features that are outside of modern human values, such as the brow ridges and smaller cranium.
However that research said that humans are the outgroup and chimps are in with other apes.

Evidence please.



So you are saying that the Australopithecines have a brain the same size as modern humans, or the same as H. erectus? You would be wrong if you made such a claim.

I am saying that erectus has the same shape braincase as Ardi, Habilis, afarensis. There is no increase. There is no evolution

Show me one H. erectus that is the same as one A. afarensis. Just one.

Afarensis from Wiki. Then Ardi along side




An example of an Erectus from Wiki.


Erectus from Wiki

Turkana Boy


Turkana Boy

A Female Bornean Orang.

Female Chimp skull and there is much variation.

The point of course being that none of them look human or even nearly human.

 

[Astridhere]

Says the person who won't answer a single question I ask even when I answer her questions multiple times.



These are all a single species?

Please explain how all of these can be the same species.

I did not say every single fossil you lot offer up in this silly line up are all the same species. I did say that the skulls I offered up demonstrate the same species traits with no more variation than we see in mankinds races today back to Ardi.

Even you know this lot of skulls above are not all human ancestors. You can see how easy it is to misrepresent any fossil to align with the current thinking and flavour of the month as in 1470, Habils. It is very likely that many of these are misrepresented, including Turkana Boy that was reconstructed from crushed pieces. Even with a biased reconstruction they all still look like apes apart from the homo sapiens. Even the Neanderthal are not good examples in this line up. "L" is obviously another misconstruction with a flatter face than even mankind has today. That reminds me of the 1470 debarkle. "J" has the same brain case as "D".

Indeed your researchers have no idea which may or may not be in the human line. They have just thrown them all in there and hoped for the best. Hence you lot are unable to describe what any transitional human, what any transitional chimp, what any transitional ornag, should look like. Hence you have stuff all evidence for ornag or chimp ancestry. Chimps and orangs, and likely other ape ancestors, are no doubt represented in your lovely, yet misrepresentative, line of fossils.

 

[Astridhere]

Setting two things next to each other, seeing that they share some similarities, and saying 'Yup, they're the same thing' is not a criterion. I could put a lime, a citron, and an orange next to each other, and they would share many more features than not. Yet this does not make them the same species. Your criterion racks rigor, so it fails.

Your criterion changes like the wind and fossil no 1470 is just one example of it.

You lot come up with all sorts of nonsense trying to demonstrate mankind evolved from another creature.

Indeed you lot used the same line up to demonstrate mankinds evolution from something like a chimp as well as ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp eg Ardi.

Sediba instead of africanus.
Possibly Pivotal Human Ancestor Debated - Science News


That is really all I need to say on the matter.

Your researchers get their algorithms out and start crunching traits turned into numbers. What is more close to what they try to figure out. This is all based on the assumption of ancestry. Take the assumption away and what you have is a bunch of apes that resemble each other and mankind that stands alone.

 

[Phred]

You lot come up with all sorts of nonsense trying to demonstrate mankind evolved from another creature.

You believe that a man was created by magic from dirt and we are simply progeny of that event.

I accept that we are progeny of a long line of living beings. A very, very long line. The one thing we all have in common is that our parents lived long enough to give birth to us. Now go backward in time. Go back. Your grandparents... follow the line. How far back can you imagine? Double it. Keep going. Person after person fighting to survive. Eventually not living in towns or houses but living around fires. Perhaps in caves.

Now... here's the thing. I know you don't believe it. Frankly, that's your loss. The earth is over four and a half BILLION years old. As we make fossil finds back in time we stop finding human fossils. Why? Why aren't they around? As the fossils get older they get... different. Did a god just create different animals at different times and then erase them and start over again and again and again? Or... did life just change? Are the fossils we find at different times in the past simply our ancestors, or the ancestors of the life we see around us? Or... perhaps just ancestors of life that has gone extinct?

I accept that the men who lived in those caves, they were my ancestors. Tens of thousands of years before your myth says they were to have been there. And before them came other life. As you keep doubling the span that you can conceive of you start to see how life can change. How the fossils we find are the ancestors of life that exists today. And that's what we have in common. All our ancestors lived. They didn't die as children, they didn't get eaten, they didn't die a million different ways before they had kids.

The fact that you can't accept evolution just shows you can't open your mind to such astounding panoramas as this. The vast history of millions of years containing trillions of generations of life.

Ok... your loss.

Indeed you lot used the same line up to demonstrate mankinds evolution from something like a chimp as well as ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp eg Ardi.

Yup. Sorry... you don't get it.

That is really all I need to say on the matter.

Right. 6,000 years and magic. I get it. Tiny little mind.

Your researchers get their algorithms out and start crunching traits turned into numbers. What is more close to what they try to figure out. This is all based on the assumption of ancestry. Take the assumption away and what you have is a bunch of apes that resemble each other and mankind that stands alone.

You really shouldn't try to make fun of what you don't understand.

 

[selfinflikted]

You lot come up with all sorts of nonsense trying to demonstrate mankind evolved from another creature.

And this is somehow unreasonable compared to believing that man was literally poofed into existence by a god?

 

[Split Rock]

No actually SHE is asking you to defend your science which apparently you lot are unable to do.

I guess that's why you ignored the links I provided showing how average cranium size increased over the course of hominid evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess that's why you ignored the links I provided showing how average cranium size increased over the course of hominid evolution.

Haven't we been through this?

 

[Split Rock]

Afarensis from Wiki. Then Ardi along side




An example of an Erectus from Wiki.


Erectus from Wiki

Turkana Boy


Turkana Boy

A Female Bornean Orang.

Female Chimp skull and there is much variation.

The point of course being that none of them look human or even nearly human.

I thought you're point was they all looked the same. Obviously they do not. Now you claim none of them look human. Of course none of them look human... they aren't! They are transitional between non-human ape and human. H. erectus, for example, looks more human than A. aferensis. No one is claiming it IS human.

 

[Split Rock]

Your researchers get their algorithms out and start crunching traits turned into numbers. What is more close to what they try to figure out. This is all based on the assumption of ancestry. Take the assumption away and what you have is a bunch of apes that resemble each other and mankind that stands alone.

It is an inference, not an assumption. And if you take that inference away, "all you have" is a bunch of apes who walked upright and made tools like humans do.

 

[Split Rock]

Haven't we been through this?

I'm sure we have. You have to repeat things a lot when dealing with creationists.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well that's great. You have just offered a description that falsifies all your proposed ancestors. Why? Because the common ancestor is not chimp like.

Not chimp like in what way? Brow ridges like a chimp? Yep. Prognathus like a chimp? Yep. A pelvic girdle somewhere between humans and chimps? Check.

So what exactly has been falsified?

As you see in the fossil skulls presented they are all the same.

No, they aren't. For example, H. erectus has a larger cranium than Australopithecines. Also, the foramen magnum in H. erectus is closer to humans than it is in Australopithecines. There are many differences between the skulls, and H. erectus is closer to humans than Australopithecines making H. erectus transitional between modern humans and Australopithecines.

In the rest of the skeleton we can see major differences between Austropithecines and H. erectus. For example, the chest is more human-like in H. erectus (barrel shaped) than the chimp-like chest found in Australopithecines (funnel shaped). The arm length is more human like in H. erectus. There are a ton of differences between H. erectus and Australopithecines with H. erectus being more human-like and Australopithecines being more chimp-like.

If this is not transitional, then please tell us what features a real transitional will have. I have listed the features that I think are transitional. Now it is your turn. Don't cop out.

However in the examples I put up this is not the case. They are all much the same and the brain case is proportionally the same in all of them.

This is clearly false (brain size, foramen magnum, and we can throw in semicircular canals as another example), and there are major differences in the post-cranial skeleton that you are also ignoring such as the ones listed above and others in addition such as wrist morphology.

Sorry, but ignoring the differences completely defeats your argument.

The other evidence from your own researchers that supports my claim as opposed to yours is that Ardi and Lucy have been dethroned and are no longer human ancestors.

There is no way to tell which fossils are ancestors or descendants of another. What can be determined is if they are transitional or not. I have listed my criteria, now it is your turn. Don't cop out.

What you should be putting up is that you do not know. That is actually the truth. I cannot use chimp like features at all as Ardi, if he is anything like an ancesor at all, is not like a chimp at all.

Brow ridges, prognathus, and small cranium say otherwise. Those are chimp features. Period.

I see that you have copped out again. You said that you would give us a list of features that a real transitional should have. Where is that list? Still evading I see.

Anything chimp like cannot be a human ancestor as the one thing evolutionary researchers maintain is that the common ancestor was NOT like a chimpanzee.

You are absolutely wrong. What you confused two things. Researchers have stated that the common ancestor was probably more bipedal than chimps. This DOES NOT mean that the common ancestor was completely unlike chimps. You are equivocating. Bipedal does not equal not chimp-like. There is more to a chimp than just their pelvis.

Another example is wrist morphology. A chimp has a structure in their wrist that locks it in place for knucklewalking. Australopithecines have this feature:

Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER 20419)11 and A. afarensis (AL 288-1)12 retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking. This distal radial morphology differs from that of later hominids and non-knuckle-walking anthropoid primates, suggesting that knuckle-walking is a derived feature of the African ape and human clade.
Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER 20419)11 and A. afarensis (AL 288-1)12 retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking. This distal radial morphology differs from that of later hominids and non-knuckle-walking anthropoid primates, suggesting that knuckle-walking is a derived feature of the African ape and human clade.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v404/n6776/full/404382a0.html?free=2
​

So we have a chimp like wrist in Australopithecines that are lacking in Homo species, including modern humans. Nothing like chimps you say? How wrong you are.

Well they cannot becuase chimps supposedly evolved from a creature that indeed looks nothing like a chimp.

How much longer are you going to keep telling this porky?

I have put up a line of skulls that demonstrate there is no evolution.

You left out the changes in the foramen magnum, prognathus, and cranium size. Once those are included, there is evolution seen in those fossils. How strange, a creationist who leaves out data that falsifies creationism. Hmf.

I am saying that erectus has the same shape braincase as Ardi, Habilis, afarensis.

It is not the same size. The cranium size for H. erectus is intermediate between modern humans and Australopithecines.

The point of course being that none of them look human or even nearly human.

What a laugh. H. erectus is so much like modern humans that many creationists classify them as H. sapiens.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sure we have.

QV starting here please:

Without looking, I think God calls some of them "wonderful diseases" -- (meaning so severe, they produce wonderment).

The only one I know by name is called the 'burning ague', which supposedly produced a diminished skull.
I thought we "paralleled" the apes?

 

[Astridhere]

You believe that a man was created by magic from dirt and we are simply progeny of that event.
As I have formerly stated, when evolutionists cannot defend themselves with science they resort to talking about philosophies. As a matterof fact mankind is made of the elements found in dirt and the bible writers knew it before your scientists.
I accept that we are progeny of a long line of living beings. A very, very long line. The one thing we all have in common is that our parents lived long enough to give birth to us. Now go backward in time. Go back. Your grandparents... follow the line. How far back can you imagine? Double it. Keep going. Person after person fighting to survive. Eventually not living in towns or houses but living around fires. Perhaps in caves.
You accept you are an ape. You are welcome to continue. You accept a revolving door of human ancestors. You accept what you are told and follow blindly like sheep to the slaughter.
Now... here's the thing. I know you don't believe it. Frankly, that's your loss. The earth is over four and a half BILLION years old. As we make fossil finds back in time we stop finding human fossils. Why? Why aren't they around? As the fossils get older they get... different. Did a god just create different animals at different times and then erase them and start over again and again and again? Or... did life just change? Are the fossils we find at different times in the past simply our ancestors, or the ancestors of the life we see around us? Or... perhaps just ancestors of life that has gone extinct?
Bla bla. God used stages of creation and this is reflected in the fossil evidence eg Cambrian explosion. I suppose you think I have never heard this.
I accept that the men who lived in those caves, they were my ancestors. Tens of thousands of years before your myth says they were to have been there. And before them came other life. As you keep doubling the span that you can conceive of you start to see how life can change. How the fossils we find are the ancestors of life that exists today. And that's what we have in common. All our ancestors lived. They didn't die as children, they didn't get eaten, they didn't die a million different ways before they had kids.
Good for you. As I said you will believe whatever you are told no matter how ridiculous as long it has an evolutionary base eg human feet on 3.5ft curved fingered arboreal apes.
The fact that you can't accept evolution just shows you can't open your mind to such astounding panoramas as this. The vast history of millions of years containing trillions of generations of life.
The fact that you cannot defend your science adequately demonstrates whom has the upper hand here.
Ok... your loss.


Yup. Sorry... you don't get it.

It apears I get it better than you because the evidence supports creation not evolution
Right. 6,000 years and magic. I get it. Tiny little mind.

No you have the timy mind and do not realise the flaws in your dating methods let alone the bias in your algorithmic nonsense.

C14 in diamonds strongly supports young earth - two or three . net
Radioactive Dating Method ‘Under Fire’ - Answers in Genesis
Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old? - Answers in Genesis

You really shouldn't try to make fun of what you don't understand.
What appears to be the most pitifull about you evos is that you continue to waddle along life beleiving your own myth that creationists are unable to defend their views, do not understand the non plausible scenarios you offer as evidence, can pull evolutionary assertions to pieces, and provide their own evidence in support of creation that is observed. The fossil evidence we are discussing here is just one example.

So basically you have gone on and on with your opinion and had nothing to say that refutes me. WELL DONE! That is definitely the sort of evolutionist I like to waste my time responding to!