What proof would you need?

[Astridhere]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[Astridhere]

Evolutionists and evolution being wrong supports creationism being right how exactly?

Here is another do drop in come lately requesting information I have already spoken to.

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

Thus far in relation to the chimpanzee you lot have stuff all evidence, with one lot of teeth being dated as recently as 500,000yo. 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.

Before “Lucy,” There Was “Ardi”: First Major Analysis of One of Earliest Known Hominids Published in Science

Read a special issue of Science in which all 11 landmark articles, an editorial, a news story, and multimedia materials are free and available without subscription.

In a special issue of Science, an international team of scientists has for the first time thoroughly described Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominid species that lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia. This research, in the form of 11 detailed papers and more general summaries, was published today in the journal's 2 October 2009 issue. Science is published by AAAS, the nonprofit science society.
The package of research offers the first comprehensive, peer-reviewed description of the Ardipithecus fossils, which include a partial skeleton of a female, nicknamed “Ardi.” Publication of the new research was the subject of simultaneous news conferences today in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, and at AAAS/Science headquarters in Washington, D.C., with major international news media quickly conveying the story to a worldwide audience.

Because of its antiquity, Ardipithecus takes us closer to the still-elusive last common ancestor. However, many of its traits do not appear in modern-day African apes. One surprising conclusion, therefore, is that it is likely that the African apes have evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor, which thus makes living chimpanzees and gorillas poor models for the last common ancestor and for understanding our own evolution since that time.
AAAS - AAAS News Release - "Before Lucy, There Was Ardi: First Major Analysis of One of Earliest Known Hominids Published in SCIENCE"

Further, the above is a demonstration of the apathy a creationist must deal with when debating losers that are unable to assimilate information and require the same information from multiple sources.

Clearly Ardi is not a knuckle walker. Ardi has reduced canines, far more reduced that many supposed human ancestors. Ardi's hands are more human-lke than Sediba, the latest flavour of the month as a human ancestor dated to 2mya.

Turkana Boy's skull cranial vault is the same as Sediba's and Rudolfensis, Rudolfensis brain capacity has been hugely downsized due to a blunder the Leakey's made in their initial misrepresented reconstruction and realigned jaw. It is that easy for you lot to make up flavour of the month that literally means nothing and usually ends up in the garbage bin.

Then there are the ignorant that despite multiple articles are still woffling on about published reseach. Well the article above speaks to published research and findings that Ardi demonstrates that many if its traits do not appear in modern apes, let alone chimpanzees. Now you look fro 'derived' traits the new flavour of the month in seeking no more than Alice in Wonderland.

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.

Your human line is a revolving door with researchers unable to speak to what exactly a human trait is. It is not reduced canines as Ardi does not have large ones. 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. Chimp like traits mean chimp relationships, not human. Your chimp fossils are hiding in the human line obviously.

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

 

[CabVet]

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.

According to 100 other religions, the Bible is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to 100 other religions, the Bible is wrong.

I don't doubt that at all.

 

[RickG]

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?

 

[fenix144]

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.

Binary understanding is lame and is why you fail.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.)

 

[fenix144]

Cool -- let's see how you walk:

Other than evolution or creation, how did I end up here?

(This should be interesting.)

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

 

[fenix144]

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?

As I see you still fail to understand the main point that if evolution is disproven it doesn't magically make creationism the default winner.

 

[CabVet]

Cool -- let's see how you walk:

Other than evolution or creation, how did I end up here?

(This should be interesting.)

One of the other 1,500 creation myths.

 

[OllieFranz]

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?

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.

 

[DCJazz]

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?

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.

 

[Psudopod]

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.

If these fossils are just from chimp ancestors, why do they have human characteristics, such as human like pelvises? Secondly, the common ancestor has not been shown to have no chimp features, just less chimp features than previously thought. Finally, genetics confirms chimps as our closest relatives.

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.

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.

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've never qualified what morphology humans share with orangutans and why this is more than chimps. Could you actually provide some details?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Perhaps you ought to do what real researchers do and look at all the evidence.

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.

Why do you keep implying this is a computer model? We get the average capacities from measuring the skulls of the fossils we find.

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.

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.

 

[CabVet]

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.

As opposed to a very complete and correct evidence to support creation in 7 days?

 

[Psudopod]

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.

How is a feature in modern chimps evidence of anything in modern humans. You've got something mixed up here.

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

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 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

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.

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.

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.

Except that this is completely false. Or are you claiming that because capacity is in the hundreds of cubic centimetres for nearly all hominids that this consitutes similar, even though this varies from a couple of hundred to a thousand cubic centimentres? That's the only way you could claim similarity.

OFGS... Turkana Boy is misrepresented as being found complete. Indeed it was not. It was found in scattered pieces over a huge area and presumed to be the same individual.

What has the location of one fossil specimin got to with the average cranial capacity across all hominids? Try and address the point!

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.

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.

 

[Tiberius]

Cool -- let's see how you walk:

Other than evolution or creation, how did I end up here?

(This should be interesting.)

Which version of creation?

You see, Christians aren't the only ones who think that some kind of god created the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

One of the other 1,500 creation myths.

And on the other side of that coin is what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which version of creation?

Any of them.

I'm sure if you don't believe we got here via evolution, then you have one of them in mind?