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.
Oreopithecus bambolii also has a reduced pelvis but it is still an a 7myo ape.
Turkana Boy has a misaligned pelvis. It is the pelvis of more than one individual. This fossil was found over 1250 cubic meters of dirt. A skull cap was the first fossil found. I have searched for peer reviews. The only peer reviews I could find was Leakey reviewing his own find.
I believe this fossil is a mix and may not been offered for peer review because it is a mix of individuals.
A female erectus pelvis has been found that is wider than mankinds and could give birth to larger brained babies. Yet the male demonstrates a narrow pelvis. This is a contradiction and at best further demonstrates huge sexual dimorphism. Neonates with large brains require intensive care. Indeed women with intellectual disabilities usually loose the care of their children if they have no outside support as they are unable to care for a neonate. Yet this is exactly what evos are proposing. An ape with low intellectual capacity has larger brained babies that take years to reach independence, cannot cling to their mother as ape babies do, and yet survived. It is a contradiction to all that we know.
The pieces that were found were transitional which makes it a transitional fossil.
The pieces were not co located. There were other animals found in that same dirt. Many previous frauds have been identified. Have these bones even been tested to see if it is the one individual?
If you can find a peer reviewed article on the Turkana Boy find, that would be helpful. I cannot find one anywhere. I don't think the find has been peer reviewed.
So are Ardi and chimps both apes or not? If they don't share any features then how they both be apes?
Ardi is reconstructed. Your researchers say Ardi does not have chimp features that means it could be anythings ancestor.
Horse and mammal. Can you name the differences between horses and mammals?
What's the point? ERV transmission requires whole sequences to cross the germ line. Whole sequences crossing the germ line is going to result in death or deleterious effects and yet are said to be a factor in maintaining mammalian pregnancy and non rejection of the fetus. There is no point talking about mammals as evolutionists cannot explain how a placenta evolved itself, let alone how genomic sequences crossed the germ line to result in viable offspring.
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.
And yet when features demonstrate an annomoly they are called homoplasic. In other words anomolies are hand waved away yet any thing that even slighly resembles a variation that may be human like are never deemed homoplasic or convergent.
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.
A Good point which also demonstrates just how different the very same species can be yet still be quite distinctly dogs. I think it is unfortunate your researchers do not realise this and give every variation a new species name.
Yes, just like all of those intermediates between wolves and chihuahuas went extinct.
There were no intermediates between wolves and chihuahuas Wolves are the progenitors of the dog kind. A dog can not be bred to be asmall as a mouse nor as big as a horse, let alone an elephant, demonstrating a limit to adaptive ability.
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.
I said I am happy with your definition. You are an evolutionist and therefore should have some idea what you are looking for. You spoke to chimp like transitions from a common ancestor that may or may not resemble an ape but most definitely does not resemble a chimp.
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?
The point here is with homoplasy evolutionists are unable to determine for themselves. There is no inremediate for. Indeed even evolutionists cannot show any gradualism. Sediba's ape hands, a rare find it seems, at 2mya, are not human like at all.
Turkana Boy has an upward date of 1.8mya and you lot have demonstrated that species stay the same for millions of years. I reckon you evos should put Sediba hands on Turkana Boy and see what that looks like.
If any creationists can do picture editing I'd love to see Turkana Boy with Sediba hands and Ardi feet, as they are the only examples of fossil hands and feet you have to offer.
Here we have an ape that was supposedly bipedal, has a reduced pelvis and is now seen as being possibly an orang ancestor. Orangutans are the only non human primates you have any fossil ancestry for.
Oreopithecus bambolii was first described by French paleontologist Paul Gervais in 1872. In the 1950s, Swiss paleontologist Johannes Hürzeler discovered a complete skeleton in Baccinello and claimed it was a true hominid based on its short jaws and reduced canines, at the time considered diagnostic of the hominid family and a biped since the short pelvis was closer to those of hominids than those of chimpanzees and gorillas. However, Oreopithecus′ hominid affinities remained controversial for decades until new analyses in the 1990s reasserted Oreopithecus as directly related to Dryopithecus; the peculiar cranial and dental features explained as consequences of insular isolation. These new evidences confirmed that Oreopithecus was bipedal but also revealed that its peculiar form of bipedalism was much different from that of Australopithecus′ the hallux formed a 100° angle with the other toes enabling the foot to act as a tripod in erect postures and could not enable Oreopithecus to develop a fast bipedal locomotion. When a land bridge finally broke the isolation of the Tusco-Sardinian area 6.5 million years ago, truly large predators such as Machairodus and Metailurus were present among the new generation of European immigrants and Oreopithecus faced quick extinction together with other endemic genera. [1]
Dryopithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A shortened pelvis has been around for 7 million years and does not make an ape human.
What evolutionists are demonstrating, if there is any credibility here at all, is that a bunch of apes were walking around 7-8 million years ago. What you are demonstrating is that the first created ape was a biped and devolved into todays modern apes.
I like this comment made in the link below.
"The finds of Ardepithecus, Orrorin and Sahelanthropus have made it clear for some time that the last common ancestor between chimps and humans was almost certainly a biped. How likely is it that the LCA stood up on two legs for the first time, just in time to immediately diverge into two lines, one of which immediately reverted to quadrupedalism? Either were looking at the fastest do-over in evolution, or bipedalism extends back further into antiquity.
Any sharp line we try to draw between humans and the other apes will always be entirely subjective. Bipedalism sufficed for many people for many years, but thats out the window. The dust will be a long time settling."
A Human Ancestor for the Apes? « Anthropology.net
If bipedalism is a human trait
How many times have evolutionists claimed a human ancestor based on 'human traits' that have been disregarded with the forthcoming scenario that they all went extinct. Not one of them found an niche to survive. It is too bad Big Foot is just a legend.
In their paper, Wood and Harrison caution that history has shown how uncritical reliance on a few similarities between fossil apes and humans can lead to incorrect assumptions about evolutionary relationships. They point to the case of Ramapithecus, a species of fossil ape from south Asia, which was mistakenly assumed to be an early human ancestor in the 1960s and 1970s, but later found to be a close relative of the orangutan.
Similarly, Oreopithecus bambolii, a fossil ape from Italy shares many similarities with early human ancestors, including features of the skeleton that suggest that it may have been well adapted for walking on two legs. However, the authors observe, enough is known of its anatomy to show that it is a fossil ape that is only distantly related to humans, and that it acquired many "human-like" features in parallel.
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry
If I found a bunch of bones that had an ape head and bones of other creatures I would say that the ape head belonged to an ape and the other bones to another species. It is only that you need intermediates that you construct frankinstein monsters to appear as human as possible.
Turkana Boy has been dated to as early as 1.8mya. Sediba is 2myo. Sediba has ape hands. This so called rise to humanity necessitates the thumb being shorted in Ardi then evolving to longer than mankind in Sediba then shorter again in mankind.
I also do not accept that no erectus fossils are ever found with feet and hands in tact. I believe they have been found and have been disregarded as they demonstrate erectus was just an ape.
The problem for evolutioniust is this. They are unable to define what a transitional fossil should look like at any time. The fossil record is chaotic and apes and mankind today bear many similarities yet are disctinctly very different. Any trait, incuding the pelvis, could be homoplasic, even if Turk is one individual.
What makes mankind human is higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated language, not the shape of the arms, legs or pelvis. There is good support that Homo Erectus nor ergaster demonstrates the traits that define humanity from creations that are not in the image of God. Therefore, regardless of any homoplasic similarities, if this is an individual, Turkana Boy is still an ape.
