Where is your evidence creationists?

[mdancin4theLord]

Wiccan_Child said, "As I've said before, we don't know. Perhaps it was quantum fluctuations in a grand nihilo, perhaps the energy of the universe is offset by an exact and opposite counter. Who knows. We don't know - and neither do you. We are honest to throw up our hands and say "We don't know", but it's rather telling that Creationists are not."

Thats exactly right, you don't know. Science does not know even where to begin to explain how everything came into being. For the egg and the eye two complexed things came into being by blind chance....is just impossible, its laughable. The creation story is less laughable. That is what you are saying however. Forming even a protein molecule by random process? I think science would say that its not probable its impossible. I will stick with the position that the basic laws of science which includes the laws of effect and its causes....entropy (which I am just reading a bit now) back up the creation model for origins...they simply IMO from what I have read undermine the evolutionary model.

"On the contrary, our minds can comprehend the evolution of the eye. As I stated in my last post to you (to which I'm still awaiting a reply), the eye can be quite succinctly explained in terms of evolution: gradual changes from our ancestors primitive clump of photosensitive cells to the variety of modern-day eyes (be it the eyes of a squid, hawk, or human), with each change being a slight improvement on what came before it."

Sure it can't it has scientists baffled. Yet it happened by blind change......for you. Unreal.....

I thought I did answer your question. I was just glancing through reading about this in Darwins Black Box. if you have it or want to look it up its on page 18-21.

They describe in detail how the eye works. And how the entire bodys organisms work around the eye. Absolutely fascinating. I am not a doctor so it is difficult to understand. Darwin had this to say about the eye.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."

So blind random chance......don't think so. This was and is a dilemma for people who reject God and creation. To think that the eye...evolved by chance impossible...and to surmise that the eye could have evolved at the same time other complexed functions were perfectly evolving....is well.......come on. Everything working together perfectly............don't believe it.

If you genuinely want to know how these things evolved, I'm more than happy to go through it with you. If you just want to go, "Oh, I can't imagine how they could have evolved, therefore no one can, therefore they didn't evolve", well, you're committing the fallacy of personal incredulity, and you have a rather substantial barrier to overcome, my friend.

You can't answer my questions...you yourself said you had no idea. You tell me...that there is no way that God could be a creator. You can't tell me how things were created.....but God is not on the list for possiblities for you. So who is closed minded? The fact is you havent got a clue....how things came about. Your making what you think is an educated guess....but you close the door on creation..and god. Your making a factual statement you cant prove. The idea of a god....goes against the fabric of your being. Why?


"Evidence is manipulated, certainly, but you're showing your lack of understanding if you think that means "fixed or altered to suit presupposed conclusions". Rather, 'manipulation', as well understood by actual scientists, means to take the raw data and extract even more information. To use an example from fiction Sherlock Holmes manipulates the clues he finds and deduces new information. He does not create fabrications or alter the clues in any way, he simply turns them around and views them from a different angle - the true, neutral meaning of the word 'manipulate'. When you use a knife and fork to eat your food, you are manipulating those utensils. When a surgeon uses high-tech instruments to remove a tumour, he is manipulating those instruments. When a mathematician moves the terms of an equation around to solve for some variable, he is manipulating those terms."


No I made an excellent point.....that science too makes guesses and some are manipulated for a reason a goal. Haeckel is on example....as his drawing he knew were fraudulent. Today I think they are still in science books. Its the agenda of the athiest. Sure when I use a knife and fork I push the food around on the plate. But when I leave the table and if I was asked to draw the utensils with which I ate....and drew a spoon.....whould that be the truth? I hate forks...therefore I inserted the spoon.

'And, so, when a scientists takes raw evidence, performs experiments, and draws conclusions, he is manipulating the evidence. Do not draw anything sinister from that, unless you have good evidence to accuse all scientists of underhanded deceit.'

I am not accusing all scientists of doing this. I think while Darwin was a racist and sexist man...he was at least honest...because he too had DOUBTS. He though even his findings were outrageous and could be impossible.

Take the earth for example. Wow....its an example of the greatest masterpiece of design and order. God created it perfectly. I just bought a container to filter my water. to keep in the refrigerator..and I was reading about water on the internet. Considering tap water...I learned that the solid state of most substances is more dense than their liquid state but the opposite is true for water which explains why ice floats and does not sink. If water were like other liquids it would freeze from the bottom up rather than the opposite way from the top down. If it did this it would kill all animal life under the lakes and seas and rivers. It would destroy the oxygen supply....and more importantly it would make living on our earth uninhabitable. This desgin by some evolutionary process.....? This going on when the eye and the egg and our organs were miraculously forming? Blind chance? No way.

"Our perfect distance from the sun...not seen on anyother planet. If we were any closer to the Sun we would fry. If we were any further away we would freeze. If the moon was smaller tidal motion would cease and the oceans would stagnate and die. Then there are the ocean tides that play a crucial role in our survival."

Basically Huse says that "any appreciable change in the rate of rotation of the earth would make life impossible.

Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, 2d ed.

The real miracle would how you could come up with an explanation how all this happened....from a big bang...or yet some perfectly planned evolutionary process or by blind chance. Its laughable to me....but interesting as well.

"If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists...work? The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. what makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?"
Richard Dawkins

Yes what would happen if people of faith just dissapeared...what would we be left with? People who make up morality as they go along...who think that it too evolves with time. Moral relativists that believe that there is no right or wrong....who simply throw up their hands in awe of science and say...I dont know...but its better than having a god belief. Dawkins here does however say that theologicans have achieved...yet that is not good enough. He says even the bad, the evil....the negative actions of scientists (and he admits that scientists fail) are better than people who simply believe by faith that God was the creator. What does it say about Dawkins...and about people who respect and believe that this statement is true.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Thats exactly right, you don't know. Science does not know even where to begin to explain how everything came into being. For the egg and the eye two complexed things came into being by blind chance....is just impossible, its laughable. The creation story is less laughable. That is what you are saying however. Forming even a protein molecule by random process? I think science would say that its not probable its impossible. I will stick with the position that the basic laws of science which includes the laws of effect and its causes....entropy (which I am just reading a bit now) back up the creation model for origins...they simply IMO from what I have read undermine the evolutionary model.






Sure it can't it has scientists baffled. Yet it happened by blind change......for you. Unreal.....

I thought I did answer your question. I was just glancing through reading about this in Darwins Black Box. if you have it or want to look it up its on page 18-21.

They describe in detail how the eye works. And how the entire bodys organisms work around the eye. Absolutely fascinating. I am not a doctor so it is difficult to understand. Darwin had this to say about the eye.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."

So blind random chance......don't think so. This was and is a dilemma for people who reject God and creation. To think that the eye...evolved by chance impossible...and to surmise that the eye could have evolved at the same time other complexed functions were perfectly evolving....is well.......come on. Everything working together perfectly............don't believe it.




You can't answer my questions...you yourself said you had no idea. You tell me...that there is no way that God could be a creator. You can't tell me how things were created.....but God is not on the list for possiblities for you. So who is closed minded? The fact is you havent got a clue....how things came about. Your making what you think is an educated guess....but you close the door on creation..and god. Your making a factual statement you cant prove. The idea of a god....goes against the fabric of your being. Why?


"Evidence is manipulated, certainly, but you're showing your lack of understanding if you think that means "fixed or altered to suit presupposed conclusions". Rather, 'manipulation', as well understood by actual scientists, means to take the raw data and extract even more information. To use an example from fiction Sherlock Holmes manipulates the clues he finds and deduces new information. He does not create fabrications or alter the clues in any way, he simply turns them around and views them from a different angle - the true, neutral meaning of the word 'manipulate'. When you use a knife and fork to eat your food, you are manipulating those utensils. When a surgeon uses high-tech instruments to remove a tumour, he is manipulating those instruments. When a mathematician moves the terms of an equation around to solve for some variable, he is manipulating those terms."


No I made an excellent point.....that science too makes guesses and some are manipulated for a reason a goal. Haeckel is on example....as his drawing he knew were fraudulent. Today I think they are still in science books. Its the agenda of the athiest. Sure when I use a knife and fork I push the food around on the plate. But when I leave the table and if I was asked to draw the utensils with which I ate....and drew a spoon.....whould that be the truth? I hate forks...therefore I inserted the spoon.




I am not accusing all scientists of doing this. I think while Darwin was a racist and sexist man...he was at least honest...because he too had DOUBTS. He though even his findings were outrageous and could be impossible.

Take the earth for example. Wow....its an example of the greatest masterpiece of design and order. God created it perfectly. I just bought a container to filter my water. to keep in the refrigerator..and I was reading about water on the internet. Considering tap water...I learned that the solid state of most substances is more dense than their liquid state but the opposite is true for water which explains why ice floats and does not sink. If water were like other liquids it would freeze from the bottom up rather than the opposite way from the top down. If it did this it would kill all animal life under the lakes and seas and rivers. It would destroy the oxygen supply....and more importantly it would make living on our earth uninhabitable. This desgin by some evolutionary process.....? This going on when the eye and the egg and our organs were miraculously forming? Blind chance? No way.

"Our perfect distance from the sun...not seen on anyother planet. If we were any closer to the Sun we would fry. If we were any further away we would freeze. If the moon was smaller tidal motion would cease and the oceans would stagnate and die. Then there are the ocean tides that play a crucial role in our survival."

Basically Huse says that "any appreciable change in the rate of rotation of the earth would make life impossible.

Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, 2d ed.

The real miracle would how you could come up with an explanation how all this happened....from a big bang...or yet some perfectly planned evolutionary process or by blind chance. Its laughable to me....but interesting as well.

"If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists...work? The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. what makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?"
Richard Dawkins

Yes what would happen if people of faith just dissapeared...what would we be left with? People who make up morality as they go along...who think that it too evolves with time. Moral relativists that believe that there is no right or wrong....who simply throw up their hands in awe of science and say...I dont know...but its better than having a god belief. Dawkins here does however say that theologicans have achieved...yet that is not good enough. He says even the bad, the evil....the negative actions of scientists (and he admits that scientists fail) are better than people who simply believe by faith that God was the creator. What does it say about Dawkins...and about people who respect and believe that this statement is true.

Just because you're unable to fathom does not mean everyone can't.

 

[Split Rock]

Thats exactly right, you don't know. Science does not know even where to begin to explain how everything came into being. For the egg and the eye two complexed things came into being by blind chance....is just impossible, its laughable.

Creationists are the only ones who claim anyone thinks these came into being by blind chance. They did not. They evolved. They were not poofed into existance by a god.

The creation story is less laughable.

Really? Which part? The mud man? The rib woman? The talking snake? The Tree of knowledge with magic fruit? Or the flaming sword?

Forming even a protein molecule by random process? I think science would say that its not probable its impossible.

Yes it does. That is why scientists do not make this claim. There are rules that dictate how molecules interact and processes that favor self-assembly of organic molecules under the right conditions.

I will stick with the position that the basic laws of science which includes the laws of effect and its causes....entropy (which I am just reading a bit now) back up the creation model for origins...they simply IMO from what I have read undermine the evolutionary model.

You will stick to the position that your erroneous interpretation of scripture is "God's Inerrant Word." Why you bother reading about entropy (which says nothing about evolution) is beyond me. Worse still, you are probably getting your information on entropy from creationist sources that are lying to you (not that you care). F.Y.I. The second law of thermodynamics does not preclude local increases in entropy within a system wherein net entropy is increasing. Your lying creationist sources won't tell you that, though.

 

[JediMobius]

Aminos to monomers, monomers permeate lipid membrane bubbles, those monomers combine into chance assemblages of polymers, some of which are inevitably self-replicating, and from there evolution can take its course.

So, this would be proteins-to-life? The RNA-world idea is quickly becoming the prevailing concept. Either way, nucleic acids cannot naturally be found outside of the nucleus of a cell. Self-replicating systems can do nothing but copy themselves, so it's a long jump from self-copying molecules to biological processes.

Define 'sudden'. If you're referring to the 'Cambrian explosion', it's worth pointing out that this 'explosion' took tens of million years, and is primarily typified by the appearance of hard body-plans. Extant body-plans may well have evolved much earlier, but until they could readily fossilise, they wouldn't appear in the fossil record. Come the Cambrian explosion and your body plans are now fossilising - which would show a 'sudden' appearance in the fossil record.

Indeed, according to this source, the Cambrian explosion is no more 'explosive' than any other point in the history of Animalia - it's not that anything special happened with regard to how quickly new body plans were developing, but rather the explosion simply represents the evolution of hard body parts. As evidence accumulates, we see a bigger picture, and the 'explosion' turns out to be nothing of the sort.

Suddenly meaning abruptly. A span of 70 million years out of 3.8 billion years of life is relatively abrupt. Even within one million years of multi-cellular life, Of course, as a matter of perception, that 70 million year span can be seen as the length of time of the effects of the sudden onset of body plans which have survived selective pressures since.

This source mentions "The most pronounced increase in early morphological diversity/disparity was unquestionably the Cambrian (Tommotian) ‘explosion’ of animals and protists" belies the contrary assertion that nothing special happened in this period. In fact, I didn't find anything in the source to support this claim, and throughout the article, the cambrian explosion seems to be regarded as unique and significant.

Define "relatively similarly". Bacteria are one of the most diverse groups of organisms on the planet. Just because they're small and unicellular doesn't mean they haven't changed.

They have remained bacteria. Fossils of bacteria lack morphological distinction.

How in the world did you conclude that?

From the cambrian explosion, rather than a single tree of life, we see evidence of the seeding of various trees of life. To preserve the idea of single common ancestry, several hypothesis have been put forth to account for the cambrian explosion, but such measures are prone to cognitive bias rather than empirical investigation.

Not really: the ancestors of primates during the Cambrian explosion were fishes.

More accurately, the ancestors of modern primates appear to have been fishes. Rapid onset of diversion among phyla at different points throughout biological history consistently takes a long span of time to exhibit distinct morphology resulting from the split in body plans/type of organism. That is, at the point in the timeline where a radical change is observed, the genetic deviation would had to have occurred some time before any discernible difference is observed in the timeline. Rather than being the point of radical change itself, the cambrian explosion, then, is evidence of the results of this radical change. Knowing that immediately following a split between two related phyla, there is no morphological difference at all, we can take this observation even further. Where two classifications branch off in the biological tree, it may be that this is merely the first noticeable deviation during the process of coevolution. I.e. the two were genetically dissimilar all along, and during the process of evolution remained morphologically similar until selective pressures resulted in a discernible change in morphology.

The assumption of single common ancestry creates a bias which perceives these splits as happening at points where the fossil record shows differing morphology. But since the fossil record cannot possibly provide the whole picture, there is no reason to regard single common ancestry as any more or less likely than multiple ancestry. Indeed, if a single biological ancestor could possibly have arisen from the depths, it is unreasonable to assume that no other biological ancestors could have arisen by the same process from the same environment under the same conditions.

There are two examples I like the best: nylon-eating bacteria, and Lenski's citrate-eating E. coli. Both show clear instances of the evolution of novel, hitherto non-existent traits.

Well, that's a premature conclusion. While these examples certainly exhibit beneficial mutations (notably, shown in the experiment to be a staggering ratio) neither example exhibits the addition of new information. Perhaps "new phenotype rather than variation on existing phenotype" is insufficient language. At any rate, the ability to produce enzymes to digest food is not new to bacteria. Which enzymes each strain produces show variations on an existing phenotype, not an altogether new phenotype. Neither is citrate utilization a "hitherto non-existent" trait in the context of bacteria,even its own family of bacteria, but only in the more specific context of e. coli. In a narrow enough context, anything can be considered novel.

 

[JediMobius]

There Is No Proof For God - Typical Christian Nonsense - YouTube

Seen it... but who said anything about proof? How could there possibly be natural proof of a supernatural entity? There can only be supernatural proof!

Also, straw man much?

 

[JediMobius]

Physics and chemistry.

Insufficient response. Physics and chemistry are not natural processes. They are man-made processes of study, investigation, and experimentation.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Insufficient response. Physics and chemistry are not natural processes. They are man-made processes of study, investigation, and experimentation.

O/o srsly?!!!???

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Seen it... but who said anything about proof? How could there possibly be natural proof of a supernatural entity? There can only be supernatural proof!

Also, straw man much?

Which is why they say what they do about extraordinary claims. So far I haven't seen anything that cannot be understood in natural, materialistic terms. Furthermore, as the Bible becomes increasingly antiquated, it's use as a source of history, morals, ethics, politics and science become even more spurious.

I'm not surprised you feel the video is a strawman argument though, as a short video can only address the salient facts, namely, theists claim there is a god, atheists reserve judgment until burden of proof has been met. As there are over 30,000 sects of Christianity alone, and no doubt countless opinions within each of those, make it hard to address each one individually. However, even with it's limitations, the video does make a point.

 

[JediMobius]

I think you mean the Cambrian, which btw covers millions of years.

I put 'pre' in parentheses to include trace fossils found before the cambrian explosion.

There were also jellyfish, worms, etc. The Edicarians seemed to have died out, but it isn't clear if some were indeed ancestral to Cambrian species.

How could common ancestry of primates and fish have been represented in the Cambrian? There weren't even any vertebrates in existance, only primitive chordates. BTW... where were all the vertebrates???

I was getting ahead of myself. Read my reply to Wiccan_Child, I get there.

No. Beneficial mutations are selected for and tend to increase in a population, while detrimental mutations are selected against. That is precisely what Natural Selection does.

Only under substantial selective pressure, which if I'm not mistaken tends to peak and valley rather than persist constantly. So, in the meantime, deleterious mutations would have had ample time to manifest in populations

Given that experimentation with bacteria has shown that only a handful of beneficial mutations become fixed out of hundreds of millions of mutations, selective pressure must kill off significantly more populations than it strengthens.

Sure. I have one in the archive:
http://www.christianforums.com/t3309652/

I'll have to bookmark and revisit.

 

[CabVet]

Amazing, do you want evidence of how deceiving and misleading creationists can be? Take a look at the quote below:

Indeed, according to this source, the Cambrian explosion is no more 'explosive' than any other point in the history of Animalia - it's not that anything special happened with regard to how quickly new body plans were developing, but rather the explosion simply represents the evolution of hard body parts. As evidence accumulates, we see a bigger picture, and the 'explosion' turns out to be nothing of the sort.

Now, take a look at the quote below, from the very paper that JediMobius cites above:

The most pronounced increase in early morphological diversity/disparity was unquestionably the Cambrian (Tommotian) ‘explosion’ of animals and protists, but it was the first appearance of eumetazoans, in the early Ediacaran, that marks the more fundamental transition.

 

[JediMobius]

Which is why they say what they do about extraordinary claims. So far I haven't seen anything that cannot be understood in natural, materialistic terms. Furthermore, as the Bible becomes increasingly antiquated, it's use as a source of history, morals, ethics, politics and science become even more spurious.

I'm not surprised you feel the video is a strawman argument though, as a short video can only address the salient facts, namely, theists claim there is a god, atheists reserve judgment until burden of proof has been met. As there are over 30,000 sects of Christianity alone, and no doubt countless opinions within each of those, make it hard to address each one individually. However, even with it's limitations, the video does make a point.

I haven't time to address all of this, but the video most certainly is a straw man. The point of view of the "Christian" is obviously misrepresented and distorted by the non-Christian author, who clearly did not bother to consult any moderately accomplished Christian apologist. As such, the argument is entirely biased toward the anti-theist position from the outset. Classic straw man. This is more than a mere limitation, but founded on a fallacy, is nothing short of a false premise.

 

[JediMobius]

O/o srsly?!!!???

Uh, yeah. Science is not a natural process. I don't understand the hang up.

 

[JediMobius]

Amazing, do you want evidence of how deceiving and misleading creationists can be? Take a look at the quote below:



Now, take a look at the quote below, from the very paper that JediMobius cites above:

Wiccan_child cited that. Fixed. Please revise. And while you're at it, try not to succumb to cognitive bias so easily.

 

[CabVet]

The assumption of single common ancestry creates a bias which perceives these splits as happening at points where the fossil record shows differing morphology.

Single common ancestry is not an assumption, it's an observation.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Single common ancestry is not an assumption, it's an observation.

He also thinks physics and chemistry are not natural processes.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I haven't time to address all of this, but the video most certainly is a straw man. The point of view of the "Christian" is obviously misrepresented and distorted by the non-Christian author, who clearly did not bother to consult any moderately accomplished Christian apologist. As such, the argument is entirely biased toward the anti-theist position from the outset. Classic straw man. This is more than a mere limitation, but founded on a fallacy, is nothing short of a false premise.

erm... that video summarily captures dialogue on any given day here at CF. You may not agree with the video, but this doesn't change the fact that Xians here on CF have said verbatim, what the video says. So, given the fact that Xians say the darndest things here on CF, it is not so much of a stretch to accept that at least some Xians believe what the video states.

 

[Astridhere]

Single common ancestry is not an assumption, it's an observation.

No common ancestry is based on twoddle and non plausible sceanrios that hand wave away the observed and obvious.

For example Proconsul, now considered by Hopwood to be an ancestor of the chimpanzee has shorter arms comparative tp body than Ardi LUcy or Erectus.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_(primate)

Here you have Proconsul once thought to be a direct human ancestor that is now just an ape, like Lucy, with no humanity in it likely a chimp. Prconsul looks more human like than Erectus, Lucy or Ardi's reconstructions. In an upright stance Proconsul is a short armed ape with less of a receding forehead than Turk, Ardi or Lucy.

You have bipeds back at least 8mya and likely 20mya which overlaps with Proconsul at 23-5mya.

This Proconsul looks more human than Erectus, including Turkana Boy. It has short arms, a more human like skull not disimilar to the Bornean Orangs skulls I posted and more similar to mankind than anything inbetween. The pelvis is missing (it has been guessed in) an Proconsul may have also been a biped which would suit it more than a long armed Ardi. Apes today can be bipedal so there is no reason to think any of these apes were less bipedal than todays apes. I understand why evos do not stand Proconsul erect. It makes a mochery of your supposed line of descent.

What younger finds between 2-8mya demonstrate is arms lengthening from Proconsul to Ardi and Lucy, and even to Erectus from a short armed ape to modern day apes or extinction, at a time when bipeds were common place according to evos. Your theory requires a lengthing of arms from Proconsul only to be shortened again in mankind. A bit ridiculous I think.

My story gives more of a straight line of adaptation of ape to ape, as would have obviously occured as Proconsul adapted into a tree swinging, kuncklewalking chimp or any variety of ape as proposed by some evo researchers.

The reason why you have scant ancestral evidence for gorillas and chimps from now to 6mya is because they are hidden in the human line as some of your own evo researchers have suggested.

Something like the short armed Proconsul adapted via creatures like Lucy, Ardi & Erectus into many of the apes today with great variety within various species of chimps orangs and gorillas. You already have chimp, gorilla, Orang, bonobo fossil evidence in front of your eyes but your researchers cannot see it because they are too caught up in a myth to see the obvious.

 

[Incariol]

No common ancestry is based on twoddle and non plausible sceanrios that hand wave away the observed and obvious.

For example Proconsul, now considered by Hopwood to be an ancestor of the chimpanzee has shorter arms comparative tp body than Ardi LUcy or Erectus.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_(primate)

Here you have Proconsul once thought to be a direct human ancestor that is now just an ape, like Lucy, with no humanity in it likely a chimp. Prconsul looks more human like than Erectus, Lucy or Ardi's reconstructions. In an upright stance Proconsul is a short armed ape with less of a receding forehead than Turk, Ardi or Lucy.

You have bipeds back at least 8mya and likely 20mya which overlaps with Proconsul at 23-5mya.

This Proconsul looks more human than Erectus, including Turkana Boy. It has short arms, a more human like skull not disimilar to the Bornean Orangs skulls I posted and more similar to mankind than anything inbetween. The pelvis is missing (it has been guessed in) an Proconsul may have also been a biped which would suit it more than a long armed Ardi. Apes today can be bipedal so there is no reason to think any of these apes were less bipedal than todays apes. I understand why evos do not stand Proconsul erect. It makes a mochery of your supposed line of descent.

What younger finds between 2-8mya demonstrate is arms lengthening from Proconsul to Ardi and Lucy, and even to Erectus from a short armed ape to modern day apes or extinction, at a time when bipeds were common place according to evos. Your theory requires a lengthing of arms from Proconsul only to be shortened again in mankind. A bit ridiculous I think.

My story gives more of a straight line of adaptation of ape to ape, as would have obviously occured as Proconsul adapted into a tree swinging, kuncklewalking chimp or any variety of ape as proposed by some evo researchers.

The reason why you have scant ancestral evidence for gorillas and chimps from now to 6mya is because they are hidden in the human line as some of your own evo researchers have suggested.

Something like the short armed Proconsul adapted via creatures like Lucy, Ardi & Erectus into many of the apes today with great variety within various species of chimps orangs and gorillas. You already have chimp, gorilla, Orang, bonobo fossil evidence in front of your eyes but your researchers cannot see it because they are too caught up in a myth to see the obvious.

Are you seriously presenting your opinion upon a gross examination of a handful of pictures on Wikipedia as refuting the opinions of multiple trained paleontologists which are formed on multiple instances of direct observation with a wide range of samples?

 

[someguy14]

"Do you believe in miracles...am I hearing you, am I seeing you..."

Miracle - Matisyahu Hanukkah Song - YouTube

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Just because you're unable to fathom does not mean everyone can't.

I could say the same thing about people who are not beleivers. Because you can't fathom a God does not mean you can prove there isn't one and that God does not exist. And since Christianity is the largest faith on earth......a lot of people can fathom it.