Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Where is your evidence creationists?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Astridhere" data-source="post: 59493691" data-attributes="member: 289689"><p>There is nothing I misrepresent. Evolutionary researchers agree with many things I say, the difference being they have another evolutionary 'story' and scenario instead of just sucking up the fact they truly have no idea, whereas creationists have creationist interpretations. The evidence for creation lies in much more than the fossil evidence and it is no worse than what you lot can present as flavour of the month.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: navy">Not surprisingly, there is much disagreement among paleoanthropologists with respect to reconstructing phylogenetic relationships for the australoptihecines. Furthermore, <strong>the discovery of new fossil specimens that are unexpected often cause dramatic re-organizations of hominid phylogenies.</strong> In addition to this, some new fossils are so out <strong>of line with current phylogenies that they cannot be positioned anywhere sensibly</strong> on phylogenetic trees and are often left aside with question marks accompanying them (for example: <em>Orrorin tugenensis</em>, <em>Sahelanthropus tchadensis</em> and <em>Kenyanthropus platyops</em>). Finally, paleoanthropologists are <strong>people with egos (often large ones)</strong> and, not surprisingly, often place their recently discovered fossil specimens at points on the trees which are thought to be the most crucial in the grand scheme of human evolution (being ancestral to the genus <em>Homo</em> for example). For all of these reasons, reconstructing hominid phylogenies is extremely problematic, but still a very necessary task if one wishes to comprehend the evolution of the australopithecines.</span></p><p><a href="http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4438" target="_blank">Australopithecine Evolution</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: navy">"Researchers have to stop publishing papers that say, essentially, 'This fossil is an early hominid,<u> <strong>so suck it up and accept it,</strong></u>'" Wood says. "<em>Nature</em> and <em>Science</em> could change this practice overnight if they wanted to."</span></p><p><span style="color: navy">Anthropologist Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, responds that, at least for Ardi, comparative studies published in 2009 ruled out the possibility that she was an ape. White led the team that excavated and analyzed Ardi's 4.4-million-year-old partial skeleton.</span></p><p><span style="color: navy">Ardi's remains show many similarities to ensuing hominids in East Africa, White adds. He lumps all proposed early hominids into an <em>Ardipithecus</em> genus that evolved into the <em>Ardipithecus</em> genus by 4.1 million years ago. In contrast, Wood and Harrison suspect that early hominids -- whatever their identities -- branched out in many different evolutionary directions</span>. </p><p> </p><p><a href="http://news.discovery.com/human/human-ancestors-apes-110217.html" target="_blank">Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis : Discovery News</a></p><p> </p><p>Evolutionists can present all sorts of research to back contradictory assertions. Why do evos suppose that is?</p><p> </p><p>It matters not whom is right or whom is wrong in any evolutionary debate because another possibility is.....</p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 15px">NONE OF THEM ARE RIGHT........</span></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Astridhere, post: 59493691, member: 289689"] There is nothing I misrepresent. Evolutionary researchers agree with many things I say, the difference being they have another evolutionary 'story' and scenario instead of just sucking up the fact they truly have no idea, whereas creationists have creationist interpretations. The evidence for creation lies in much more than the fossil evidence and it is no worse than what you lot can present as flavour of the month. [COLOR=navy]Not surprisingly, there is much disagreement among paleoanthropologists with respect to reconstructing phylogenetic relationships for the australoptihecines. Furthermore, [B]the discovery of new fossil specimens that are unexpected often cause dramatic re-organizations of hominid phylogenies.[/B] In addition to this, some new fossils are so out [B]of line with current phylogenies that they cannot be positioned anywhere sensibly[/B] on phylogenetic trees and are often left aside with question marks accompanying them (for example: [I]Orrorin tugenensis[/I], [I]Sahelanthropus tchadensis[/I] and [I]Kenyanthropus platyops[/I]). Finally, paleoanthropologists are [B]people with egos (often large ones)[/B] and, not surprisingly, often place their recently discovered fossil specimens at points on the trees which are thought to be the most crucial in the grand scheme of human evolution (being ancestral to the genus [I]Homo[/I] for example). For all of these reasons, reconstructing hominid phylogenies is extremely problematic, but still a very necessary task if one wishes to comprehend the evolution of the australopithecines.[/COLOR] [URL="http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4438"]Australopithecine Evolution[/URL] [COLOR=navy]"Researchers have to stop publishing papers that say, essentially, 'This fossil is an early hominid,[U] [B]so suck it up and accept it,[/B][/U]'" Wood says. "[I]Nature[/I] and [I]Science[/I] could change this practice overnight if they wanted to."[/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]Anthropologist Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, responds that, at least for Ardi, comparative studies published in 2009 ruled out the possibility that she was an ape. White led the team that excavated and analyzed Ardi's 4.4-million-year-old partial skeleton.[/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]Ardi's remains show many similarities to ensuing hominids in East Africa, White adds. He lumps all proposed early hominids into an [I]Ardipithecus[/I] genus that evolved into the [I]Ardipithecus[/I] genus by 4.1 million years ago. In contrast, Wood and Harrison suspect that early hominids -- whatever their identities -- branched out in many different evolutionary directions[/COLOR]. [URL="http://news.discovery.com/human/human-ancestors-apes-110217.html"]Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis : Discovery News[/URL] Evolutionists can present all sorts of research to back contradictory assertions. Why do evos suppose that is? It matters not whom is right or whom is wrong in any evolutionary debate because another possibility is..... [B][SIZE=4]NONE OF THEM ARE RIGHT........[/SIZE][/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Where is your evidence creationists?
Top
Bottom