I say homo erectus are not men.
You can say that the moon is made of cream cheese. That doesn't make it true.
Turkana Boy is your best specimen and he was found with a small neural canal indicative of a lack of sophisticated language and higher reasoning ability. The skull still looks very ape like.
It also looks very human like, as I have already shown. You claimed that H. erectus looked more like a female orangutan than modern humans. That is a clear lie. Why do you continue to push it?
Although the human skull is very varied I see the variation way outside humanity today.
So you are saying that a transitional hominid fossil should be identical to modern humans? Really?
If you tip the skull back a little further, where I think it should be, all the more does Turkana Boy look like an ape.
Humans are apes.
Some creationists think Erectus is human. Up until Turkana Boy most did not. Turkana Boy is also young and would have developed even more ape like features in adulthood.
Humans also develop ape features, because we are apes. You need to be more specific. The cranial capacit of H. erectus is intermediate between humans and other apes. How is that not transitional? Can you even answer this one question?
Your researchers have gone to great lengths to show that Turkana Boy is an intermediate. However, evolutionists do not know what the chimp/human ancestor looks like. Neither do creationists know what the first ape looked like. For all we know the first ape may not have had long arms and these may have lengthened due to adaptation.
For the purposes of evolution, the common ancestor would have, at minimum, the shared characteristics of chimps and gorillas. This would include large brow ridges, prognathus, smaller cranium, and larger canines. H. erectus has brow ridges that are intermediate between modern humans and chimps/gorillas, a prognathus that is intermediate, and a cranium size that is intermediate. What more do you want in an intermediate?
However the bible states that . . .
Evidence please.
Evidence, not beliefs, please.
The other problem is the fossil record for chimps going back to the common ancestor. There are few. I believe that is because every adaptation of ape is put into the human line, often to be exited soon after.
Then why don't we find the opposite trend? Why don't we find a large cranium in the oldest specimens and smaller craniums in the youngest speciments? The trend in the fossil record is exactly the opposite of what your hypothesis proposes.
Given that Lucy asnd Ardi are now challenged as human ancestors.
However, they are transitional. They have a mixture of human and basal ape features. This is what makes them transitional.
Given that erectus is also being challenged as a direct human ancestor, given that Turkana Boy is classified as both ergaster and erectus demonstrating vagueness in classification, given that Erectus is not capable of sophisticated language and higher reasonong ability, my deduction from the evidence available is that Homo Erectus is not human but is a variety of ape that may have had adaptations of shorter arms. There is too much discontinuity for this creature to be human.
Wouldn't a transitional between humans and other apes have ape features? Or are you saying that a transitional should be identical to modern humans?
Therefore I see no intermediates, but rather evidence for the creation of distinct kinds, ape & human.
Humans are apes just like chihuahuas are dogs.
This along with such things like the sudden appearance of tetrapods 395mya,
How did you determine that tetrapods emerged suddenly?
the dating of modern birds via footprints dated to 212myo,
Nope, no modern bird dates to 212 mybp. That is also a lie.
a lack of human intermediates,
Until you tell us what features an intermediate should have you can not claim that there are no intermediates.
Just answer the question. Are you saying that a transitional hominid between us and other apes should be identical to modern humans? If not, then please describe the differences one should see between modern humans and a transitional hominid.
fossils of various different kinds I see as misrepresented in the fossil evidence eg Indohyus,
That is also a lie you have perpetrated. Indohyus is not an alligator.
creationist dating methods such as helium addition,
Completely debunked here:
RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons
I feel there is no need to change my beliefs . . .
Of course not. Your beliefs are religious dogma.
The evidence for evolution is just not strong and stable enough for me to change my views.
Closing your eyes to the evidence does not constitute a lack of evidence. You are so delusioned that you actually think H. erectus looks more like a female orangutan than modern humans. That makes my case right there.
I see TOE as a theory in evolution itself with a long way to go before it stabilizes and starts confirming stable and consistent data as opposed to new finds and data often causing shifts in thinking.
The ERV data has not moved, and you can not deal with it.
I cannot explain the coalescence and animation God used to create life instantly. God is a deity and has access to science we have yet to even form a notion about. I believe God does not use magic, but does use physics mankind is not aware of.
So you don't know how it happens, you don't have any evidence that it happened, and yet you choose to believe it. Do I have that right?
The data is the data. Either side can debate the validity of the methods used, either side can put up an interpretation of the evidence.
It just so happens that the creationists lose those debates and produce obviously flawed interpretations. A perfect example is your comparison of H. erectus to modern humans and orangutans.
However I honestly believe . . .
No, you dogmatically believe. Big difference. You have yet to DEMONSTRATE that your claims are true.
I think it is sad that evolutionists are unable to acknowledge what creationists see.
You see the inside of your eyelids. That is the only way I see possible for someone to claim that H. erectus looks more like a female orangutan than a modern human.
I and many other creationists at least can see what evolutionists look to and the interpretaions evolutionists make of the data.
Then you should know that evolutionists define transitionals as species with a combination of features from two divergent taxa. That is exactly what Australopithecines and H. erectus have, and yet you refuse to admit it.
Creationist theory is more stable with data amounting and continuing to validate evolutionary paradigms rather than changing them.
So how does creationism explain the nested hierarchy. Still haven't seen that explanation. Instead, all you have done is deny that one exists even when it is shown to you.
Bornean Orang female
