Why Evolution is True (3)

[Loudmouth]

again please see my last post, if you have questions on any of it reply to that post, thanks.

I did. It failed to support your claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

what you are talking about is populations, thats all. Species as a term was invented with all the other taxonomy. So no, you do not have the privilege of using that term either. (as you believe all arbitrary classifications are false because they were invented by man)

All classifications above species are arbitrary and man made. The only objective classification is at the species level.

If you think I am wrong, then go find the official criteria used to determine if two species belong to the same genus or not. I challenge you.

 

[Loudmouth]

It does point my way, all of it, including God's word.

Based on what criteria? What evidence, if found, would not point that way?

 

[bhsmte]

It does point my way, all of it, including God's word. If I claimed God use present state laws to create the universe, or that our laws are the be all end all, I too would be a hypocrite.

You know dad, I don't doubt for a moment, that you actually believe that.

The mind is more than capable, if the proper motivation is in place.

 

[Loudmouth]

I already answered the pictures of the apes, and humans,

No, you didn't. You never explained what features a real transitional would have, and how these fossils lack those features. Until you do, you have no answer.

but the other picture of lucy's hip looks fake, do you have any CT scans or other photographs, I like using actual photos of the fossils, so we know it can't be faked, like the very clean and obviously modified picture.

Those are CT scans, and the picture is from a peer reviewed paper:

Author Summary

note how Lucy is forward facing on the lobes of the hip

Note how Lucy's pelvis is short and broad with the blades of the pelvis at the sides like it is in modern humans, and unlike that found in chimps. That makes Lucy transitional.

 

[Loudmouth]

What are brow ridges needed FOR? Could it be that man and other creatures needed to adapt to something new in our world? If a monkey and a man squinted, for example, because the light was now somewhat different, and adapted brows that helped in that dept, why would they both not have adapted brows? Do we even know why brows adapted? Certainly a monkey with big brows does not mean it is our grandparent!!! That is truly foolish. We might consider why pelvises adapted also? Do you know why? If you offer that as evidence we came from monkeys, I say you have bad religion.

I think everyone agrees that transitionals were adapted to their environment. That doesn't stop them from being transitionals.

The issue is not what we should see if a belief is true. The issue is does what we see prove that only evolution could have been responsible.

If you throw in magical poofing any time the evidence supports something you don't like, then we can't have evidence for anything. Fingerprints at a crime scene? Can't be used as evidence because God could have magically poofed them into being at the crime scene. DNA at a crime scene? Leprechauns could have magically poofed the DNA into being, so DNA can't be used.

The road you want to go down is epistemological nihilism. Since you don't have evidence for your claims, you are going to do away with all evidence so that no one can be right.

Homonid transitional!!!?? You can't declare a monkey a transitional just because it started to evolve some bone feature as man may have had to do.

Then what features would a real hominid transitional have? Or are you saying that no one is allowed to use fossils as evidence for anything?

Conversely, we should also wak if there is some reason God may not have created creatures with somewhat similar features!?

Just like God could create fingerprints, so we shouldn't use them in a court of law?

Man created cars. God created creatures and angels. He uses a nested hierarchy.

Why would God use a pattern of characteristics that only evolution would produce? Was he trying to trick us?

Who says it is not also the exact order creation and subsequent changes produced?? You just want to steal the evidence for you belief! No. No. No.

Do I also need evidence that God does not plant fingerprints at crime scenes?

 

[createdtoworship]

No, you didn't. You never explained what features a real transitional would have, and how these fossils lack those features. Until you do, you have no answer.



Those are CT scans, and the picture is from a peer reviewed paper:

Author Summary



Note how Lucy's pelvis is short and broad with the blades of the pelvis at the sides like it is in modern humans, and unlike that found in chimps. That makes Lucy transitional.

those are not CT scans, they are obviously drawn in with photoshop. Everyone can tell, since when does a CT scan show 3 dimensions?

 

[createdtoworship]

All classifications above species are arbitrary and man made. The only objective classification is at the species level.

If you think I am wrong, then go find the official criteria used to determine if two species belong to the same genus or not. I challenge you.

so I see your double standard here, species is man made but fits your evolutionary time lines (thus it is scientific and acceptable), while genus and other taxa which are man made as well, but don't fit (are unacceptable and unscientific). So apparently anything that you think is right is scientific and anything you don't like is unscientific. Are you a scientist?

You are in error here,

and like I said all you have are populations, a term not invented by Carl Linnaeus.

 

[createdtoworship]

I did. It failed to support your claims.

please cite your evidences, and make your argument.

 

[lasthero]

those are not CT scans, they are obviously drawn in with photoshop. Everyone can tell, since when does a CT scan show 3 dimensions?

Welcome to the 21st century.

New CT scan allows a 3D look inside body - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent

 

[Loudmouth]

those are not CT scans, they are obviously drawn in with photoshop. Everyone can tell, since when does a CT scan show 3 dimensions?

They were constructed from the CT scans.

The Pelvis and Femur of Ardipithecus ramidus: The Emergence of Upright Walking

Look at Fig 1. It shows the CT scans and the smoothed out model from the CT scan.

 

[createdtoworship]

Although I don't much go wiith the micro macro thing, do you have several actual creatures that you claim macro evolved?

they claim tiktaalik usually and lucy, and a few others like archeopterix. But those have all been refuted. A quick glance at Answers in Genesis, or Evolution news and views will reveal that each creature has a common ancestry of only one side of the transition, tiktaalik is a lobe finned fish, archeopterix is a bird as her name signifies. Lucy is an ape like creature as been shown here with her ilium orientation. so there are no such creatures that exist that transition between two genra. But I am excited for dizredux to attempt to provide some transitions that we may not have seen.

 

[createdtoworship]

Welcome to the 21st century.

New CT scan allows a 3D look inside body - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent

if they were invented in 2007 it is very unlikely that in 2 years the technology would have found it's way to your source.

secondly, if the technology was scarcely available I am interested to see them state they were 3D Ct scans. Do you have a reference? And we already know they couldn't have placed all those items side by side and come up with a ct image. So there was some tampering done to combine them.

 

[Loudmouth]

so I see your double standard here, species is man made . . .

Species is not man made. Species are very real. There really are populations that do not interbreed.

Which species belong to which genus is entirely a man made decision. It is arbitrary. Which genera belong in the same family is once again a man made decision.

If you think I am wrong, then please tell me why I couldn't put all humans, apes, and all of our ancestors into a single genus. What is stopping this from happening? What rule would I be violating if I did this?

So apparently anything that you think is right is scientific and anything you don't like is unscientific. Are you a scientist?

Apparently, you don't understand that species are very real things while human constructed groups of species are not real things.

and like I said all you have are populations, a term not invented by Carl Linnaeus.

What I have are populations that don't interbreed which are called species.

 

[Loudmouth]

if they were invented in 2007 it is very unlikely that in 2 years the technology would have found it's way to your source.

secondly, if the technology was scarcely available I am interested to see them state they were 3D Ct scans. Do you have a reference? And we already know they couldn't have placed all those items side by side and come up with a ct image. So there was some tampering done to combine them.

You still can't address the transitional features found in the fossils. All you can do is try to change the subject.

 

[createdtoworship]

They were constructed from the CT scans.

The Pelvis and Femur of Ardipithecus ramidus: The Emergence of Upright Walking

Look at Fig 1. It shows the CT scans and the smoothed out model from the CT scan.

sounds like there was some artistic rendering to fill in the crevices as the original ct scans are not nearly as clean as the sculptures. It is also apparent that some shading was done on the artistic renderings which can mislead the viewer. The shading is not there on the CT scans

your source says this:
"was achieved by means of sculptural modeling on the basis of numerous dimensions and contours preserved on the original fossil"

I personally look at the raw fossil evidence, which does not allow for artistic error, or sculptor error.

I like using actual photos of the fossils, so we know it can't be faked, like the very clean and obviously modified picture of a CT scan.

here is some actual replicas of fossils (blue means reconstruction)

here is LUCY

http://www.efossils.org/page/boneviewer/Australopithecus afarensis/AL 288-1

even here:

http://www.efossils.org/page/bonevie...sis/AL 288-1

note how Lucy is forward facing on the lobes of the hip

and note below how a human like hip wraps around for 360 degree balance for walking upright (not knuckle dragging)

http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/media-center.html

do you see the same bone configuration of the ilium (specifically) in actual photos of fossils, or 3D CT scans?

 

[Loudmouth]

sounds like there was some artistic rendering to fill in the crevices as the original ct scans are not nearly as clean as the sculptures.

your source says this:
"was achieved by means of sculptural modeling on the basis of numerous dimensions and contours preserved on the original fossil"

And you still won't address the transitional features of the fossils. Why is that?

 

[lasthero]

if they were invented in 2007 it is very unlikely that in 2 years the technology would have found it's way to your source.

Why? Because you say it's unlikely?

secondly, if the technology was scarcely available

You haven't provided any evidence that they were scarcely available. You just said they would be and that you find it unlikely that people who made these scans would have access to such technology, but you haven't provided any reason why that should be.

I am interested to see them state they were 3D Ct scans.

Without even looking, let's say I find that they do indeed state that they're 3D CT scans, and that they felt the need to specify this instead of just assuming their readers weren't complete idiots.

What's to stop you from just saying they're lying? Obviously, if they are just photoshopped images and the researchers are trying to deceive people, they wouldn't put that in their paper. At what point while you accept these scans are what they say they are?

And we already know they couldn't have placed all those items side by side and come up with a ct image.

And they couldn't just take a picture of each time one at a time because...why? It'd be cheating?

So there was some tampering done to combine them.

Taking the scans individually and putting them side by side wouldn't be tampering.

 

[lasthero]

I like using actual photos of the fossils, so we know it can't be faked

Yes. Photos cannot be faked. Ever.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes. Photos cannot be faked. Ever.

prove the photos I provided were faked, this is a strawman, and a red herring. Now address the material provided please and no further dodging.