Why Evolution is True (3)

[lasthero]

prove the photos I provided were faked, this is a strawman,

I never said the photos you had were faked. Learn to read.

I was merely laughing at your implication that having a photo somehow means it's not a forgery.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Address the transitional fossils.

If you do not think they are transitional, then tell me what features a real transitional would have, and why.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why? Because you say it's unlikely?



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.



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?

I won't as they already said they resorted to sculptors to artistically smooth out the fossils without forensic evidence of said fillings. They also added shading and combined images. So there is a lot of dishonesty in those ct scans. And since they contradict the actual photos I provided of the fossils, we go with the facts not the artists.

 

[createdtoworship]

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

the ilium orientation comes from unsecure sources, I provided a non partison image of the actual fossil. So my evidence trumps yours, especially as I learned they used sculptors to aid in the picture image quality.

 

[lasthero]

So there is a lot of dishonesty in those ct scans.

Okay, first off, how is it dishonest if they told you about it?

Second off, how exactly would smoothing out certain parts of the image change the conclusions in any major way?

 

[Loudmouth]

I won't as they already said they resorted to sculptors to artistically smooth out the fossils without forensic evidence of said fillings. They also added shading and combined images. So there is a lot of dishonesty in those ct scans. And since they contradict the actual photos I provided of the fossils, we go with the facts not the artists.

They don't contradict, as this closeup of the actual Lucy pelvis shows:

http://www.boneclones.com/images/ko-036-pa-lg.jpg

The iliac blades are on the side as they are in modern humans. It is transitional.

Address the evidence. You asked for the evidence, and now you are doing everything in your power to avoid it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Okay, first off, how is it dishonest if they told you about it?

Second off, how exactly would smoothing out certain parts of the image change the conclusions in any major way?

reconstruction of fossils is somehow acceptable in physical anthropology. However it sort of leans on the artistic rendering instead of what is actually dug up. so yes, I would say it is dishonest. Now if there is say one hip fully formed, and they reconstruct the other half which was missing based on the fully formed one, then thats one thing. But to assume pieces of bone are there that simply are not on the fossil is not honest.

 

[Loudmouth]

the ilium orientation comes from unsecure sources, I provided a non partison image of the actual fossil. So my evidence trumps yours, especially as I learned they used sculptors to aid in the picture image quality.

Just more excuses that you use to avoid the evidence.

Next time you ask for evidence, remember how you ran away from it.

 

[Loudmouth]

reconstruction of fossils is somehow acceptable in physical anthropology. However it sort of leans on the artistic rendering instead of what is actually dug up. so yes, I would say it is dishonest. Now if there is say one hip fully formed, and they reconstruct the other half which was missing based on the fully formed one, then thats one thing. But to assume pieces of bone are there that simply are not on the fossil is not honest.

Assuming that Lucy was bilateral, nearly the entire hip is there.

http://www.boneclones.com/images/ko-036-pa-lg.jpg

You still won't deal with it.

 

[createdtoworship]

They don't contradict, as this closeup of the actual Lucy pelvis shows:

http://www.boneclones.com/images/ko-036-pa-lg.jpg

The iliac blades are on the side as they are in modern humans. It is transitional.

Address the evidence. You asked for the evidence, and now you are doing everything in your power to avoid it.

this looks like reconstruction (see the differerent colors)

I would have to see the actual fossil. and see it from the side, as that is where the curvature is seen.

 

[Loudmouth]

this looks like reconstruction (see the differerent colors)

You've never heard of bilateral symmetry?

I would have to see the actual fossil. and see it from the side, as that is where the curvature is seen.

I showed you a picture of the actual skull fossils, and you still won't address those.

Here is the actual Lucy fossil.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lucy_skeleton.jpg

As before, iliac blade is on the side of a short and squat human-like pelvis.

 

[lasthero]

reconstruction of fossils is somehow acceptable in physical anthropology. However it sort of leans on the artistic rendering instead of what is actually dug up. so yes, I would say it is dishonest. Now if there is say one hip fully formed, and they reconstruct the other half which was missing based on the fully formed one, then thats one thing. But to assume pieces of bone are there that simply are not on the fossil is not honest.

Don't think you understand what 'dishonest' means. They tell you what they're doing. That's not dishonest.

And do you understand what bilateral symmetry is? We don't need a fully formed skeleton to tell what what one half is like. Pretty much all animals are the same on both sides.

 

[justlookinla]

Tell us again what A has to do with N....and what the inbetweens mean.

 

[dad]

they claim tiktaalik usually and lucy, and a few others like archeopterix.

Those can't be declared transitional, and some may or may not have transitioned. One thing for sure man did not transition from lucy.

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.

Refuted may be a strong word for that. I think we can say that the evidence is not there to claim that they are certainly transitional from one kind to another. To do so would merely be a biased and ignorant denial of the creation of God.

 

[dad]

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.

Man is asked to believe by God. That is a good thing. To believe in some fantasy unproven past self appearing universe and life is a belief that has been snuck in as if it were science. That is vile, and unconscionable.

 

[dad]

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

If a man and a monkey both adapted rapidly in the former state, for example, to the new light, then we may have seen some brow features evolve that were similar. No one need believe that the reason similar features in different kins of animals and man existed was because one came from the other! That is moronic.

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.

Wrong. The bible has evidence from God of the sort He deemed fit to give! You choosing to omit that evidence changes nothing. God is right, and you are wrong. No man can be right in his silly little own wisdom, in opposing the truth of God. God's ways and wisdom are higher than the heavens, and man's is as low as a flatworm...which you think is your dear kin!!

Then what features would a real hominid transitional have?

Crazy talk. That is like saying 'If God is a dirty rotten liar, and never really created things, what would a man who came from a monkey look like'?

Or are you saying that no one is allowed to use fossils as evidence for anything?

That depends how you use them. If you want to say 'this creature existed because we see the fossil' Fine.

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

God IS the court of law.

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

If different creatures adapted to the new state rapidly, then they would have similar traits. I see nothing tricky at all there. The enemy of our souls wants to destroy faith in God, so naturally inspires absurd doubts and fables.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Those can't be declared transitional, and some may or may not have transitioned. One thing for sure man did not transition from lucy.. . . ..

Such an assurance is logically impossible to make by someone, such as yourself, that asserts the past may have had any number of previous states that render all projected knowledge of what it was like impossible to construct.

 

[createdtoworship]

You've never heard of bilateral symmetry?



I showed you a picture of the actual skull fossils, and you still won't address those.

Here is the actual Lucy fossil.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lucy_skeleton.jpg

As before, iliac blade is on the side of a short and squat human-like pelvis.

I don't question the symmetry, however this is a frontal view. I asked for a side view where the flatness of the hip of lucy is seen versus the curved human him for bipedal motion. And you either don't possess one, or must rely on mine that was given. Either way it will support my hypothesis that the ilium is orientated as a knuckle dragger not as a biped.

 

[createdtoworship]

Don't think you understand what 'dishonest' means. They tell you what they're doing. That's not dishonest.

And do you understand what bilateral symmetry is? We don't need a fully formed skeleton to tell what what one half is like. Pretty much all animals are the same on both sides.

well it's still guessing. You can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that those reconstructions are there, especially if both sides are missing a particular piece of bone, yet the reconstructionsts will somehow find the artists motiv to put that back together. But it's just a guess. show me some examples and I will prove my point to you. But this particular model is from the front anyway, and we can't see the flatness of the hip from the front. Hence why most lucy hips are in fact from the front (probably to deceive as many as possible, to keep their government grants coming. )

 

[Dizredux]

well it's still guessing. You can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that those reconstructions are there, especially if both sides are missing a particular piece of bone, yet the reconstructionsts will somehow find the artists motiv to put that back together. But it's just a guess. show me some examples and I will prove my point to you. But this particular model is from the front anyway, and we can't see the flatness of the hip from the front. Hence why most lucy hips are in fact from the front (probably to deceive as many as possible, to keep their government grants coming. )

If you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt it is just a guess.

If you don't know everything, you know nothing which is a form of nihilism.

Then asserting that the hips being seen from the front is to deceive as many as possible which could be seen as a touch of paranoia.

Racking up a score aren't we?

Dizredux