Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 158 (8123 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-16-2014 7:27 PM
103 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat, Spiritual Anarchist
Post Volume:
Total: 736,096 Year: 21,937/28,606 Month: 1,024/1,410 Week: 226/524 Day: 51/87 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
72NextFF
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4700
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 31 of 1075 (512652)
06-19-2009 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 2:34 PM


Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
The hypothesis about humans evolving from apes is not welldocumented nor is it science.

False. The descent of modern man from ape-like critters was well-documented by the fossil record, and when DNA analyses were introduced that entirely separate line of evidence confirmed what the fossils showed. Your source is lying to you on this point.

For exampel, have you ever read a science magazine lately ? When i read about evolution i often get the impression that every time some new fosil is found significant changes are being made in the " tree of life"

So? Why should there not be changes when new evidence is found? Would you have scientists be like creationists, who already know it all and won't make a change no matter what the evidence? That wouldn't be science.

Instead of blindly believing in evolutionist. How about studying the evidence your'e self. The recreations of human apes in science magazines are intentionally made to look more like apes the older it is.

I have handled and studied most of the major fossils in human evolution (as casts). I spent quite a bit of time in grad school studying evolution and closely related fields such as human osteology, human races, primatology, anatomy, etc. I don't need no steenkin' science magazines--I've studied the original casts and read many of the most important journal articles.

Others here have considerable experience in the related fields as well.

And you? All we're getting from you are the standard creationist misrepresentations based on wishful thinking and denial of the evidence because of a priori religious beliefs. Not much credibility there, eh? And its wrong besides.

(See tagline)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 2:34 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 3943
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 32 of 1075 (512653)
06-19-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 3:58 PM


Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
Do i really need any links ? I am trying to use only common knolledge because i hate using links.

Yes, you do need links. One of the requirements of this forum is that you support your arguments with evidence. Further, I dispute your "common knowledge" as utter bullshit. That means you need to present a source.

Abiogenisis is impossibel

Says who? You? Why should I believe you?

Immediately provide evidence that abiogenesis is impossible or concede that this claim is nonsense.

To do that, you need to provide a mechanism that makes abiogenesis impossible. No such mechanism, to my knowledge, has been discovered - which is why we continue to research abiogenesis and possible pathways from prebiotic organic compounds to the building blocks of life.

and is very likely to be the worst myth ever made by humans.

Why? Because you say so? You haven't even shown that it's a myth, let alone that it's particularly egregious. Personally, I find the idea of talking snakes and invisible men in the sky who sacrifice themselves to themselves only to raise themselves from the dead after three days to be a rather egregious myth.

And the form of Darwinism that is allto common today. Evolutionist should simply solve this by saying something created it but they choose to stick to it.

Scientists don't say things they cannot back up with evidence. We don't know that life was "created" - we have no evidence of a creator, and there is nothing definitive about life that suggests an intelligent entity was required. We know that life at one point did not exist, and now life does. We have clues regarding abiogenesis (it appears that the abiotic, nonliving precursors to life exist naturally in the Universe, and so far experiments in getting them to spontaneously combine into compounds required for life have been promising), and so we continue to investigate its plausibility. It's the most likely solution only because it's the only solution with any sort of evidence behind it - that's a far cry from anyone proclaiming it to be factual.

I believe you need to go and study books if you are questioning why i am not linking facts for common knolledge. I recomend this video were richard dawkins speaks himself =)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
For learning about what i said

I think you need to do some reading. But around here, you're required to post in your own words what you believe a source is saying, as well as a link or quote from the source itself. Otherwise, there's really no reason to believe you aren't completely making things up.

And really...a rickroll? This is an actual debate site. We have professors, actual scientists around here along with the rest of us who simply consider this a hoby. This isn't a YouTube Comments section. Grow up and post some evidence, or content yourself with being dismissed as an ignorant child.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 3:58 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 33 of 1075 (512659)
06-19-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 2:34 PM


Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
Hi Doubletime and welcome to EvC Forum! :) I hope you enjoy your time here; I have a feeling that there is much you can learn.

Now, you've already got a fair weight of replies, so I won't add to it too much by answering your whole post. There are a few things that I'd like to comment on though.

quote:
For exampel, have you ever read a science magazine lately ? When i read about evolution i often get the impression that every time some new fosil is found significant changes are being made in the " tree of life"

Strangely though, none of those articles say "Guess what! Humans aren't descended from apes after all!". They don't say that because all the evidence is that humans, modern apes and extinct hominids all share common ancestry.

Another reason why they don't say that is because we are apes. I'm an ape. I'm descended from apes. My Mother is an ape. You're an ape. Henry Kissenger is an ape. You get the general idea.

quote:
Instead of blindly believing in evolutionist. How about studying the evidence your'e self.

And how about you? have you looked at the evidence yourself? Have you ever handled a hominid fossil? Have you ever even seen one? Because there are plenty of people out there who have dedicated their careers to studying such fossils and I have a feeling that they are a bit better acquainted with the evidence than you are.

quote:
Neanderthals are another exampel of how you can not trust in the evolutionist recreation of human apes. The first Neander thal fosils were made very ape like. But it turned out the fosil this was based on belonged to a deformed old man.

The problem with this is that you don't say which fossil you are referring to. How can we assess the validity of your claim if you provide no details? You say we should look at the evidence for ourselves? How about you provide some?

quote:
Another exampel of the evolutionists wishing thoughts were Archapitetus, Said to be the first walking ape, But this was only based upona few fragments from the jaw. Do you think this was enough o recreate a walking human ape ?

Well, gee, it's kind of hard to say, when you don't say which fossil you mean. Also, there is no such thing as "Archapitetus". Perhaps you meant Australopithecus?

quote:
First of all there are very few fosils considering all the species who lived, so its not a very good base at all.

Leaving aside the general problems with this line of reasoning, may I ask you a question?

How many hominid fossils do you think there are in the known fossil record?

How many Neanderthal fossils do you think we have?

How many Australopithecines?

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 2:34 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15878
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 34 of 1075 (512676)
06-19-2009 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 9:56 AM


misreading? or trolling?
Hi Doubletime,

Who said im a creationist ?

Curiously, it wasn't me. What I said was that you were using creationist arguments, specifically ones that have been overwhelmingly refuted by the facts.

LoL this is what i loooove with theese forums about faith or reigion. It is so easy to start flamers unintentionally ^^

Yes, all you need to do is post some ignorant rubbish from creationists sites about things that have been overwhelmingly refuted by the facts, and then stubbornly repeat yourself.

Strangely, you don't need to be a creationist to be ignorant.

Well humans are to be considerd as our own species quit frankly.

Interestingly, that was not your previous claim. What you said in Message 12 was:

Quit frankly humans are a class of our own.

Now you may be as ignorant of taxonomy as you are of other aspects of biology, but "class" and "species" have quite different meanings in biology:

http://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html

quote:

* Kingdom
o Phylum
+ Class
# Order
* Family
o Genus
+ Species


Fascinatingly, when we look at the taxonomy of humans, we are not in a class of our own:

quote:
Domain: Eukarya
Kingdom: Animalia
Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Infraphylum: Gnathostomata
Superclass: Tetrapoda
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Placentalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

Last time I looked there were an awful lot of mammal species on the earth.

And equally fascinating is that all varieties (races & hybrids) of humans are members of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, and there is at least one ancestral subspecies that no longer co-exists with us.

Homo sapiens idaltu, from 160,000 years ago.

While we are on the subject of other humans and hominids, I'll return to an earlier comment of yours:

Message 11
Or like this, if we have not found any living missing links between humans and apes, If we have not found any missing link in the fosil record. Why should i believe that we evolved from apes ?

Take a look at this picture and tell me where you draw the line between (A) - Chimp, and (N) - Human:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

quote:

Click to enlarge

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

  • (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
  • (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
  • (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
  • (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
  • (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
  • (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
  • (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
  • (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
  • (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
  • (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
  • (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
  • (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
  • (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
  • (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Note that (J), (K) and (L) are Homo neanderthalensis and you can see the difference in skull sizes with the Homo sapiens skulls (M) and (N).

Because our brain capacity is far superior to any other creature.

Do you realize that the intelligence of humans, chimps and gorillas overlap when you consider the total populations?

Amazingly the brain capacity (volume) of Homo neanderthalensis is (was) greater than ours.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hobbit/tree-nf.html

quote:
Homo neanderthalensis
CHIEF SPECIMENS: skull cap and partial skeleton found in Germany's Neander Valley in 1856; other fossils found throughout Europe and in Asia as far east as Uzbekistan
WHEN LIVED (est., in years ago): 200,000—30,000
BRAIN SIZE (est., in cu cm): 1,420 (mean of 24 skulls)

Homo sapiens
CHIEF SPECIMENS: fossils found on all continents except Antarctica; oldest known sapiens fossils (195,000 years old) found in Ethiopia in 1960s
WHEN LIVED (est., in years ago): 195,000—present
BRAIN SIZE (est., in cu cm): today's mean = 1,350 (range 1,100-1,800)


And there are other animals with much larger brains than humans.

Are you saying im agaisnt science just because im against evolution ?

Evolution is science, so if you are against evolution you are de facto against science. I don't need to say it - you have.

Message 24

What is science?

Let's see ... you're "against" evolution, but not science, ... and you don't know what science is ...

Really there is no excuse, when you can look it up in some pretty easy and basic sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

quote:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3]


Notice that with the theory of evolution one can make predictions, and see those predictions come true. For instance, the theory predicts that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - will occur. Fascinatingly, we do not see a single population of reproductively related organisms where this does NOT occur.

The theory of evolution also predicts that changes in one population will not be the same as changes in another population unless they share genetic material (ie - there is reproductive gene sharing between the populations), and that as a result such populations can diverge. Interestingly this is the source of varieties within species, and where varieties are isolated it can result in speciation - the reproductive isolation of daughter populations from the parent or other daughter populations. This too has been observed to occur, just as predicted.

Is it scientific to beleive in abiogenisis or big bang ? Infact that is less scientific then any religion that ever existed.

Fasacinatingly, belief is not how science works (see above), so once again you display ignorance of what science involved.

Atleast from a mathematic perspective.

Ah mathematics. Wonderful tool, but not a test of reality, so a "mathematic perspective" is relatively useless in judging the validity of a concept. All math can do is model a system and then predict how the system will act. If the predictions are wrong, then the mathematical model was wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts. So if your "mathematic perspective" says abiogenesis cannot occur, and yet the evidence says at time (A) there was no life, but at time (B) there is life, then the "mathematic perspective" is obviously wrong: some process in fact started life. We just don't know what that process was.

Im not saying the creationist are much better

And yet all you seem to use for evidence is creationist arguments, and particularly bad ones to boot.

( Allthough infinetly better from a mathematic view point)

Ah yes, the mathematics of god-did-it are much simpler.

But making suchs claim as that im unscientific by not believing in evolution is no better then a priest saying that atheist are evil.

No, you're unscientific because you don't understand how science operates and haven't educated yourself on the matter. Saying you don't "believe" in evolution is just validation of the opinion that you understand squat about science.

Abiogenisis is impossibel ...

Of course, from a "mathematic perspective" you understand that to make this statement you must already know all the possibilities and have proven that it is not possible for life to arise from chemical reactions.

Care to share the calculations and the proof?

Message 28

I believe you need to go and study books if you are questioning why i am not linking facts for common knolledge. I recomend this video were richard dawkins speaks himself =)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Curious that, rather than a book, you link to a non-science song and dance video. Here's an article by Dawkins that applies to you:

Ignorance is no Crime

quote:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.

Read the whole article, and then see if you can find some other category for your claim not to believe in evolution, one that is honest and logical?

Message 1

I think it is wrong to teach evolution, abiogenisis and big bang as facts in school. Whats even worse is that most science books doesent even mention that the odds for abiogenisis is impossibel. ...

Followed by the SAME list of creationist PRATTS you have posted here, one's where you either do not understand the replies that refute them, or you are ignoring the fact that they are refuted arguments.

Here's an idea: study the evidence yourself -- all of it, not just the creationist mumbo jumbo misrepresentations, but the actual honest scientific evidence.

Now the question arises again: are you willing and able to learn from your mistakes, correct your misunderstanding, and strive to reduce your ignorance in these matters? It's your choice.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : (SIC)

Edited by RAZD, : added skull link


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 9:56 AM Doubletime has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Doubletime, posted 06-20-2009 6:55 AM RAZD has responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 31 days)
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 35 of 1075 (512680)
06-19-2009 10:51 PM


Intelligent organisms die too!
Hello, Doubletime.

Since I'm pretty sure English is not your first language, and you have no training in scientific lingo, let me try to explain in normal language.

RAZD and Coyote said that scientists have found "human-apes" in the fossil record. So, these creatures existed. That means you are wrong.

Rahvin and Huntard and others said that "human-apes" did not survive until today. We are not sure why they didn't survive, but, they didn't.

But, there is no rule that says more "advanced," or more complex or more intelligent types of creatures will survive better than simpler or less intelligent creatures. If there was such a rule, don't you think plants and mushrooms and jellyfish would have gone extinct long ago?

Consider this:

How many orangutans were killed in World War II?
How many gorillas have been killed by the Black Plague?
How many chimpanzees have been killed by grizzly bears?

The answer is, zero; because these are not pressures that the apes have to deal with. These are pressures that could kill us off, but not the other apes.

Does this make it clear to you how a "less advanced" species might survive while a "more advanced" species does not?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12742
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 36 of 1075 (512688)
06-20-2009 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 3:58 PM


Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
Do i really need any links ? I am trying to use only common knolledge because i hate using links.

Stuff that creationists have made up may be common but it is not knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 3:58 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 37 of 1075 (512711)
06-20-2009 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
06-19-2009 9:41 PM


Re: misreading? or trolling?
Very long post. Hurt my eye there.

But fine i guess i can comment on the chain.

Australopithecus africanus was originally hyped to be the first upgoing humanoid in the history, Later more detaieled evidence shows that it was remarkable ape like. This is allso the species lucy was (If i remember right) But if this species was found today. It would be placed in zoos like all the modern apes are, and noone would call them human apes.

There seems to be a huge gap between C and D or is it just me ?

Only the 3 first were possibly all chimpanzees. Or some simmulair ape like species. While all the rest are humans ( Assuming evolution is true )

So thanks for giving me a better insight of the supposed chain. But i will try to make some new arguements if you hate creationist so badly (LOL)

D-N are all diffrent races of humans as suggested by the name homo. However there are extreme significant diffrences among the modern variations of man today. ( How do i insert images ?)

http://blog.photos2view.com/files/tallest-shortest-man.jpg

We have small short pygmees, We have very tall races as well. Some people are big, some are small, some short. Some tall. Imagine that if Darwin was borned 3000. Do you think he would be able to use skelletons from this era to make it look as if the default form of humans has evolved ?

Of course that would be an easy thing to do. The reseon i am suspicius to the human apes is not because i have been brainwashed by creationist. It is because i think the supposed evidence could easily simply be diffrent independent forms of human rather than a progressive state of humans.

Since recreations of extinct homonids are not to trust on. ( Especially when media is evolved. Just look at archapitetus piltdown nebraska man) I am more interestted in seing whats known about the fosils rather than what they were supposed to look like.

We didn't have a clue about how dinosaurs skin looked or so. But later on scinetist mananged to discover some things. But the remakes of extinct homonids are made to look more like humans the closer they are to us and so on because the scientist who recreates them assume evolution is a fact.

We have evidence that homo erectus used tools, and were social. So they were no primitive ape like freaks. They were very likely to be sofisticated talentented race of humans just like us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

And there is no evidence that the homo neanderthal were submitted to our ancestors in anyway. Theese now more extinct race were talented humans as well. Here in the link you can see the first reconstruction based on a deformed skull and a more modern one based on newer evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

( Yeah wiki sucks but it is easy to acces ^^ )

Now if the more recent remake of neanderthal went out on the street in modern clothes. What would happend ? Nothing most likely. We have much more exotic forms of humans alive today.

Along with the new guinnea man that was said to be one of our ancestors that lived today but later on turn out to belong to a modern race. ( Another HOAX)

Cro magnon is a very wellpreserverd fosil. But if Darwin was never borned, noone would get the idea to say it belonged to a diffrent race.

There is alot of sever holes visibel with the raw eye. And it is not impossibel that D-N Simply are diffrent variations of modern humans. Or infact thats exactly what it is.

There is alot of variation today that is far greater than what have been found in the fosil records. So if someone wanted to. They could have taken diffrent fosils from deformed people and made it look like the default form evolved.

This is what i love/hate with evolution forums. As soon as someone agaisnt evolution speaks 5 other persons atleast comes with their jumbo posts to attack you lol =P. I love a good flamewar but i can't handle so much people ^^

Ps i pity theese retards not understanding how impossibel abiogenisis is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 06-19-2009 9:41 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by bluescat48, posted 06-20-2009 8:16 AM Doubletime has responded
 Message 39 by Blue Jay, posted 06-20-2009 8:39 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Coyote, posted 06-20-2009 11:29 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2009 11:33 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2009 8:09 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 618 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 38 of 1075 (512716)
06-20-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Doubletime
06-20-2009 6:55 AM


Re: misreading? or trolling?
Ps i pity theese retards not understanding how impossibel abiogenisis is.

So give me evidence that abiogenesis is impossible.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Doubletime, posted 06-20-2009 6:55 AM Doubletime has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Doubletime, posted 06-20-2009 12:04 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 31 days)
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 39 of 1075 (512719)
06-20-2009 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Doubletime
06-20-2009 6:55 AM


Re: misreading? or trolling?
Hi, Doubletime.

You really need to read some more about science: your knowledge of science history and philosophy is full of errors.

Doubletime writes:

D-N are all diffrent races of humans as suggested by the name homo.

When you see two words in a scientific name, the first one (Homo, in this case) refers to the genus. A genus is a group of species (lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars all belong to the same genus, Panthera). The second word refers to the species. So, erectus, habilis, ergaster, sapiens, and neaderthalensis are different species, not different races.

-----

Doubletime writes:

We have small short pygmees, We have very tall races as well. Some people are big, some are small, some short. Some tall.

These are not the differences used to classify hominids. Scientists classify Neanderthal and H. erectus as different species because features in their skeletons are not found in any modern humans, from pygmies to giants.

Examples are the shape of the hips, lack of a chin, a muzzle, the shape of the jaw and the roots of the teeth, the size and shape of the cranium, etc.

And, this is not just a random choice or assumption on their part: the differences between Neanderthals and modern humans are comparable to the differences between tigers and lions, or between horses and zebras. We have actual evidence that these types of changes distinguish species.

Doubletime writes:

Since recreations of extinct homonids are not to trust on. ( Especially when media is evolved. Just look at archapitetus piltdown nebraska man)

There is no such thing as "Archapitetus."

And, it has already been told you that the only reason we know that Piltdown and Nebraska Men were frauds is because scientists found it out. This is a good reason to trust scientists on this issue.

I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that science always has the answers. But, I am going to tell you that we will eventually sort out our own errors. We always have, and we always will: that's what science is designed to do.

-----

Doubletime writes:

But if Darwin was never borned, noone would get the idea to say it belonged to a diffrent race.

Not true. Alfred Russell Wallace also came up with the same idea on his own.

Furthermore, Darwin didn't just come up with the new idea like Mohammad or Buddha did: his idea developed out of the common scientific ideas of the time. The idea of evolution was around before Darwin was born: Darwin was just the first one to come up with a good explanation for why evolution was happening.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Doubletime, posted 06-20-2009 6:55 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Malcolm, posted 06-20-2009 3:16 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 4700
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 40 of 1075 (512740)
06-20-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Doubletime
06-20-2009 6:55 AM


Re: misreading? or trolling?
I looked at your long post and was going to reply in detail to many of the points, but its not worth it.

You simply don't know enough about science or about fossil man for my reply to be of any value to you. And, you appear to have a set of a priori beliefs.

It doesn't look like the evidence will make any difference to you and your beliefs so I'm not even going to bother.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Doubletime, posted 06-20-2009 6:55 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15878
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 41 of 1075 (512742)
06-20-2009 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Doubletime
06-20-2009 6:55 AM


now some simple avoidance issues
Hi Doubletime,

Very long post.

This from a person recommending others to read books.

Very many errors on your part need very many answers. Looks like you are avoiding almost all of the evidence that your opinion is wrong. This is not surprising: it is called cognitive dissonance, a well-known psychological process whereby people try to ignore information that contradicts pet beliefs.

Hurt my eye there.

Curiously, this does not make any of the rest of my post wrong, and you have been able to read the rest of this thread. This is just avoidance behavior, finding some excuse to avoid the issues.

I'll take this as tacit admission that you used the world class wrong because you were ignorant of biological terminology in general and taxonomic groups in specific, and note that an honest person would admit when they are wrong or have learned something.

But fine i guess i can comment on the chain.

Sorry to put you to so much trouble.

It's not a chain, so much as it is an assembly of skulls by the time they are found, with a chimp skull placed at the start for comparison.

Some of them are branches (like Homo neanderthalensis) and some of them are likely ancestors.

There seems to be a huge gap between C and D or is it just me ?

No, it's just you. Can you tell me what are the huge differences between these skulls?


Click to enlarge

D-N are all diffrent races of humans as suggested by the name homo.

Ah, so your opinion is based on the names that the paleontologists gave them, rather than on the images?

Only the 3 first were possibly all chimpanzees. Or some simmulair ape like species. While all the rest are humans ( Assuming evolution is true )

Well "some simmulair ape like species" would include hominids ancestral to humans.

Curiously there is no assuming evolution is true to look at the skulls and decide from them where you think the line is. Weren't you all hot on starting a new thread to give people the evidence and let them decide for themselves?

Australopithecus africanus was originally hyped to be the first upgoing humanoid in the history, Later more detaieled evidence shows that it was remarkable ape like. This is allso the species lucy was (If i remember right)...

Fascinatingly, Australopithecus africanus is still an upright walking hominid, and very detailed study shows that humans are remarkably apelike.

Lucy is Australopithecus afarensis, another upright walking hominid, and if you want to discuss her, we have a thread for it:

{composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal
From Message 26:

quote:
The clearest pictures of the Laetoli footprints that I could find are:

Notice the lack of knuckle-dragging impressions, and the clear bipedal path of two hominids. The footprint matches the footbones of an Australopithecus afarensis fossil.

But if this species was found today. It would be placed in zoos like all the modern apes are, and noone would call them human apes.

Of course. They would be labeled hominids, as they are intermediate between our common ancestor with chimps and modern humans. Some people think chimps should be placed in the Homo genus, and that would not alter their placement in zoos. We also have a history of putting humans in zoos as well, so this is not much of a criteria for distinguishing between fact and fiction in regards to human ancestry.

However there are extreme significant diffrences among the modern variations of man today. ( How do i insert images ?)
http://blog.photos2view.com/files/tallest-shortest-man.jpg

type [thumb=300]http:⁄⁄blog.photos2view.com/files/tallest-shortest-man.jpg[/thumb] and it becomes:


Click to enlarge

We have small short pygmees, We have very tall races as well.

Amazingly size has nothing to do with species classification of hominids, as (1) this variation is recognized, and (b) there is also variation between male and female size and between child and adult size. If you look back at those footprint trails you will see that one set is significantly larger than the other.

Imagine that if Darwin was borned 3000. Do you think he would be able to use skelletons from this era to make it look as if the default form of humans has evolved ?

No, because all the skeletons from this era would have the same basic morphology.

Of course that would be an easy thing to do.

Only if you ignore the evidence of morphology and only used size as a criteria, but this is easily falsifiable by comparison to the current population.

The reseon i am suspicius to the human apes is not because i have been brainwashed by creationist. It is because i think the supposed evidence could easily simply be diffrent independent forms of human rather than a progressive state of humans.

Strangely the ONLY arguments you can find to support your opinion are creationist arguments, ones that use ridiculous and false information, such as the relative importance of Piltdown man to evolution.

The reseon i am suspicius to the human apes is not because i have been brainwashed by creationist. It is because i think the supposed evidence could easily simply be diffrent independent forms of human rather than a progressive state of humans.

There are several problems with your alternative explanation:

One is that evolution is not always a steady progression, but can have stages of relative stasis between times of more rapid evolution of new forms, so each fossil can easily represent an independent form of human that is also related to the ancestral development of humans as we know them today.

Each of these relatively independent form populations can give rise to new populations of new independent forms while the parent population still exists (speciation overlapping the parent population).

Third is that you have no mechanism for the spontaneous development of new species to make all these "independent form of human" populations.

Finally, your explanation does not address the issue of different ages of the various fossils, and when we arrange the fossils by age OR by morphological similarities and differences, they form a consistent pattern. That pattern matches what we would expect, based on the theory of evolution.

This is what i love/hate with evolution forums. As soon as someone agaisnt evolution speaks 5 other persons atleast comes with their jumbo posts to attack you lol =P. I love a good flamewar but i can't handle so much people ^^
Ps i pity theese retards not understanding how impossibel abiogenisis is.

Nice flame.

Again, it is not you that is being attacked -- nobody has called you a retard, for instance -- rather it is your ignorance of facts and your use of lame arguments and falsehoods from questionable sources.

The reason you have so many people telling you that your opinion is wrong, is because your opinion is demonstrably wrong. The reason you will continue to get long replies, is because of your failure to see your mistakes, your repetition of falsehoods, and your continued use of bad information and invalid arguments.

( Especially when media is evolved. Just look at archapitetus piltdown nebraska man)
Along with the new guinnea man...( Another HOAX)

What is your fascination with hoaxes? If you really want to study hoaxes then let's talk about all the creationist hoaxes as well - or are you only interested in one group?

On one hand you have people that uncover hoaxes and then discard them as falsified concepts, while they pursue understanding of the past.

On another hand you have people that keep posting hoaxes even after they have been falsified, trying to delude gullible people into thinking their posted information is true.

You seem to prefer your information from sites that perpetuate lies and falsehoods, rather than from sources that eliminate them.

Can you show me ONE tree of human ancestry that has ONE of your pet hoaxes in the lineage?

google search for archapitetus

quote:
Results for: archapitetus

EvC Forum: Why are there no human apes alive today ?
6 posts - 6 authors - Last post: 7 hours ago
Another exampel of the evolutionists wishing thoughts were Archapitetus, Said to be the ... Also, there is no such thing as "Archapitetus". ...
//www.///cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action...f... - 7 hours ago - Similar

EvC Forum: Let the students study the evidence themselfs !
1 post - 1 author - Last post: 19 hours ago
The recreations of human apes are very unsure ( see piltdown neanderthal nebraska Archapitetus ) So instead students should see the fosils ...
//www.///cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action...f... - 19 hours ago - Similar
More results from »

In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 4 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.


It appears that you are the only source of information about this. Perhaps this is just a hoax on your part eh?

Or do you mean Archeoraptor? Another hoax uncovered by scientists? And which has nothing to do with human evolution?

Try this thread, Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes

quote:
Here is a starting list:

Nebraska Man - does not qualify, the initial publication was an interpretation of a single tooth, the rest is mostly all newspaper hype (including the (in)famous picture), and the original scientist determined it was a pig on further investigation. No scientist has since claimed it was a hominid fossil.

Piltdown Man - does not qualify: the hoax was perpetuated ON science, not by a scientist. It was exposed by science.

China bird ancestor "fossils" - does not qualify: perpetuated by non-scientific people looking to make money, exposed by science.

Personally I think we'd have to list almost every existing YEC creationist website (I say "almost" for scientific tentativity, as I am not aware of any that stick to the truth, but it is possible ...). Certainly every one that has a false definition of evolution or that portrays evolution incorrectly is a fraud.

Certainly Carl Baugh (his degree is a hoax, it doesn't exist): Glen Rose Man - fraud perpetuated by Carl Baugh, exposed by science. Baugh (a creationist) continues to present it in his "museum" perpetuating his hoax to gullible people, complete with a "footprint" that the original carver admits to making.

Kent Hovind is a shoe-in (convicted of fraud, his degree is a fraud from a paper mill)

The "creation museum" (showing adam and eve and a vegetarian TRex)

Then there is Harun Yahah (a muslim creationist, who also happens to be a convicted extortionist and anal rapist of underage women) - he puts Hovind to shame.

Is that a good start?


Looks like it has your pet hoaxes already covered before you started posting here, plus a few others.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Doubletime, posted 06-20-2009 6:55 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 42 of 1075 (512744)
06-20-2009 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by bluescat48
06-20-2009 8:16 AM


Re: misreading? or trolling?
lol. Retard XD We are not talking about anything reseonable. Abiogenisis means that a cell alsters itself without anyone moderating it ( Or the form teached in schools) And i can't understand how anyone can be so stupid to beleive in it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by bluescat48, posted 06-20-2009 8:16 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 06-20-2009 12:59 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2009 3:39 PM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2009 6:51 PM Doubletime has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13190
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 43 of 1075 (512746)
06-20-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Doubletime
06-20-2009 12:04 PM


Re: misreading? or trolling?
Doubletime writes:

Abiogenisis means that a cell alsters itself without anyone moderating it ( Or the form teached in schools)

You sure cram a lot of errors into a small space. Your name should be Doubletalk.

When you say "a cell alters itself without anyone moderating it," you're much closer to describing evolution than abiogenesis.

Put simply, evolution describes the process by which life changes over time. Cells don't alter themselves, rather they experience mutations and rearrangements of gene types (alleles) during reproduction.

Abiogenesis is our name for the yet unknown process by which life arose from non-life solely through matter and energy following known physical laws.

It's turning out that everything you think is stupid and retarded is just stuff you've made up in your own head. Now that you know what abiogenesis really is, what do you think and, more importantly, based upon what evidence and rationale.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Doubletime, posted 06-20-2009 12:04 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
Malcolm
Member
Posts: 148
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 44 of 1075 (512751)
06-20-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Blue Jay
06-20-2009 8:39 AM


Re: misreading? or trolling?
There is no such thing as "Archapitetus."

Could Doubletime be referring to Ardipithecus ramidus? It was originally classified as an Australopithecus due to similarities in dentition, but as more finds were discovered enough differences were observed that it was classified in its own genus. It is still considered a close relative of Australopithecus, but its anatomy puts it closer to the chimpanzee/human common ancestor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Blue Jay, posted 06-20-2009 8:39 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2009 4:14 PM Malcolm has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 15878
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 45 of 1075 (512762)
06-20-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Doubletime
06-20-2009 12:04 PM


Could you be more wrong?
Gosh Doubletime, I went out for a 2 hour kayak paddle, and I come back to find that, not only are you still wrong, you are more wrong than before.

Abiogenisis means that a cell alsters itself without anyone moderating it ( Or the form teached in schools) And i can't understand how anyone can be so stupid to beleive in it.

People don't believe that, you should be relieved to hear, but that's because it is an outright fallacy, a falsehood, a fabrication, and yet another example of how much you do not understanding the actual meaning/s of the terminology of the science of evolution. Do you really think you can argue against evolution when you don't understand it?

Abiogenesis occurred before there were cells.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

quote:
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.

The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes. The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), just a few hundred million years younger than Earth itself.[1][2] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[5][6]

On the other hand, the exact sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).


Of course, in order to say when the "first living thing" occurred you need to define what life is, but that is a different issue.

Abiogenisis means that a cell alsters itself without anyone moderating it ( Or the form teached in schools) ...

Even if you mean speciation - the process whereby new species arise out of existing species - you are still wrong. Speciation does not occur because an organism "alsters itself without anyone moderating it" to change into something that becomes another species. Speciation occurs by differential evolution in reproductively isolated populations of a parent species, where each population accumulates changes by normal evolutionary processes from generation to generation, changes that inevitably make the two populations different from each other. At some point the difference is sufficient that the two populations no longer breed even when living in the same area, and thus each population independently fulfills the definition of biological species, and they are no longer of the same species. This is observed in the lab, in the field and in the fossil record.

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Pelycodus_gradual.htm

quote:

Click to enlarge

Successive fossils in the Pelycodus fossil record show the gradual evolution of increased size, which can be recognized as a series of species. The coexistence of two simultaneous size trends indicates a speciation event.

Notice that the variation in size exists in every population at every level, that when the populations divide each one contains members of the same size as the previous generation, and that then they diverge into two distinct populations of different sizes.

Abiogenisis means that a cell alsters itself without anyone moderating it ( Or the form teached in schools) ...

Even if you mean evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - you are wrong. Evolution does not occur because an organism "alsters itself without anyone moderating it" to change into a different cell, but by new generations inheriting different mutations during their reproduction and development. They grow up different from their parent/s due to their genetic makeup and developmental environment. Evolution occurs through the inheritance of mutations during reproduction, not by changes to existing cells.

So it looks like your whole argument is a straw man fallacy.

We are not talking about anything reseonable.

Yet it turns out that what you have been calling abiogenesis is indeed, not part of biological science, but something you have misunderstood and mislabeled. What you describe is, in fact, unreasonable from an evolutionary biological perspective, as it does not involve any known biological processes in the biological sciences. What you describe has nothing at all to do with the actual processes of abiogensis, evolution or biological science/s.

lol. Retard XD

There you go flaming people and ideas because you don't understand again. Do you realize that the ad hominem attack is usually regarded as the last arrow in an otherwise empty quiver?

Of course your other "arrows" have been the argument from ignorance, the straw man fallacy and the argument from denial, plus (for spice) the non-sequitur argument about hoaxes.

Want to try an argument based on evidence? Science? Reality? Here's an excellent website that can teach you some of the real science of evolutionary biology - I suggest you discard everything you think you know about the topic first, as so far it has been demonstrated to be more wrong than right:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

quote:

Welcome to Evolution 101!

What is evolution and how does it work? Evolution 101 provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
quote:

An Introduction to Evolution

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

This is provided by a university that teaches biology and evolution to people earning degrees in the field. In other words, it is a reference to the real science rather than creationist fabrications and what passes, sadly, for science in some of our high schools.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Doubletime, posted 06-20-2009 12:04 PM Doubletime has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by sywen, posted 08-17-2009 1:44 PM RAZD has responded

Prev12
3
456
...
72NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014