Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

The missing link between ape and man would have to be a type of primitive man of some sort. But again every missing link so far has been disputed. Not just primitive but a difference in organic design also. The missing link is still missing because he does not exist.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/506.aspThis message has been edited by almeyda, 05-31-2004 07:10 AM

We've got thousands of those ... Chart of Human EvolutionBy whom, and for what reason? Disputes by people who have no other reason than disliking being apes aren't meaningful. What do you mean by "organic design"? Of course, the thousands of "missing links" that we have are all physically different from us. They're transitions between us and the other apes.You have yet to comment on why creationists can't decide which fossils are apes and which fossils are men, as pointed out at Comparison of all skulls. Of course, the obvious reason is that the fossils are transitionals.

Deleted porn link and stopped member privileges - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 05-30-2004 10:20 AM

almeydaMissing links are known as transitionals and,indeed,many have been found.However,due to the way classification schemes work dispute arises as to which side of the fence we will place a transitional on.How do you classify the transitional as being exactly in the center? To paraphrase Richard Dawkins every country has an age at which you may obtain your drivers license.Before that you may not and there is no age that is halfway between the two and that is what would constitute the creationist idea of a missing link.
We do have many instances of fossil evidence which clearly show transition between features predominantly ape-like and predominantly human-like as defined by features of the fossil remains.You do need to give yourself the opportunity to view the science for yourself and there is an extensive website that shows the extent of study and research that has been done in many fields. You can learn here the physics,chemistry and biology that form the foundation of how science is able to use knowledge they already possess to make predictions on things they have yet to find.You can also view the fossil records,study DNA,geology etc.
The website is http://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm#EvolutionEnjoy yourself and please keep bringing the questions up.

---

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. "

Hold up a second. About the so called ape/primitive man. The chart you gave me was made up of no proof of ape-human connection.CHIMPANZEES - There is no connection of chimpazees and humans. The similar DNA?. The amount of information even between 3-4%. This is an impossible barrier for randon changes across. A high similar degree of DNA sequences does not mean or prove anything.AUSTRALOPITHECUS - Lucys bones have been imaginatively restored in museums worldwide to look like an apewomen, with a apelike face, head, but women like body, hands and feet. However the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones. Several other specimens of 'Afarensis' do have the long curved fingers & toes of tree-dwellers as well as the restricted wrist anotomy of knuckle- walking chimpanzees & gorillas. Dr Marvin Lubenow quotes the evolutionist Matt Cartmill (Duke university), David Pilbeam (Harvard university) & the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard university): "The australopithecines are rapidly sinking back to the status of perculiarly specialized apes..."HOMOHABILIS - The most well known is called KNMER. Comprising a fossil skull and leg bones found by Richard Leakey in Kenya. Spoors CAT scans of the inner ear of a homo habilis skull known as Stw 53 show that it walkedmore like a baboon than a human. Today most researchers including Spoor, regard homo habilis as a "wastebin of various species, including bits andpieces from Australopithecues and homo erectus, and not as a valid category. In other words it never existed as such, and so cannot be used to support supposed link between australopithecine apes and true man.HOMO ERECTUS - Excavations of many of these fossils show evidence of the use of tools, control of fire, burying the dead, and using red ochre as decoration. Spoors CAT scans of the inner ear architecture show that their posture was just like ours. Their brain size was also within human range. Research on Flores has shown evidence of seafaring skill Even evolutionists concede that they should be put in the same species as Homo-sapien.HOMO NEANDERTHALENSIS - This group lived in Europe & the Mediterranean lands. The first recontructed fossil suffered from diseases such as rickets, vitamin d deficiency which can result in the bowing of ther skeleton. Despite many attempts made on the basis of mitochondrial DNA fragments in one set of Neandertal bones to try to assign them to a different specie, even some evolutionist authorities claim that they should be regarded as homo-sapiens.Evolutionists themselves have stated comments suggesting that all the evidence for man’s ancestry would fit in a single coffin or billard table. The study of human ancestry by evolutionists are based on a bias. Evolution has occured and humans have evolved. It follows guidelines and rules. The millions of yrs required have occured, man has evolved over a line of semi-human creatures from some original human ancestor, that the evidence found is strong concerning anatomy, age, presumed evolutionary relationship, the evidence must then fit the framework but the evidence does not fit an evolution of humans from apelike creatures. The Non-Transitions in ‘Human Evolution’on Evolutionists’ Terms | Answers in Genesis

Just for fun, let's see you back this up. Just this once. Ok?

Out of the many lies in that quote, I pick this one.Prove it, almeyda!Mods: I understand bending over backwards to avoid charges of anti-creationist bias, but how long is almeyda going to be allowed to post without ever backing up his assertions?

It is time.

As you may know I have been reading A LOT of Georgi Gladyshev's work lately and I was assuming that I would be having even in my own ideas to backtrack my creationist leaning except my most baraminological but guess what the culprit for much of the controversy including this supposed picture of me or my cousin above as the transition seemed to come out to be the issue rather of progressive development. Obviously if there was such an animal then there would be a "transition" in some sense. So for this post you will have to bear with my own apodetetic certainity as I have not come off my high with learning how to reject Russel's "peculiar" view of Kant's SPACE.It may be that Georgi will reject ALL of my letters in speculation but I really do NOT see the creation/evolution issue as divisive IF progressive development exists and it exists by Gladyshev's principle WHERE Agassiz suggested there was NO transition. That is why asking the question as if there "would" be such is a little bit problematical but I believe I can rephase my position with regard to that kind of follow up.A remarkable thing happened to me when I read Aggasiz's essay on Classification. Not only did I realize that Croizat obviously spent some time with this text but that A really did know his turtles. I was more or less rocked to the sock when at the final transcendental gasp A asserted that REPTILES SUBTRACT FROM THE PHYSICAL AGENT!! Wow!! Why had no one ever writ THAT up before????? It appears to me that Aggasiz wrote his intro off of Kant's Prolegemma but then shortly after Darwin "violated" Kant's (not Agassiz's) divisions IN THE MIND. Romer subsequently said that NO ONE believed like Agassiz who wrote near death piece where he DID STATE that Darwinists HAD NO RIGHT TO INFER THE ABSENCE OF A TYPE because it did not fit the theory (which is why the "would" grammer is specious to this extent but as I said I will deal"" with it.) Guess what- even Gould seems to have made this mental mistake of INFERING A SUBTRACTION. I think I can use macrothermodyanmics to show this number in reality but to do it I have had to restrict my use of INFINITY to SEX only. I will no go into the details but get on with the main point of what WOULD THEN a human transistion LOOK like?For one it would have to take into account Aggasiz's lack of physical agent in life for NOT discussing the human case as it might not REFLECT an expemplar of any creature and futher if not with the FOUR fold division of homologies it must respect the discontinuity of HOMOLOGY panbiogeographers currently use the baseline for. Futhermore there WOULD be a PHYSIOLOGY (I still cant figure out why Gould missed using this)that binds physical agents in a technic (I may be wrong about electrotonics and macrothermodynamics, but I doubt it) and this may even be an outworking of supramolecular chemistry but IN LIFE this would be distinct from the same physical agents effect in decompostion between the reproductions of the human "type" extended as an example. The "transition" would have a grade.Now I am going to add my own idea. Sex is a spatial equilibrium
of supramoleucular chemistry
due to temporal discrepencies
of heat flowing from the Hot SUN to the Cold Earth
&
rearragnements of material on thermal current from heat flux contanctand the same materialism under time due to rotations and revolutions
adapted in LIFE by reproduction.This seperates LIFE from the same physical hierarchy in death. The transition may not need to exist but if it does it must INFER these conditions.Kant got his pre-prolglema ideas from the a concept of space with time attached and then simply kept both seperated for reasons sake but Russel did not thing with Kant's time so if sex is about time like Einstein saw space then sex may be nothing but another Keplarian supramolecular solid equilibrium needed to take account of temproal hetergoentiy of geography on earth due to the tilt of the Earth's axis and the different effects of heating as Kant witnessed. Why Gould insisted only only seeing PLATO and the FORMALIST-FUNCITONALIST DEBATE in Aggaze was simply NOT THERE FOR ME and the LUNG was simply the error that Kant showed of his reviewer of the Prolegemma write spatially subsequently circumscripted to any object by Croizat. Gould was simply wrong to assert that there was no philosophy current to understand Agassiz for macrothermodynaics does fine and it is not all that certain that Creationism MUST take the back seat. I tried really hard to reject creationism on Georgi's balder claims than mine but I did not succeed beacuse I think using Mendel's DEVELOPEMTAL BINOMIAL it is possible to explain in terms of the MAN not the TURTLE how a Reptile could subtract (like the female human with baby in womb) the effects of the physical agent (chemsitry etc) and why is this not JUST the removal in a Gladyshev hierarchy of a cell or organ etc which I had at first questioned. Again, I see NO significant difference in fact between my views and GG's. Romer simply misread Agassiz who said IF "trace" and not "invent". Since metaphysically that was how it had to be said A HAD also to say that Darwinists had NO RIGHT (to INFER) the absence etc. IN FACT CORNELL TOOK THIS RIGHT, in time and I WAS "SUBTRACTED" for the herps I loved best. There was a very good reason for A's use of the PLACE RUSSIA and the seperation of the KEntucky CAVE from the Eurpeon salamander but may we all learn to listen to bird calls and pay less attention to the internet.

BTW. Please let me know if these quotes have been taken out of context."The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientist than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with no room to spare, inside a single coffin" - Dr Lyall Watson"Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology marks it as mans hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be no" - Robert B. Eckhardt, Pennsylvania State University, USA"In recent years several authors have written popular books on human origins which were based more on fantasy and subjectivity than on fact and objectivity. At the moment science cannot offer a full answer on the origin of humanity, but scientific method takes us closer to the truth...As far as geologically more recent evidence is concerned, the discovery in East Africa of apparent remains of Homo in the same early fossil sites as both gracile and robust australopithecines has thrown open once again the question of the direct relevance of the latter to human evolution. So one is forced to conclude that there is no clear-cut scientific picture of human evolution" - Dr Robert Martin, Zoological Society of London"For example, no scientist could logically dispute the proposition that man, without having been involved in any act of divine creation, evolved from some ape-like creature in a very short space of time - speaking in geological terms - without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.As I have already implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all" - Lord Solly Zuckerman"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern man - of upright, naked, toolmaking, big brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter" - Dr Lyall Watson"Echoing the criticism made of his fathers Habilis skulls, he added that Lucys skull was so incomplete that most of it was "imagination made of plaster of paris", thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what specie she belonged to" - Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums Kenya) in The Weekend Australia, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine p3)"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly in complete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing that what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject. Very few fossils indeed afford just one, incontrovertible interpretation of their evolutionary significance. Most are capable of supporting several interpretations. Different authoritites are free to stress different features with validity, often placing remarkable emphasis on the form they propose for the bits that are missing. Points to distinguishing the various interpretations may be so slight or unclear that each depends as much upon the proponents preconceived notions as upon evidence of the fossil. Furthermore, since the meagre collection has accumulated so slowly, the long gaps between discoveries have provided ample time for investigators to form very definate notions of what ought to be found next. 'Zijanthropus boisei' is a good example of this phenomenon, but ever since Darwins work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man" - John Reader (Author of Missing Links),'Whatever happened to Zijanthropus?' - New Scientist, 1981"A five millions-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually a part of a dolphin rib, according to an athropologist at the University of California-Berkeley.
Dr Tim White says the discovery of the blunder may force a rethink of theories about when the line of mans ancestors seperated from that of the apes. He puts the incident on a par with two other embarassing [sic] 'faux pas' by fossil hunters: Herperopithecus, the fossil pigs tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown man', the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the earliest Englishmen...
The problem with alot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone" - Dr Time White, University of California). Quoted by Ian Anderson 'Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphins rib' - New Scientist 28 April 1983 p199"Not being a paleontologist, I dont want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head, and little fragments of jaw, theres a strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments - Dr Greg Kirby, Senior Lecturer in Population Biology, Flinders University, Adelaide). Human Evolution | Answers in Genesis The Origin of Humans | Answers in Genesis

It appears that at least on biologist did say that the fossil specimens would fit in a coffin.Of course, in the last 20 years this has changed. I think but can't prove that it wasn't true in 1982. It certainly isn't now. There are many 10's of specimens. Some of course are easy to cram in since they may be only a tooth, others are skeletons that are much more than half complete.I can't tell if any of these are out of context since we don't have the context online.We'll have to have a look.

Almeyda, it's rude to dump a pile of claims and ask us to research them. Pick one or two claims and focus on them.My goodness, you're (sort of) right ... some people did say those things, back in the 80's or thereabouts. Of course, they were wrong when they said them, and they're much more wrong today.Without references, it's difficult to say whether they are out of context or not. Those that I can find are all tremendously out of date, and irrelevant today. But I can make some comments: It's virtually certian that this one is out of context. He appears to be pointing out that we don't have fossils which are known to be direct ancestors, which is essentialy always the case; "transitiona;" does not mean "direct ancestor". Certainly out of date; it's from 1977. You tell me: has the questions he raised been resolved as fart as mainstream science is concerned, and, if so, how?Does AIG tell you the answer to my question? Zuckerman was a maverick. Another tremendously out-of-date quote, from 1970 ort earlier. Zuckerman spent years studying Australopithecus ... and all his findings were derived before Jophanson found Lucy and we obtaiend the many more Australopithecus fossils we have today. In other words, obsolete. This one is very suspicous, since it's not published in a scientific journal or even a popular-press scintific magazine.

quote:

---

It appears that at least on biologist did say that the fossil specimens would fit in a coffin.
Of course, in the last 20 years this has changed. I think but can't prove that it wasn't true in 1982. It certainly isn't now. There are many 10's of specimens. Some of course are easy to cram in since they may be only a tooth, others are skeletons that are much more than half complete.

---

What has changed Nosyned? What has advanced since the 80s or 70s. Are you saying theres been missing link finds since then?. The fossils are still fossils . The anthroplogists/evolutionists of then were super smart evolutionists, just like today. Please, update me.

Lots and lots, including Lucy.

To Readers of EvC Forum: This information was available to Dr. Sarfati in 1994-1996, and as a PhD, he should have known better.Quote from:
Mutations | Answers in Genesis
Top: Ambulocetus skeleton, as drawn in Miller's book
Middle: Ambulocetus reconstruction, as drawn in Miller‘s book
Bottom: Actual bones found (Yellow). Note missing pelvic girdle.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis The question that comes to mind is if this was a deliberate attempt to mislead AiG readers, or simply an oversight due to negligence on behalf of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati? The fossil certainly does include backbone, leg bones, and pelvic bones. As is noted in the paraphrased excerpt below from National Geographic, Professor Hans Thewissen was discussing the spine of Ambulocetus as early as 1994, it would seem Answers in Genesis would be aware of this fact, ten years later.Dr. Jonathan Sarfati:
On p. 265, Miller claimed, ‘the animal could move easily both on land and in water', and contained a drawing of a complete skeleton and a reconstructed animal. But this is misleading, bordering on deceitful, and indicative of Miller's unreliability, because there was no indication of the fact that far fewer bones were actually found than appear in his diagram. Crucially, the all-important pelvic girdle was not found (see diagram, right). Without this, it's presumptuous for Miller to make that proclamation.------------I could not help but to notice your rendering of Ambulocetus, and how it portrays a lot of bones supposedly being missing from the fossil.Your sketch is drastically misleading Dr. Sarfati. We have a photo image of the Ambulocetus skeleton and it not only contains the entire pelvic region but it contains all the primary leg bones as well.
File Not FoundAlso, you portray the spine missing and it's certainly not missing.
Please do update your fossil info.Best regards------------------It's worse than I presumed. I read over the article I had dug out from a 1994 National Geographic magazine, [paraphrased in our whale article], Thewissen was well on the way of discussing the spine of this creature:"In a May 1994 issue of National Geographic, it reports the find of Ambulocetus in a former inland sea of Pakistan. Thewissen dubbed the ancient whale fossil Ambulocetus natans for "swimming, walking whale". He explains, on land it would lumber like a sea lion, and "it would look clumsy, but it could still get around." His team recovered much of the fossil including a skull which identified the fossil as a cetacean. The spine indicates the creature moved in similar fashion to modern whales, using its lower back in an up and down motion, while using its hind limbs for propulsion. It's forelimbs are believed to have been used for steering."----------------------- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:44 PM
Subject: Question on Ambulocetus DiscoveryDear Professor Thewissen,When exactly was the spine, the leg bones, the pelvic girdle discovered of Ambulocetus?This morning I decided to take a look at Answers In Genesis
Mutations | Answers in Genesis
where Sarfati is arguing against the PBS Special #2 "Evolution:Great Transformations".Sarfati is saying there was no spine, no pelvic bones, no leg bones -- and you were discussing the spine as early as 1994, and I have a reconstructed photo image of the Ambulocetus -- very much complete! Where he got his information is questionable -- and it seems clear to me he has never so much as seen this fossil. I've added all the questions I arrived at to the whale page. This is a misleading article by Creationists.I ask when the spine, the leg bones, especially the pelvic bones were discovered because Dr. Sarfati should have known about these fossil finds when it happened, and it's now 2004, and he still believes they do not exist? (So it is pictured on their web page).Thank you----------------------------- Original Message -----
From: J. G. M. Thewissen
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Question on Ambulocetus DiscoveryThe specimen was dug up in two phases, results from the first were published in 1994, results from the second in 1996. In 1994, we described some vertebrae, most leg bones, but no pelvis. In 1996, we described many more vertebrae, as well as the pelvis. So inferences about the spine in 1994 were based on the vertebrae we had then. The figure we published in 1994 shows, in stippling, what was known and not-known for the specimen at that time. So there is really no reason why anyone should be misled (as long as they take the trouble to go back to the original publication).The reason for the delay between the two publications sounds like somewhat from a police movie. We tried to go back and collect the rest of the specimen before the publication in 1994. However, the region had turned in a haven for outlaws. On the day that we were going to start to work there, a man had been kidnapped and a large number of policemen was stopped along the road there to confront the kidnappers. They told us to keep on driving and not stop on that road where the action was happening. At that point, I decided that there was no point waiting to collect more material, because it was not obvious that we would ever be allowed (able) to go back to the site.Hans Thewissen-------------------This explains why Sarfati was referencing a journal from 1994 in his article, although he should have known the information was updated and changed in 1996 with the new discoveries by Thewissen's team:‘ since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.
Berta, A., What is a Whale? Science 263(5144):180—181, 1994; perspective on Thewissen, J.G.M., Hussain, S.T. and Arif, M., Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archeocete whales, same issue, pp. 210212. Mutations | Answers in Genesis --------------------Thank you
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Your message has been sent to the appropriate person. If your message requires a response, we will reply as soon as possible.
> Return to home page---------------------I just wanted to pass along a note of interest to Dr. Sarfati, that I have been working all day on the subject of Ambulocetus, in regard to his article located at:
Mutations | Answers in Genesis Professor Hans Thewissen verified for me today information about Ambulocetus' pelvis, backbone and leg bones, that indeed they were known to scientific circles between 1994-1996 and he explained in depth the cause for the gap between finds. Dr. Sarfati's article indicates a lack of knowledge on this critical issue, by outright denying the existence of pelvis, backbone, and leg bones. Dr. Sarfati perhaps is interested to visit, and read, Edward T. Babinski - Cetacean Evolution
and hopefully willing to consider revising his current hypothesis on whale evolution, at least where Ambulocetus plays into the picture. We have a photograph of the Ambulocetus fossil, and it is as near to a complete skeleton, as is necessary for this discussion.