|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1279 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
First of all, a hypothesis may be based on something, but the hypothesis itself is made up with the scientist imagination. Only then does the scientist find supporting evidence in nature. Albert Einstein did not see E=MC^2. He made it up at first before bringing the supporting evidence. I dont see why you consider ancient people any more primitive than yourself. There is no evidence of the human beings becoming smarter. Who is smarter you or your children? The only reason why you think they are primitive is because you believe in scientific thought which is relatively modern.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He made it up at first before bringing the supporting evidence. No, actually, he solved equations to arrive at his famous "E=MC^2"; then, later, experimental evidence confirmed his result.
There is no evidence of the human beings becoming smarter. Actually:
quote: I don't know - is that evidence? If you think IQ tests measure innate human intelligence, it would have to be. (I don't think they do, nor do I believe that what psychometrics calls "g" is really something that exists, or can be accurately measured with IQ tests.)
The only reason why you think they are primitive is because you believe in scientific thought which is relatively modern. There's no need to believe in it; the proof of the effectiveness of the scientific method is arrayed around you; indeed, the very computer you're reading this on is proof that the scientific method is the best tool we have for determining what is most likely true about the universe. Religious revelation has never produced truths. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
The topic is recent human evolution and our relationship to chimps.
If we can't stick to that I'll close this for awhile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
The topic is recent human evolution and our relationship to chimps.
If we can't stick to that I'll close this for awhile. Edited by AdminNosy, : correct author
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Is it not funny that the Evolution Hypothesis has only been around for about 150 years and that the creationist have been around for thousands. It is funny, though, that electricity-users have been around for a bit less than 150 years, and non-electric folks for thousands. Hell, microwave oven users have only been around since I was in college. What's your point, OM? Edited by Coragyps, : I'll go back on topic, really.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1279 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
Can a scientist say anything about gravity other than its name. Why does gravity exist? All a scientist can say is based on previous observation, gravity is there. When one asks a scientist why it is they who have no answers. Have you ever wondered why this world exists? Why does positive and negative forces attract? What does it mean to have a positive or negative charge? All science does is link vocabulary words with observations and formulate hypothesis statements to try to link all the "forces" together. As for humans being smarter now than they were years ago, I dont there is any "scientific" proof of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Until we all figure out what the topic is here the thread will have to be closed for a few hours.
Me? I'll be skiing in the sunshine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
From now on short suspensions will be issued to those who have trouble with getting the topic right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2790 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Open MInd writes: All science does is link vocabulary words with observations and formulate hypothesis ... And yet, somehow, it has created this machine which you use to criticize it! Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Dr. Bill, that isn't helping keep the thread on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pop  Inactive Member |
hey guys lets talk about the supposed apeman fossil
evolutionists stress it could walk upright but several researches have been done on australopithecus 1/lord solly zuckerman made extensive researches on the anatomy of australopithecus with 15 specialists provided with the newest techniques and his conclusion was that it was an ordinary ape walking on its fours. 2/prof. charles oxnard concluded that australopithecus was like orangutans and tree dwellings. 3/The point evolutionists stress is the point at which the femur meets the knee . in humans the carrying angle = 9 /at chimpanzees =0 /at australopithecus =15*evolutionists stress that this high carrying angle is evidence for bipedalism but many scientists confirm that this is an evidence for tree climbing the large carrying angle among modern living primates is spider monkey and orangutans. 4/fred spoor and his team made extensive researches on the balance system in the inner ear and concluded that australopithecus and homo habils didnt walk upright but having a stride. 5/A study was done in 2000 by BG Richmond and DS strait on lucys fore arms concluded that she walked like knuckel walkers. 6/A discovery by dr Robin crompton : that apes in our modern time can walk upright . he discovered a group of apes living in uganda walking on 2 legs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, modi, and welcome to our happy home.
Oxnard and Zuckerman's conclusions are out of date and only represented a very small minority opinion. Your claim is a misrepresentation of Spoor's conclusions; Spoor did not conclude that australopithecines were not bidedal. As far as your last comment, it's interesting that apes can walk upright. It shows that it's not impossible for bipedalism to evolve. The question is whether a species is mostly bipedal or mostly non-bipedal. This is where the shape of the pelvis and the knees and the feet come into play. Modern apes might be capable of bipedal motion and may do it occasionally, but they are mostly not bipedal. Humans will occasional walk on hands and knees or hands and feet, but they are mostly bipedal. Now the shape of the feet, pelvis, and knees of the Australopithecines are closer to humans than to other apes. The shapes are ideal for bipedal motion, not for quadripedal motion. I have a question: what do creationists dislike bipedal apes so much? Why can't they accept that Lucy was a bipedal ape? Sure, Lucy and the other Austalopithecines are great examples of transitional fossils, but creationists could just scream, "these fossils don't prove anything!" like they do with all the other transitional fossils that we have. Added by edit:By coincidence, there are some new theories being discussed about the possible origins of bipedal locomotion in humans. I provide a link to an article here. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3937 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I think your biggest problem is thinking that anyone is claiming that Lucy was 100% bipedal.
The definition of a transitional is one where the morphological features of a creature are shared between its parent and daughter species. Lucy could probably both walk upright and climb trees well. Scientists would be pretty outrageous if they claimed that in one step, aboreal apes decided to stand up and walk out of the jungle. It is more likely that there was an aboreal ape that simply was also pretty good at walking which allowed to to exploit new resources that pure aboreal apes could not. Even if you look at modern humans. We are still very good at climbing trees. I remember seeing a tree climbing race between a chimp and a Samoan. The chimp won but not by much at all. The last important point to mention is that even if it could be proven that Lucy truly was non-bipedal, it does not change the vast amount of other morphological evidence that show Lucy as being divergent from other great Apes and more like humans. Lucy's hips are a great example. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pop  Inactive Member |
hi chiroptera
First let us examin the anatomy of australopithecus
1/ an important discovery concerning Australopithecus is the realization that this creature's hands were used for walking, just like those of present-day apes. Apes employ a four-legged mode of walking in which they lean on the knuckles of their fingers. Known as "knuckle walking," this is one of the major structural differences between apes and men. The skeletal studies performed in 2000 on Lucy by two evolutionist scientists called B. G. Richmond and D. S. Strait, resulted in a conclusion that astonished the two evolutionists: Lucy's hand possessed a four-legged "knuckle walking structure," just like those of the apes of today. Strait's comment in an interview regarding this discovery, the details of which were covered by the journal Nature, is striking: "I walked over to the cabinet, pulled out Lucy, and-shazam!-she had the morphology that was classic for knuckle walkers 2/Spoors extensive research on the inner ear resulted that australopithecus couldnt walk like humans but only like great apes and here is his own WORDS:(Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semi-circular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes) Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood & Frans Zonneveld, "Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion," Nature, vol 369, 23 June 1994, p. 645 3/Fingers are very curved scientists have yet to retrieve the toe which may be chimp like. 4/ITS thick neck which resemble those of apes. 5/The point regarding bipedalism which evolutionists particularly stress is the angle at which the femur comes down and meets the knee, known as the "carrying angle." Human beings are able to carry their weight on their feet as they walk because their upper leg bones and lower leg bones meet at an approximate 9 degree angle at the knee joint. In the chimpanzees and gorillas, however, the thigh and shin bones form a straight line, with a carrying angle of essentially 0 degrees. These animals only manage to carry their weight on their feet when they walk by swinging their bodies from one direction to another in the "ape-walk." Evolutionists assume that ape fossils with a high carrying angle somewhat similar to the human condition walked on two legs and thus evolved into human beings. The reason that australopithecines are regarded as ancestors of man is that they generally have a carrying angle of about 15 degrees. However, many evolutionists now accept that this angle indicates that these creatures were expert tree climbers. In fact, the largest carrying angle among living primates is found in the orangutan and the spider monkey, both of which are excellent tree-climbers. In other words, the anatomical feature that evolutionists portray as evidence of bipedalism is possessed by arboreal monkeys, which no-one suggests were the ancestors of man. 6/Even if we assume that australopithecus were bipedal.what would be that for evolutionists.Bernard wood says:"Birds have wings but not all creatures with wings are birds" *This erroneous way of looking at human being of evolutionists who think like Latimer is exceedingly thought provoking. However, not all evolutionists think along these lines. The falsity of this perspective is openly admitted by some evolutionists. In the words “all birds have wings, but not all creatures with wings are birds," the well known anatomist Bernard Wood indicates the hollowness of the logic that regards walking on two legs as a defining characteristic of being human. (6) The story of one ape that preoccupied the media recently will better enable us to see the invalidity of Latimer’s perspective. The ape in the picture to the left is walking on two legs. Yet the interesting thing about this ape, named Natasha, is that she began to walk upright after suffering from a disease. The five-year-old Natasha, who lived on a Safari Park near Tel Aviv, caught a severe stomach illness and was treated by the zoo vet. Recovering after an intensive course of treatment, Natasha surprised everyone by starting to walk upright after her discharge. Igal Horowitz, one of the zoo vets, estimated that brain damage caused by the disease might have led to this situation. (7) Even young children visiting the zoo also can see that Natasha is an ape although she walks on two legs. However, if the logic of Latimer’s “scientific” theory regarding bipedalism (walking on two legs) is applied to Natasha, then an entirely different picture emerges. According to Latimer’s logic, he who says that it is walking upright that makes man, man, Natasha must now be regarded as human! Walking on two legs does not make a living thing human, of course. Natasha is a concrete example of this. Since Latimer has been conditioned to interpret every discovery according to the theory of evolution, he is blind to this simple and easily comprehensible logic. *September 13 - The report of a discovery in the well-known Scottish newspaper, The Scotsman, tore down another of the classical myths of evolution. We have all seen the ape-man diagrams in evolutionist newspapers and magazines, which begin with an ape walking on four legs and then take on increasingly human characteristics, finally arriving at modern man. According to the theory this progression is based on, human beings evolved from so-called apes that walked on four legs. However, one group of chimpanzees discovered by Liverpool University anthropologist Dr. Robin Crompton belied that tale. The researcher encountered chimpanzees in Uganda's Bwindi jungle area that were able to walk on two legs. The Scotsman covered the story under the headline "Chimps On Two Legs Run Through Darwin's Theory." Dr. Crompton commented, "This is contrary to the accepted idea that we evolved from chimpanzees which were knuckle-walking - or walking around on all fours." Significant sections of this post were copy/pastes. I haven't the time to sort through to find what is modi's own words, and that of others so the whole thing was removed. - AdminModulous enjoy Edited by AdminModulous, : hiding plagiarised text
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
However, not all evolutionists think along these lines. The falsity of this perspective is openly admitted by some evolutionists. In the words “all birds have wings, but not all creatures with wings are birds," the well known anatomist Bernard Wood indicates the hollowness of the logic that regards walking on two legs as a defining characteristic of being human. (6) 'Tis funny really. Since you missed the obvious comparison - birds are bipedal.
The ape in the picture to the left is walking on two legs. However, this is why I'm responded. Not only are you plagiarising from this source, but you haven't even editted out the bits that make it obvious you have plagiarised. In the first thing I quoted, you left a reference without telling us what that reference was. This leads me to suspect you didn't pay a great deal of attention to what you were doing. Either way, passing off someone else's work as your own is not only lazy, but it is intellectually dishonest and tarnishes your credibility considerably. It is also against the forum rules.
The report of a discovery in the well-known Scottish newspaper, The Scotsman, tore down another of the classical myths of evolution. Yet more plagiarism. As a result of this, I'm hiding your text. You may edit it so that it gives credit where it is due, but is mostly in your own words if you want it to be visible again. If you wish to discuss this moderator action click in the appropriate link in the blue box below: New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024