'We' Evo's think.....................

I presume you think that was an excellent rebuttal of some sort Mike. If you would care to examine the evidence and give your reasons for rejecting it that might be a bit more meaningful.

I think, Mike, that the way they are ordered was stated at the time you were originally shown them. It has been rather awhile now and you haven't had anything substantive to say since then.What skulls would there be that didn't fit the theory?One would, of course, expect "non transitionals" (if I understand what you mean by that). Not all of the fossils found will necessarily be on the direct path to us.And likewise I would expect "undecided" fairly frequently. Though the paleoanthropologists being human, each may have their own decision but a real consensus about some specimens may take some time to develop.What is your point?

The "tran" that I am talking about fit the ToE they are simply not on our direct lineage. You need to work a little harder at understanding what you are arguing with.It is simply not possible to create a solid counter argument against something unless you understand what it is you are argueing against first. You are a long, long way from having much of a clue about what you choose not to believe.And could you spell out in detail what "jigsaw" phenomena are?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-19-2003]

Just exactly when, Mike, are you actually going to join the discussion. So far you've made a number of posts with no particular content that relates to the questions at hand.If you don't like the dating, go to a dating thread and make clear exactly what is wrong with it. I think you will find that all the apparent rebuttals that you have available to you have been torn to shreds. Given that and the fact that you aren't able to make anything but somewhat irrelevant statments isn't it time you gave up.You do have the choice of saying:
"I know nothing about this, I refuse to look at it, I simply don't believe any of it"
or
"I see what the natural evidence is telling me I simply assume that God chose to make it look like that for His own mysterious reasons"
or
"The bible is one of the messages from God. It tells us some of why we are here and how we are expected to behave. It does not attempt to tell us how God made the universe or how He made it work. It is completely correct in what He intended it for. In other areas I have been misinterpreting it. Sorry about that and thanks for straightening me out on how to read the other message God has given us."

Uh, Mike, could you make clear what questions you are asking again? After that I'll ask just how creation fits with what we know.

Could you clarify those questions Mike? You've been rambling a bit and I can't get clear what you are asking.Are you going to get to the meat of any part of this discussion or is it proving a bit much for you?

I am giving you a chance to clarify what you are saying rather than rejecting it all out-of-hand, Mike.In addition, you asked for answers to your questions. I am willing to try to do that (or others will) but I can't if I don't know exactly what they are.By the comment about "undecideds" did you mean the reference to the possibility that some forms would not be for sure on or off the "linkage" to us? That is not the same as not being able to decide if a specimen is human or ape. This is not a distinction which makes sense in this context.In this context and understanding the ToE all specimens not H. sapien are "not human" AND "not ape". All specimens over the last 6 or so Myr are also "not ape". A more resonable question is what genus would they be put in. So are they homo or not? Another resonable question is: Are they in the general homonid line? That is, are they one of the ancestral species or one of the cousin species?If there are transitionals between more "ape-like" specimens and more "human like" then the point is that there will be some that are "undecidables". That is you can't pick exactly where on the continuum they are. Lo and behold, you are stuck in that position regarding our lad Turkana Boy.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-20-2003][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-20-2003]

I'm sorry I wasn't as clear as I could have been.There are two sorts of "undecided"s being used in some of these posts. One is refering to whether a particular species in on the lineage leading to us. The other is this rather artificial, that is the "is it human or is it ape" type of undecided. I mentioned that before as a sort of a meaningless distinction but one you seemed to think could be made.Turkana boy is taken as being on the lineage to H. sapiens and a member of our genus.Since we will continue to search for more evidence there is always a chance that further details will move H. erectus off the line to us I guess you could call it "undecided" if you wanted too. Everything is "undecided" in that sense. However, we have now found a fair number of specimens and it seems very unlikely that some entirely new species will crop up that would replace erectus. So it is pretty darn "decided". (very darn decided in fact )

You, to my mind, have still not asked your question clearly enough? Would you try to pretend there has been not exchange so far and start over with a re-wording of what questions you want answered?In the meantime I will have a go at guessing what you are getting at. You've been shown a date sequenced set of homonid skulls and asked to comment on them. You haven't done much of that in any substantive way.It seems you are asking if Turkana boy could be put in some such line up and "not fit" in some way?I don't think so is my answer but you aren't talking to a paleoanthropologist who would be the sort to really answer your question in a reliable way.Remember, the skulls you were shown are ordered by dating. But that is only a teeny, tiny part of the analysis done. There are detailed (very) descriptions of every detail of the specimens done. These offer ways of linking them too. They are not just "stuffed" into a line. If that is what you are thinking. Just exactly what are you thinking, Mike?

I would get a little nervous if I were you Mike. This sentence sounds a little like one of our other posters. You haven't clarified what the jigsaw phenomenon is yet. That might be helful.Here is another guess as to what you might be getting at.You don't think this is conclusive evidence for anything because it is a large number of bits and pieces that have to be fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle. If that is the case I find it a bit incredible that you would take that position.Of course, it is a large number of pieces of evidence. They are not all carefully arranged to make this easy. No one in their right mind would expect it to be that way.However, just as with assembling a jigsaw puzzle we can see how well the pieces fit, see if they follow the kind of cutting pattern of the type of puzzle we are working on and look for matches in the patten each piece.When the fit in unclear we can try it with others around it. Each attempted fit can be examined by several individuals and a consensus opinion offered (as my son and I do when we make puzzles together).This has been done. It is done with a degree of care and sophistication that is enormously beyond that of the most careful puzzler. It points to one conclusion.You, on the other hand, have no evidence, in pieces or otherwise. You don't like the evidence presented because it is hard for you. Well, tough.On the other hand maybe you do like it because it is hard to fit together and make the big picture show up. Like some of those on vairous creationists sites you want it to be difficult for the "man on the street". This allows for simplistic attacks, strawmen and lies to be used as weapons against the truth. Which side are you one Mike?

Of course, the theory is not in doubt. Sorry about getting a little testy.It is just that you aren't helping move this along by being clear in what you want to say or ask about. After awhile that starts to get annoying. It is the time taken to get a reasonably simple point sorted out that is becoming a problem. Could you fix that?

You know thia is rather lovely poetry of a sort. It is meaningless like abstract art. But pretty to look at nonetheless.

Sorry, Mike.I guess this had gone on for so long I didn't realize we had actually finished something. Sort of over shot the mark I guess .Since you didn't carry on I don't know where this goes from here. Are we finished with this thread that you started? I'm left with a feeling of "so what?" now.

Oh is it? Amazing that it produces such consistent results then isn't it? Perhaps you would like to go to a dates and dating thread and defend that rather outrageous statment?How about you read over this one:
http://EvC Forum: Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate? -->EvC Forum: Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?You should understand that a statement like that undefended might as well not have been made. As you will discover if you try to defend it, you are wrong.