Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 781 of 1163 (794111)
11-10-2016 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 776 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 4:24 AM


Re: THE GREAT EVOLUTION FOSSIL FAILURE
Do you realize that common descent of all life forms from a LUCA is not the entirety of evolutionary theory? If fact, if it proved true that all major phyla popped into existence at the beginning of the Cambrian through some special act of creation, the ToE would still explain descent with modification of subsequent species. Creationists seem to think that common descent from a universal ancestor is THE foundation of the theory. It's not! Univeral common descent is a consequence of the theory; ie. a conclusion based on the theory that as of yet has not proven to be false.
Simply stated, the theory of evolution is that every organism is a descendant of a previous parental organism(s) and has inherited it's traits from it's parent(s) albeit with modifications that make it slightly different from it's parents. This process of descent with modification is then sufficient to explain speciation and the variety of life forms we observe on earth.
This basic evolutionary premise would still hold true even if all major phyla popped into existence at the beginning of the Cambrian. Of course, it would not explain the origin of those first life forms, but that's ok, because the ToE does not explain the origin of LIFE, just the origin of SPECIES.
Now... if the Cambrian explosion occurred 6000 years ago and the P-T boundary (flood) occurred 4400 years ago, that would present a serious problem for evolutionary theory. I would like to see creationists present a decent theory that explains the hyper-evolution that would be necessary under those conditions. It's absurd. You would have new species being formed almost on a daily basis. There is no known process that would explain that rate of change. It would almost literally be a dog changing into a cat... which you all tell us is impossible.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 4:24 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 782 of 1163 (794112)
11-10-2016 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 780 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 7:28 AM


Re: Intermediates
Again, this point doesn't challenge evolutionary theory itself. At best, it would suggest that evolutionary theory doesn't explain the origin of a specific creature.
However, the alternative explanation - that it was the product of a special creation - is hardly well evidenced either; no more than conjecture based on a lack of evidence. How could you know that any creature you point to was THE original specially created species? It seems much more likely that the organism descended from a parental organism with modification.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 7:28 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 783 of 1163 (794113)
11-10-2016 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 780 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 7:28 AM


Re: Intermediates
mindspawn writes:
If the fossil record is sparse, what then are you basing your theory on?
The theory is based on the VAST body of physical evidence that exist while there is zero evidence of any Creator.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 7:28 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 784 of 1163 (794114)
11-10-2016 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 780 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 7:28 AM


Re: Intermediates
minspwwn writes:
If the fossil record is sparse, what then are you basing your theory on?
Not just fossils. All the other evidence. too. However, sparse fossils also do provide excellent evidence for evolution. All those intermerdiate fossils we have found do it just fine.
The more logical conclusion is that organisms just appeared which is what is observed if you do not have intermediate fossils.
That doesnt make any sense at all. You do know that the oldest fossils are prokaryotes, don't you? You also do realise that fish don't appear out of thin air?
It should be immediately discarded based on the lack of evidence, but yes, you have an excuse not to discard it because you have an excuse for the lack of intermediates.
Lots and lots and lots of intermediates. Nothing was poofed into existence.
How that FAVOURS evolution, is beyond me. The evidence favors sudden appearance without intermediates.
Now you're talking nonsense. We have fossils of thousands of intermediates.
Against that, we don't even have one example of anything being poofed into existence.
Sure there are some minor transitions recorded elsewhere in the fossil record, adaptation does exist. However these are particularly lacking closer to creation week, in the Cambrian Explosion.
Ah great, creation week happened over millions of years. Everyting poofed into existence except for for sponges (Precambrian), cnidarians (Precambrian), bryozoans (Ordovicium), fishes (Silurian), non-avian reptiles (Devonian), first insects (Devonian), first amphibians (Devonian), mammals (Triassic), birds (Jurassic).
No vertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals were poofed into existence during that "Cambrian creation week". Just lots of things "created" many, many weeks (read hundreds of millions of years) earlier or later.
You don't make any sense, mindspawn.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 7:28 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 785 of 1163 (794121)
11-10-2016 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 780 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 7:28 AM


Re: Intermediates
quote:
If the fossil record is sparse, what then are you basing your theory on?
I am basing my understanding on what we do know, both the evidence - including the fossils we do have - as well as our background knowledge.
quote:
The more logical conclusion is that organisms just appeared which is what is observed if you do not have intermediate fossils.
In the same way that it is logical to believe that anyone without a birth record just popped into existence ? We do not assume miracles just because the evidence is not available - especially when some evidence IS available.
quote:
Even if you have a good reason for your lack of intermediates , this just justifies not immediately discarding evolutionary theory. It should be immediately discarded based on the lack of evidence, but yes, you have an excuse not to discard it because you have an excuse for the lack of intermediates.
You seem to be forgetting that you are the one who has the more serious problem with missing fossils, and you are the one who needs to resort to excuses. We actually have evidence in the fossils that are found. You do not.
quote:
How that FAVOURS evolution, is beyond me. The evidence favors sudden appearance without intermediates.
We know that there were creatures alive at the time. The evidence points more to there being potential ancestral forms among them, than it does to there being modern life forms among them. How can you possibly regard that as favouring your view ?
Or perhaps I don't need to ask. You did write Message 636. Maybe you should manage to get more acquainted with rational thought before making pronouncements on what is "most likely" or "logical" or supported by the evidence.
Edited by PaulK, : Fix tag

This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 7:28 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 786 of 1163 (794129)
11-10-2016 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 780 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 7:28 AM


Re: Intermediates
If the fossil record is sparse, what then are you basing your theory on?
The fossils we do have.
The more logical conclusion is that organisms just appeared which is what is observed if you do not have intermediate fossils.
We have lots. You have none of the fossils that your "theory" requires. How about you discard it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 7:28 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 787 of 1163 (794131)
11-10-2016 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 778 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 6:05 AM


Re: The Great Creationist Marsupial Genome Failure
Is there any evidence of additional unique active coding GENES in marsupial divergence over time?
I don't know. Can you find any unique coding genes in humans that chimps don't have?
Is there any evidence of additional unique active coding GENES in marsupial divergence over time? At evolutionary rates we should expect more than a thousand additional unique active coding genes since the American possum diverged from the Australian marsupials? That would really prove the theory of evolution.
Would it prove the theory of evolution if I could find an instance of that in any clade, or does it only apply to marsupials for some reason?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 778 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 6:05 AM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 789 by jar, posted 11-10-2016 10:19 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 788 of 1163 (794132)
11-10-2016 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 776 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 4:24 AM


Re: THE GREAT EVOLUTION FOSSIL FAILURE
Unfortunately the existence of "possible precursor life-forms" isn't sufficient to justify a theory like evolution.
Who said I was trying to justify evolution?
Believe it or not scientists don't go to work every day saying "Today, I'm going to prove evolution."
quote:
If these creatures suddenly appear in the fossil record as world conditions change, this rather points to them already being in existence in another location and radiating out from there when world conditions suit them. This appears to be the case with trilobites radiating out from Siberia.
Sure, they most likely evolved since we see evolution occurring throughout the fossil record.
quote:
So the evidence does not point to any evolving, but points to organisms already existing and radiating out from niche locations as new conditions become more suitable for that organism.
But they aren't the same organisms. What are you talking about?
Why would that not be evolution?
Are you saying that humans were hiding out someplace like Siberia until the most recent parts of the fossil record?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 4:24 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 789 of 1163 (794133)
11-10-2016 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 787 by Dr Adequate
11-10-2016 10:11 AM


Re: The Great Creationist Marsupial Genome Failure
If you look at the DNA from Northern Hemisphere Marsupials it is always spirals clockwise however the DNA from Australian Marsupials spirals anti-widdershins.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 787 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-10-2016 10:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 790 of 1163 (794135)
11-10-2016 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 779 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 7:19 AM


Re: Intermediates
Not to delve into every one of those fossils, but archosaurs come in a variety of shapes and sizes. The dicynodont was a Permian archosaur that is often depicted with similar features to the Triceratops, albeit less dramatic. Horns and a protective skull. Similarly Procolophonids have horns and a protective skull. So I don't regard the rapid adaptation as far-fetched. The mega-sizes are the biggest difference.
The Dimetrodon was a pre-flood reptile with a sail , a similar feature to certain post-flood dinosaurs.
Wait, are you claiming that dinosaurs severally descended from different pre-Triassic reptiles, many of which were not archosaurs at all?
Then how do you explain how they all have the distinctive features of (a) diapsids (b) archosaurs (c) dinosaurs?
From WP:
The simplest and most widely agreed synapomorphies of archosaurs include teeth set in sockets, antorbital and mandibular fenestrae (openings in front of the eyes and in the jaw, respectively), and a fourth trochanter (a prominent ridge on the femur).
And:
A detailed assessment of archosaur interrelations by Sterling Nesbitt[28] confirmed or found the following twelve unambiguous synapomorphies, some previously known:
* in the skull, a supratemporal fossa (excavation) is present in front of the supratemporal fenestra, the main opening in the rear skull roof
* epipophyses, obliquely backward pointing processes on the rear top corners, present in the anterior (front) neck vertebrae behind the atlas and axis, the first two neck vertebrae
* apex of deltopectoral crest (a projection on which the deltopectoral muscles attach) located at or more than 30% down the length of the humerus (upper arm bone)
* radius, a lower arm bone, shorter than 80% of humerus length
* fourth trochanter (projection where the caudofemoralis muscle attaches on the inner rear shaft) on the femur (thighbone) is a sharp flange
* fourth trochanter asymmetrical, with distal, lower, margin forming a steeper angle to the shaft
* on the astragalus and calcaneum, upper ankle bones, the proximal articular facet, the top connecting surface, for the fibula occupies less than 30% of the transverse width of the element
* exoccipitals (bones at the back of the skull) do not meet along the midline on the floor of the endocranial cavity, the inner space of the braincase
* in the pelvis, the proximal articular surfaces of the ischium with the ilium and the pubis are separated by a large concave surface (on the upper side of the ischium a part of the open hip joint is located between the contacts with the pubic bone and the ilium)
* cnemial crest on the tibia (protruding part of the top surface of the shinbone) arcs anterolaterally (curves to the front and the outer side)
* distinct proximodistally oriented (vertical) ridge present on the posterior face of the distal end of the tibia (the rear surface of the lower end of the shinbone)
* concave articular surface for the fibula of the calcaneum (the top surface of the calcaneum, where it touches the fibula, has a hollow profile)
Are we meant to believe that separate groups of reptiles which did not originally have these features acquired them through convergent evolution, even though they had widely, wildly different habits of life?
I note that the absence of intermediate forms doesn't bother you one whit in putting forward this extravagant hypothesis. Whereas we do have some. For example, the evolution of ceratopsians from more basal dinosaurs is evidenced in the fossil record. Their evolution from dicynodonts is not. Incidentally, dicynodonts are not, as you claim, archosaurs. They're not even diapsids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 779 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 7:19 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 791 of 1163 (794137)
11-10-2016 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 776 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 4:24 AM


Re: THE GREAT EVOLUTION FOSSIL FAILURE
Unfortunately the existence of "possible precursor life-forms" isn't sufficient to justify a theory like evolution. If these creatures suddenly appear in the fossil record as world conditions change, this rather points to them already being in existence in another location and radiating out from there when world conditions suit them. This appears to be the case with trilobites radiating out from Siberia.
Could I again point out that the paper you referred to was talking about evolutionary radiation and not mere geographical spread.
And could I again ask if we're talking about the same Siberia? Your excuse for the absence of pre-Permian mammals was that they were hidden in Siberia where we can't look. But apparently we can look at pre-Triassic trilobites in Siberia. Which suggests (a) that you're wrong about us not being able to look there and (b) that Siberia was at the time in question underwater.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 4:24 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 797 by mindspawn, posted 11-11-2016 3:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 792 of 1163 (794142)
11-10-2016 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 777 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 4:44 AM


Re: Intermediates
You are obviously correct. Kindly forgive me for my occasional lapses in terminology, I'm not as used to discussing this subject as you guys. I appreciate the correction, it's good to get the terminology correct so that we are all on the same page.
Okay, humans are apes, so let's go back to what you were saying:
I do believe in rapid outward transformation, so I'm not as careful to dispute any sequence as other creationists, but some big claims like apes to humans I do definitely dispute.
So going "from ape to human"... it doesn't quite make sense because humans are still apes, but we can roll with it. Let's say "from non-human ape to human ape".
How is a nested hierarchy from non-human apes to human apes different from what you are calling "rapid outward expansion"?
Many so-called evolutionist sequences are incorrect on closer analysis of the sequence. This problem is particularly prevalent with human sequences where the fossils are normally full fledged apes or full fledged humans, and yet intermediates are claimed.
Given that the theory is that going from a non-human ape to a human ape will always be via a route of a nested hierarchy, and given the assumption that we can always tell the human apes from the non-human ones, how can you stand by a claim of no intermediates when there are clearly fossils of apes that fall in-between being clearly non-human to sorta non-human, to maybe human-ish, to pretty-close-but-not-quite-fully-human?
Various breeds of apes and races of humans are arranged into a false evolutionary sequence that looks correct only superficially.
Its not superficial though. As the fossils get older, the more non-human the apes are. And as you get closer to modern times, the fossils become more and more human-like.
If you like you can use one of your human sequences to prove evolution and we can analyse the physical attributes of them to see if evolutionists have any legitimate case for the evolution of humans. Any evidence for evolution will be appreciated.
Check it out:
All fossils are consistent with creationism. So I do not see why you think any fossils are more consistent with evolution than creationism. Could you cite some examples please.
Those fossils are certainly consistent with evolution.
The only way they are consistent with creationism, is if they were being created to look like they evolved!
Why would God do that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 777 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 4:44 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 805 by mindspawn, posted 11-11-2016 4:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 793 of 1163 (794154)
11-10-2016 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 780 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 7:28 AM


Evolution Process and Theory
If the fossil record is sparse, what then are you basing your theory on? ...
The massive amount of evidence that evolution occurs in virtually every generation of every species.
Can you state what the Theory of Evolution is? Let me give you my take:
We start with the process of evolution:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.
This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next.
Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis
Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies. Such facts are the basis for scientific theory.
If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.
This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.
If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.
(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.
Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.
If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.
The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagensis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.
Thus the fossil record is a test of the ToE instead of the foundation, and absences of evidence is not a problem, if there is reason for the absence, and there is plenty evidence that the fossil record is incomplete. Each new find then becomes a test of the Theory.
... The more logical conclusion is that organisms just appeared which is what is observed if you do not have intermediate fossils. ...
Except that such sudden appearance of new species has never been observed, and thus it is not fact and cannot be used as the basis for scientific theory.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 780 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 7:28 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 801 by mindspawn, posted 11-11-2016 3:38 AM RAZD has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 794 of 1163 (794165)
11-11-2016 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 770 by Dr Adequate
11-09-2016 5:54 AM


Re: Intermediates
Before I tackle those skulls in your post, are they in a claimed sequence? I'm only interested in so-called evidence of how some common ancestor ape evolved into human apes. And I would need more information, I would need EVERY claimed detail about those skulls if available. Arm length, skull capacity, scientific name, location, context. I definitely will not be able to answer you on skulls alone.
The problem with any ape sequence is that every layer has a range of apes, including today. So its easy to cherry pick the correct looking ones, just as it would be easy today to arrange modern skeletons into an order of least human looking ape to most human looking ape. That obviously does nothing to prove any evolution, it just proves that there exists a range of species at any given moment in time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 770 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-09-2016 5:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 795 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2016 3:05 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 796 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2016 3:14 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 831 by herebedragons, posted 11-12-2016 10:04 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 795 of 1163 (794166)
11-11-2016 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 794 by mindspawn
11-11-2016 2:50 AM


Re: Intermediates
quote:
The problem with any ape sequence is that every layer has a range of apes, including today. So its easy to cherry pick the correct looking ones, just as it would be easy today to arrange modern skeletons into an order of least human looking ape to most human looking ape. That obviously does nothing to prove any evolution, it just proves that there exists a range of species at any given moment in time.
Remember that the skulls include species you would classify as human.
If there is in fact a continuum between modern humans and other apes then your claim that there is a distinction between "fully human" and "fully ape" seems to fall by the wayside. And wouldn't that fact in itself be evidence for evolution ?
But if there is no continuum - if there is a clear gap - it would NOT be easy to pick the "correct-looking" ones by "cherry picking" at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 794 by mindspawn, posted 11-11-2016 2:50 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 799 by mindspawn, posted 11-11-2016 3:27 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024