Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
19 online now:
PaulK, Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 16 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,924 Year: 20,960/19,786 Month: 1,357/2,023 Week: 308/557 Day: 1/47 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3!
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 3983 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 106 of 128 (380087)
01-26-2007 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by DrJones*
01-26-2007 4:01 AM


Re: Evidence Of A Young Earth
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by DrJones*, posted 01-26-2007 4:01 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2007 10:47 AM Open MInd has responded
 Message 108 by AdminNosy, posted 01-26-2007 10:58 AM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 128 (380089)
01-26-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Open MInd
01-26-2007 10:41 AM


Re: Evidence Of A Young Earth
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:
The Flynn effect is the year-on-year rise of IQ test scores, an effect seen in most parts of the world, although at greatly varying rates. It was named by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in The Bell Curve after the New Zealand based political scientist James R. Flynn, who did much to document it and promote awareness of its implications (Flynn, 1984, 1987). The average rate of rise seems to be around three IQ points per decade.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Open MInd, posted 01-26-2007 10:41 AM Open MInd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by AdminNosy, posted 01-26-2007 10:58 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 111 by Open MInd, posted 01-26-2007 11:06 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 108 of 128 (380095)
01-26-2007 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Open MInd
01-26-2007 10:41 AM


Topic!
The topic is recent human evolution and our relationship to chimps.

If we can't stick to that I'll close this for awhile.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Open MInd, posted 01-26-2007 10:41 AM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 109 of 128 (380096)
01-26-2007 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by crashfrog
01-26-2007 10:47 AM


Topic!
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2007 10:47 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 110 of 128 (380098)
01-26-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Open MInd
01-24-2007 7:58 PM


Re: Evidence Of A Young Earth
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.......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Open MInd, posted 01-24-2007 7:58 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 3983 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 111 of 128 (380099)
01-26-2007 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by crashfrog
01-26-2007 10:47 AM


Re: Evidence Of A Young Earth
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2007 10:47 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by doctrbill, posted 02-05-2007 9:12 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 112 of 128 (380119)
01-26-2007 12:31 PM


Closing for the day
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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by AdminNosy, posted 01-26-2007 6:10 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 113 of 128 (380213)
01-26-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by AdminNosy
01-26-2007 12:31 PM


Open for the specified topic
From now on short suspensions will be issued to those who have trouble with getting the topic right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by AdminNosy, posted 01-26-2007 12:31 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1086 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 114 of 128 (382734)
02-05-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Open MInd
01-26-2007 11:06 AM


Re: Evidence Of A Holey Minde
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! :laugh:


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Open MInd, posted 01-26-2007 11:06 AM Open MInd has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by AdminNosy, posted 02-05-2007 9:19 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 115 of 128 (382739)
02-05-2007 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by doctrbill
02-05-2007 9:12 PM


1 hour suspension for topic violation
Dr. Bill, that isn't helping keep the thread on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by doctrbill, posted 02-05-2007 9:12 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
pop 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 116 of 128 (403226)
06-01-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
09-29-2005 7:13 PM


australopithecus werent bipedal
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-29-2005 7:13 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 12:48 PM pop has responded
 Message 118 by Jazzns, posted 06-01-2007 12:56 PM pop has not yet responded
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 06-02-2007 5:53 PM pop has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6814
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 117 of 128 (403232)
06-01-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by pop
06-01-2007 12:17 PM


Re: australopithecus werent bipedal
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by pop, posted 06-01-2007 12:17 PM pop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by pop, posted 06-02-2007 6:26 AM Chiroptera has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2233 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 118 of 128 (403234)
06-01-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by pop
06-01-2007 12:17 PM


Re: australopithecus werent bipedal
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by pop, posted 06-01-2007 12:17 PM pop has not yet responded

  
pop 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 119 of 128 (403374)
06-02-2007 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Chiroptera
06-01-2007 12:48 PM


Re: australopithecus werent bipedal
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 12:48 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by AdminModulous, posted 06-02-2007 8:12 AM pop has responded
 Message 123 by Chiroptera, posted 06-02-2007 1:37 PM pop has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 120 of 128 (403381)
06-02-2007 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by pop
06-02-2007 6:26 AM


when plagiarists attack
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, Thread Style Guides for EvC and Thread Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by pop, posted 06-02-2007 6:26 AM pop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by pop, posted 06-02-2007 9:37 AM AdminModulous has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019