|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTHINGNESS Inactive Member |
Do you trust the the fossil index? Did you know that there was a time when the 400 million year old -coelacanth- "evolved" with legs, and was extinct, and had already progressed into the next stage of evolution? I also believe that the age of strata cannot be correct , considering it previously used this supposedly extinct fossil, which happens to be quite alive, in the fossil index.
http://www.dinofish.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
This is false. No 400 million year old species has been found alive today.
Dinofish is a good site to learn about the modern coelacanth. But it doesn't have much information, that I recall, on the coelacanths that lived 400 million years ago. Which, by the way, were not the same as the modern ones -- not even in the same family.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, it supports evolution in every way.
quote: And his cousin the lungfish, with whom the coelacanth shares a common ancestor, continued the journey on land. So what. How is this a problem for evolution?
quote: You have been lied to. The species of coelacanth in the fossil record is not the species that is alive today. Coelacanth is a name given to a GROUP of lobe finned fish, much like the word shark is used today. Also, the living species is considerably smaller than the fossil species not to mention the other differences. In fact, they are not even in the same genera. Now, are you going to get back to the topic and give us a defintion of what characteristics and transitional hominid should have if evolution is true? Or are you going to bring up creationist disinformation time and time again to avoid being pinned down by an actual definition of what an ape-man should look like?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
You still have permissions to post to suggestions and questions. The rest I will consider returning in a day.
You have continued to evade and not debate in good faith. When you quit making pronouncements which you are unwilling or unable to support the debate can progress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Nothingness writes: Well, I believe that evolutionists claim that the Linnaean hierarchy is a means of proving the theory of evolution. Not exactly. That evolution has occurred is an interpretation of the Linnaean classification of organisms. The classification system is consistent with an evolutionary interpretation.
Howerver, if that was the case, then, I guess that deviation disproves it. This wouldn't be true, either. Not only is a classification system not proof of evolution, it is just a human perspective, an interpretation of evidence in an evolutionary framework, and it will change as we discover more organisms and more about them. So when you say this:
I see too many "convenient" changes in the theory of evolution, which spring forth. It isn't the theory of evolution that changes if we decide to change the slots into which we've plugged various organisms in a classification system. The theory of evolution remains unchanged whether we decide Australopithecus afarensis lies on a line of direct descent to us or not. That isn't to say the theory of evolution will never change, because it very likely will. As a scientific theory it is tentative, and therefore open to change in light of new evidence or improved insights. Think of it as similar to figuring out why an airplane crashed. As the investigators try out various scenarios, the laws of physics remain unchanged. Just as the laws of physics are the same regardless of whether the investigators decide it was sabatage or accident, so is the theory of evolution the same regardless of what we decide about our ancestry.
Now, how is it that whenever you get backed into a corner,... This is an odd comment. I think all the evolutionists here probably feel we're still trying to help you understand what we're saying. While we recognize we've been largely unsuccessful to this point, the feeling we have isn't one of being backed into a corner, but more one of wondering what type of explanation might best be tried next.
From mutations-punctuated equilibrium-non gradualistic evolution-massive horizontal gene transfre-and last but obviously not least, computation adjustments...and can't explain it with observable evidence, these new concepts appear out of thin air? I'm not sure why you think these concepts have been pulled out of thin air. The idea of mutations has been around for over a century, and punctuated equilibrium and horizontal gene transfer are ideas that are at least 30 years old. I don't know what you mean by computation adjustments.
If evolution can explain away all "deviations" so well,... You mention deviations several times, but the message you're responding to doesn't mention any, and you don't give any examples, so I don't know what you're referring to. But if you talking about changing interpretations of existing evidence, or modifications of interpretations in light of new evidence, then I can only say that that is the way science works. One does not hold onto views which are not in concordance with the evidence. That would be stupid.
Now, if evolution was true, then I would think that biologists would find some, cases in which evolution has repeated itself. It *has* repeated itself. There's even a term for it: convergent evolution. In every post you add a new set of fresh arguments, none of them addressing in any significant way the posts of others in this thread, or even the topic of this thread, which you yourself started. You appear to want a different discussion than the one you began. Transitionals with characterisitics of two or more other groups exist in the fossil record. This is a fact. If you can concede this fact and allow us to agree on a definition of "Ape Man" then I think discussion on this topic can procede on to what really interests you, which is whether these supposed transitionals can really be interpreted as evidence for evolution. As always, you can always begin a new thread at [forum=-25]. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Nothingness's permissions are returned.
If you continue to evade you will loose them again. I'll be back in a few days to see how you've been doing. Stay on topic.If you make assertions be prepared to back them up when asked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTHINGNESS Inactive Member |
You might be laughing now, just like Musalini. Didn't he say if God exists to strike him down? I wonder who's laughing now? LOL I really do.
Anyway........ This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 09-04-2004 12:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
No they don't.
If they don't change by the time I get back in a couple of days you're going to be suspended.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Nothingness writes: You might be laughing now, just like Musalini. You mean Mussolini?
Didn't he say if God exists to strike him down? Yes. Mussolini was an atheist, and in speeches for rhetorical effect he would occasionally call upon God to strike him dead.
I wonder who's laughing now? Mussolini wasn't struck down by God. He was captured and shot by partisans toward the conclusion of World War II. History does not record any divine intervention during Mussolini's rise to power under fascism, nor in his subsequent involvement in the war as an ally of Hitler. But what has this to do with the topic of this thread? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
I know this is late in responding, but I had to reply.
Now, they discovered that knuckle-walking apes have a mechanism that locks the wrist into place in order to stablilize this joint. In their report, they noted: "Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER-20419) and A. afarensis (AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle -walking." This species does not have any human attributes. As an evolutionary biologist I accept the first part of this statement. It is the last point that I have a difficulty in buying. This is because I am a full human (to the best of my knowledge) and am a knuckle walker. That is, my non-poluxal digits bend back at a 90 degree angle to my carpals and I can support my entire body weight on those. I started as a baby and can still do it. My baby did it as well, we 'crawled' with our hands not plantigrade (palms down) but as knuckle walkers. As an adoptee I don't know where this comes from but can trace to at least two generations. I find it hard to believe we are the only ones who do this. I am not in any way suggesting that the Baldwin family knuckle walking is the same mecahanism as is found in paninid primates, but I bet it is close. I am a firm believer in the idea that such traits are derived from gorilla/chimpanzee ancestryCheck out: Richmond and Strait (Nature 404, 382-385 2000) "Bipedalism has traditionally been regarded as the fundamental adaptation that sets hominids apart from other primates. Fossil evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago, and perhaps earlier, hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking. At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism, and despite nearly a century of research on existing fossils and comparative anatomy, there is still no consensus concerning the mode of locomotion that preceded bipedalism. Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER 20419) and A. afarensis (AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking. This distal radial morphology differs from that of later hominids and non-knuckle-walking anthropoid primates, suggesting that knuckle-walking is a derived feature of the African ape and human clade. This removes key morphological evidence for a Pan—Gorilla clade, and suggests that bipedal hominids evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor that was already partly terrestrial." So, Nothing, I am not an ape but I may look like one....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024