Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
33 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, Taq (4 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,756 Year: 16,792/19,786 Month: 917/2,598 Week: 163/251 Day: 51/65 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)
Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 4 of 137 (599218)
01-05-2011 4:47 PM


"If we reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent from a common ancestry, we can only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the image of the ape. This, I say, is a matter of undeniable fact -- supposing the creation theory true -- and as a matter of fact, therefore, it calls for explanation. Why should God have thus conditioned man as an elaborate copy of the ape, when we know from the rest of creation how endless are His resources in the invention of types?"
George J. Romanes, 1882

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-05-2011 10:27 PM Taq has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 10 of 137 (599290)
01-06-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ApostateAbe
01-05-2011 11:35 PM


Re: ID in practice?
Find me an engineer who doesn't recycle old code for new designs. You can't.

Find me an engineer whose designs fall into a nested hierarchy.

Also, engineers recycle old designs and old code because of time and resource constraints. An omniscient and omnipotent supernatural deity who resides outside of time with access to infinite resources would not need to recycle designs. For such an entity starting from scratch would require the same effort as recycling old designs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-05-2011 11:35 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-06-2011 4:09 PM Taq has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 37 of 137 (599789)
01-10-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
01-10-2011 3:22 PM


Re: Reconstructed skeleton
But to take the 5 bones of Lucy's head and construct the beautiful picture presented by ApostateAbe is preposterous.

Lucy isn't the only Australopithecus in existence. Dikika child, for example, is nearly complete. There are also other nearly complete known Australopiths.

That reconstruction came out of someone's imagination.

Hardly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2011 3:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 38 of 137 (599790)
01-10-2011 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ICANT
01-10-2011 3:14 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
As far as the fossil skulls they are proof that a creature with that skull lived at one time unless they are an imatation.

How does creationism explain the trend in morphology? Why do modern human features slowly emerge in hominid fossils over time?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2011 3:14 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 12:38 PM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 54 of 137 (599865)
01-11-2011 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by ICANT
01-11-2011 10:13 AM


Re: Genesis species
But he said they would be numerous in all stratas.

Perhaps you forgot that Chapter 9 of "Origin of Species" is entitled "On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record". Darwin goes to lengths to explain why we do not see numerous transitional fossils and why the geologic record is missing strata throughout.

So if they are correct there should be millions of fossils of extinct life forms found in the many different layers that it takes to cover the life forms that produced our oil, coal, and natural gas to the depth of 5 miles.

You are making the assumption that everything that lived also turned into a fossil that is preserved to this day and is accessible to scientists. This is a very, very poor assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 10:13 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 11:34 AM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 55 of 137 (599866)
01-11-2011 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
01-11-2011 10:41 AM


Re: Genesis species
So I can go down to the local used car lot and take a bunch of pictures of the automobiles in the lot and I have proved they all came from the same factory. Is that what you are saying?

You will have a point when cars start having babies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 10:41 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 56 of 137 (599867)
01-11-2011 11:14 AM


ICAN'T,

You still have not shed light on how creationism explains the morphological trends in the hominid transitional fossils. As we go through time modern human features become more pronounced while more primitive ape features become less pronounced. These are the undeniable facts. How does creationism explain this?


Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 01-11-2011 11:18 AM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 59 of 137 (599874)
01-11-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by jar
01-11-2011 11:18 AM


Re: OJT
On the Job Training. Their Creator is learning from past mistakes, just not learning very fast or well. Likely got the position under affirmative action.

I can imagine the conversation now . . .

God's Boss: Hey Yahweh, what seems to be going wrong?

YHWH: The brain seems big enough but the little buggers can't talk very well.

GB: Did you check the FoxP2 gene?

YHWH: You know, I didn't. How dumb of me.

GB: Don't worry. Beginner's mistake.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 01-11-2011 11:18 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2011 12:28 PM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 60 of 137 (599875)
01-11-2011 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by ICANT
01-11-2011 11:34 AM


Re: Genesis species
If only .01% were preserved there would be over 2 million and that is using the low end number of existing species to base the caculations on. If we used the high end numbers there would be over 50 million different species represented at the .01%.

What if only 10% of those fossils escaped erosion and subduction? What if only 1% of those 10% are accessible to scientists in strata that are easily searched? What if scientists have only searched 0.0000001% of the strata that is accessible to them that carries these fossils?

Added by edit:

At one time the passenger pigeon population in North America numbered in the billions yet only a handful of passenger pigeon fossils are known. If a numerous and recent species only has a handful of fossil examples what does this say about more ancient and less numerous species.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 11:34 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 65 of 137 (599894)
01-11-2011 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
01-11-2011 12:38 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Do you think all people look alike?

No living person looks like H. erectus. In H. erectus we see primitive ape features not seen in modern humans.

So once again, why do modern human features slowly emerge in hominid fossils over time?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 12:38 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 66 of 137 (599895)
01-11-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by New Cat's Eye
01-11-2011 12:28 PM


Re: OJT
But who is the boss's boss!?

Chuck Norris, obviously.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2011 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 69 of 137 (599961)
01-11-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
01-11-2011 2:50 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Do you think there are any people who look like this?

Or this:

Or this:

One of the key differences between these two species (H. habilis and H. erectus respectively) and modern humans is the protruding jaw, large brow ridges, and sloping forehead. For H. habilis and H. erectus try and figure out how they could wear a baseball cap. They lack the forehead for it.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2011 2:50 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Theodoric, posted 01-11-2011 6:52 PM Taq has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 74 of 137 (601062)
01-18-2011 3:02 PM


I still have not seen any creationist explanation as to why we see the emergence of modern human features over time in the hominid fossil record. Anyone?

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 76 of 137 (601096)
01-18-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
01-18-2011 5:21 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Since 'Macro-Evolution' one critter becoming another critter has never happened you and others here have cast the term 'Macro-Evolution' in the trash can.

How do you determine if one critter has become another critter? What are the criteria you are using? Isn't a chihuahua a different critter than wolves?

I am different from both my parents, so does that qualify me as a different critter?

On the other hand I am supposed to believe that in the last 3 or 4 million years apes, chimps, and humans have evolved from a single life form.

Chimps are apes. Humans are apes. Our common ancestor was an ape. It is just apes turning into apes. This is microevolution, right?

The problem is they were just 330 different species of foraminifera. Not one critter that was a totally different critter produced in that 66 million year period.

330 different species = 330 different critters, does it not? If they were all the same critter then how could there be 330 different species?

This statement says that all those little microevolution events reaching back to a common ancestor has not been validated or invalidated yet.

A common ancestor between humans and chimps has been validated:

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.long

Humans and chimps share thousands of these retroviral insertions at the same spot in their genomes. Therefore, common ancestry between humans and chimps has been validated. Add to that the fossil hominids being discussed in this thread.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2011 5:21 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ICANT, posted 01-19-2011 1:28 AM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8006
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 79 of 137 (601243)
01-19-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by ICANT
01-19-2011 1:28 AM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Just a different species of the same critter.

Based on what criteria?

All 330 different species is classified as the same critter, a foraminifera.

Humans and chimps are classified as the same critter, an ape. Humans and bears are classified as the same critter, a mammal. Humans and fish are classified as the same critter, a vertebrate. Humans and amoeba are classified as the same critter, a eukaryote.

So is this the extent of your criteria, the ability to describe two species with the same word?

So says Taq.

The article you refferenced makes no such claim.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.long

The paper goes on to show that humans and other apes do share the same ERV's at the same locations in their genomes which validates shared ancestry.

And I still have not seen any creationist explanation as to why we see the emergence of modern human features over time in the hominid fossil record. Anyone?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ICANT, posted 01-19-2011 1:28 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 01-19-2011 12:52 PM Taq 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