Missing link or what ever prefabricated name you may attach to these dead animals that seem to have a growing brain size, the point of the question is why are we not seeing these changes in the last 6000 years of recorded history? You sir or mam are either a liar or stupid or confused or ignorant, pic one they are all free.
I'm especially confused why you don't know why we can not see evidence of millions of years of evolution in the fossils and rock dated to the past 6000 years of fossil evidence.
I'm confused because "recorded history" includes the discovery of archeological finds, as well as all the other discoveries in multiple lines of study showing the obvious relationships between modern species.
@somecomputergeek Recorded means recorded not some bones that didn't record anything. You can look all day and talk to them all day and never truly know what happened, records on the other hand are concrete in the way that they do have a clear message. So where is the message that tells us we have increased in brain size? We already know ancient man was very clever, so clever in fact some of the stuff we can not duplicate! Get over it evolution is a lie,the sad thing is you believe it.
If I dig up bones and RECORD the details of those bones, they are "recorded".
There is no "message" that "we" increased in brain size. We just look at all of the recorded finds, and the details of those finds (including brain pan size and dating), and see a PATTERN showing an increase in brain size...
You know what? This is pointless. You're an idiot, and you're too committed to being an idiot to have a conversation with.
@somecomputergeek Yes but the bones still have said nothing.That is not recorded history,im talking about reading it not speculating on what this may have been. your bones prove something died that is all.
The bones say a lot, but you need to understand some basic animal morphology to "read" them.
For instance, if you look at the bones of a fish, those bones are saying "I was a fish". The bones of a squirrel say "I was a squirrel". The bones of tiktaalik say "I was a fish with four limbs, wrist bones, and many features common to all tetrapods".
the real question is which fossil is irrefutable proof of a transitional form not one under question and speculation by the entire scientific community.
None of the fossils is "irrefutable proof". In fact, it IS refutable, very specifically, in that the theory is falsifiable. There's always going to be speculation, but there's also the fossil record as a whole, giving us plenty of information and clearly showing related species and a taxonomic pattern.
No, it might not be "irrefutable proof", but do you have "irrefutable proof" that you can telepathically communicate with an invisible wizard in another dimension?
@somecomputergeek i never claimed i can telepathically communicate with wizards?
if this is a joke trying to somehow involve god then no this is why its called religion which you just admitted you had no facts which puts you in the same boat.
by the way if a clear unambiguous transitional form was ever found it would be irrefutable proof of a transitional form.
"telepathically communicating with an invisible wizard from another dimension" is a painfully accurate description of the act of praying to a God.
What would you consider "clear, unambiguous transitional form"? What would that look like? There are plenty of unambiguous transitional forms in dinosaurs alone. What features would you expect to find in the common ancestor? What would the "link" between chimps and humans look like, for instance?
@somecomputergeek another atheist with misinformation about religion not impressive
your missing at least 20,000 transitional forms between each species you claim evolved surely you can find one just one? to know what it would look like just go to the silly cartoon drawings evolutionist in the text books.
Actually, we're "missing" a lot more than 20,000 transitional forms, but all you need is one, and, unless I'm wrong, there are dozens in homo sapiens alone. In fact, every time a new transitional form is found, closing a "gap", there become TWO gaps.
You didn't answer the question. What do YOU think a transitional fossil would look like? I mean, some people say crockoduck. I'm hoping you're not that stupid.
@somecomputergeek no there is no transitional form not a single one, the ones you probably are referring to are illustrations complete apes or complete humans, no sub species, no developing organs, characteristics, abilities, no signs of any mutation which could have benefited them.
but no these are just similar to other life forms so evolutionist say they must have evolved gradually and these are missing fossils. problem is if that statement is true then it creates more problems then answers as the mutations to build up to the new creatures must show in the fossil record and they dont
which one, specifically, do you have the most problem with? Common ancestors of chimps and humans? Vertebrates and non-vertebrates? Mammals and reptiles? What, exactly, do you THINK you're supposed to see. What would the common ancestor of a crocodile and a duck look like, for example? Do you think it would look like a crockoduck?
@somecomputergeek its not me who has the problem its the evolutionst who have been searching for 100s of years and still nothing.
evolution by mutation and natural selection which would create a gradual buildup in all creatures look for any ability or organ and still we cant trace it. Without sketches propaganda cherry picking certain pieces etc
OK, I'll bite. Which of the fossils dug up in the past 100 years do you have the most problem with? Which one wasn't predicted or allowed giving the evolutionary paradigm? YOU pick the "cherry".
Just tell me how a fossil like tiktaalik, fits in with your theory. I understand how it fits in with evolution, so this fossil can be at least be explained by evolution. I'm wondering how you explain it. Why did God create this creature, at this time in earth's history?
@somecomputergeek again its not me who has the problem its the scientific comminty!
which fossil is depicted as a transitional form and is not under suspect by the scientific community thats the real question after all the hoaxes evolutionist have lost their credibility.
tiktaalik is a fish is it not? because its able to go onto land it must of evolved?? indoctrination at its finest look for all possibilities and compare them.
I asked you to explain the tiktaalik fossils, not argue (poorly) why you think it doesn't prove evolution. "tiktaalik is a fish is it not?" just shows your ignorance.
Yes, tiktaalik is a fish - a fish with lungs, a robust rib cage, and wrist bones homologous to those found in amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. The fossils also only appear in Devonian rock. All of these facts, and more, are exactly what was predicted by evolutionary theory.
"clean unambiguous forms must be found but we don't have any why?"
You're ignoring the other comments I've made pointing out just how many we DO have. Face it - the facts don't fit your theory. Ignoring those facts doesn't change that.
You say they are "hyped", but aren't showing how. You can't even tell me what a transitional fossil would look like. You have no idea what you're even looking at, let alone what kinds of structures you would be looking for in order to support your theory. Every fossil is a bridge. All of these fossils are transitional. Some of them may look superficially like modern species, but if you want to be taken seriously, you need to look at a fossils for more than 2 seconds.
@somecomputergeek you want to know how they are hyped? aida? ardi? tiktalic? straw man resistant bacteria? desperation both scientifically and morally
just open a biology book look at the sketches which do not exist but should or go to a museum youll see them there to and im sorry i didnt realize i was talking to a child. At a certain point NEW famlies are so called bridged. If evolution is true there must be Missing Links, if we go on fossils we have now evolution never happened.
You ask for a missing link, I show you dozens, focusing on tiktaalik, and describing specific characteristics which clearly show it to be transitional, and how it perfectly fits everything creationists ask for when they demand to see a transitional form.
You tell me they don't count, and I ask why.
You refuse to answer why, and then repeat claims that these fossils don't count, and call me a "child".
@somecomputergeek those fossls arent mssing links sorry to brake it to you!
when the Tiktaalik is examined, many of the features necessary for terrestrial existence do not exist. This is inconsistent with evolution. There are many more things wrong with this so called missing link that is not even called a proof for evolution anymore.
I understand your desperation to cling to ur theory but this is sad
What features, specifically, are necessary for terrestrial existence but "do not exist"?
"not even called a proof for evolution anymore"? When was it ever considered a "proof of evolution"? It's not. It's simply a fossil find that happens to have predicted by evolutionary theory and fits perfectly into the framework.
You're just mad because you can't figure out why God would create a half fish, half lizard, why it's extinct, or why it is only found in Devonian rock.
@somecomputergeek Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. In many news articles, Tiktaalik was billed as "the missing link" between fish and land vertebrates but even a hardcore evolutionist like yourself must admit thats misleading.
it was not half fish/half lizard it was a fish but dont take my word for it compare it to a fish!
Yes, the mainstream media is misleading. It always is. Even the phrase "the missing link" is misleading, because it implies there are still not enough evidence supporting evolutionary theory.
Many vertebrates' forelimbs do not attach directly to their axial skeleton, yet they still support weight, including the African elephant which can weigh up to 20k lbs.
Google "TIKTAALIK ROSEAE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SPECIES OF" for creationist sites. Still think it was just a fish?
Are you saying that, because some scientists come to incorrect conclusions about the Neanderthals being direct descendants of humans, we should conclude that all conclusions they make should be rejected? Don't we have to accept some conclusions in order to show that other conclusions are invalid?
Besides, don't you still need evolution to show that Neaderthals are cousin species rather than ancestral one?
wow.... lol i love the montage at the end of all the skulls. Watch and youll se that you dont get a slow evolution to a humans skull.. The size and shape jumps back and forth to and fro.. without the gradual change to human head... It gets larger smaller, brows larger smaller larger smaller, forhead flat curved flat etc etc.. there isnt a gradual form to human. u should be able to play it and see the pics slowly take on a human form, and it doesnt..
This video has important content, but is hard on the ears (a discordant soundtrack) the eyes (a typeface that is hard to read), and the mind (the video as a whole is hard to assimilate).
10/10 for content, 2/10 for communication. Could do better.
Really? Bird to fish? Gee I thought birds just transformed into fish when they felt like it. That's what Darwin wrote about after all. "THESE FINCHES KEEP TRANSFORMING! EVOLUTION!" sheesh, are people really that dumb? I pity such stupidity.
the people who dont believe in evolution seem to be the ones who dont understand it. e.g. they argue about turtles and aharks no evolving for millions of years. if you studied evolution and understood it, then you wud realise that some species dont evolve because some simply dont have to if they are already perfect killers for their environment. e.g. no transitional fossils from ape to man? go study the subject!!!!!! then ud know that we didnt come from apes but a common ancestor!!!!!!!!
@Redrocket14 If the apes you're talking about are chimpanzees, then yes. Also, typing in all caps doesn't make it true, it just makes you seem like you're shouting stupidly at your computer screen.
@morpheus8624 thats because i am at you creationalist idiots. evo only talks bout wat happened once we got here. i believe in god. and evolution. evolution doesnt talk about how we ultimately got here but only how, once we got here as some type of organisms, wat happened after that.
Humans ARE apes in the same way lions are cats. The term "ape" doesn't describe a single species, but a parent group, or clade, of several species with common characteristics. We share those characteristics, and we are included in that clade, meaning we ARE apes. Yes, that means that we are descendant from apes, as well.
@Killjeser ...must be lies lalallalla magic man dosent exist lalalal must have come from monkeys lalal they came from fish lalalalala they came from single cell lalalala that came from, wait for it...Nothing! much more scientific and believable..NOT
@iamjohnyboy Yeah, like God created stuff from nothing. You obviously lalalala'd your way through science class. Evolution does not explain where life came from.
@iamjohnyboy No, I laugh at the idea that people claim faith in God, yet when something as amazing as evolution is discovered they say it cannot be because it's not in the graven idol called the bible. If God came to earth today and had eight nipples people would reject him because eight nipples are not mentioned in the bible. If there is evidence for God it will undoubtedly be demonstrated through nature, not works of literary fiction where man creates God out of his own image.
@Killjeser The bible declares to be Gods revelation to man and it also declares us sinners in need of a saviour, if you repent and believe in Jesus you will be saved! if you dont you will die in your sin! I pray that God will show you his love and make you turn, untill then we'll agree to disagree.
There is no "agree to disagree" when it comes to rationality. We can't "agree to disagree" about the answer to the question "what is 2 + 2?".
You can make all the unsubstantiated CLAIMS you want, but that's not a rational position that I can "disagree" with, anymore than you can "disagree" with the claim "aliens from Pluto run an invisible manufacturing plant in my colon". You REJECT the claim because it's RIDICULOUS.
@somecomputergeek There is not a shred of evidence of us evolving! Not a shred! animals cannot change species! A fish cannot become a bird, a bird cannot become an animal! This is AN OBSERVED FACT! You want to talk about being rational? Dont make me laugh, and as for evolution disproving God, how can 'the theory of evolution' disprove anything as long as its a theory???? unsubstantiated CLAIMS by the bucketload! I REJECT the claim because it's RIDICULOUS!
I just spent 15 minutes recording a rant about all the things you just said, but I'm not going to post it. It's too offensive.
The main point is this - you don't know what you're talking about, and you don't want to. You obviously care more about your "faith" than the truth, and that is offensive to me. You don't even understand the definitions of the words you are using (like "theory"), or have a basic understanding of the theory that you reject.
@iamjohnyboy While most of us evolved it appear you are still primeval slime without thought or intellect. That is OK as I have no issues with slime. The names you give to animals are human constructs only and do not denote the quality of the being. You can reject what you want the the truth is a little more interesting: why because it just happens to be true.
@iamjohnyboy Yes very silly of you, you clearly show your ignorance and lack of education on genetics and evolutionary theory. I recommend you finish high school and attend an accredited University, and study. Your knowledge at the moment is clearly limited.
Evolution is a Scientific Theory, meaning it has loads of evidence to support it. Sorry that your "bird can't become an animal." theory doesn't check out..
Pick up a Biology text book. If you want me to name specific experiments so be it I will in a private message if need be, but I think that constitutes a bit of laziness on your part, although since you've clearly never taken Biology(probably aren't even in highschool yet) I can send you a link to an online one if you'd like.
@nothingtoyouatall Oh yes this 'evidence' that you all keep referring to which, one has to admit, is more elusive than the scarlet pimpernel, I think I've got more chance of finding some hens teeth.........
@iamjohnyboy why does it not surprise me to see you your using strawman arguments to "support" your claims ,you're basically telling accredited evolutionary biologists that they are wrong,which is tantamount to a Macdonalds fry cook giving a a dissertation on neurology.its funny that you bring up hens teeth, through gene manipulation embryonic chickens have been noted to develop minute teeth and an elongation of tail vertebrae which again shows that residual evolutionary genetic traits (cont.)
@iamjohnyboy yeah you're right evolution doesn't explain where life came from ,Abiogenesis does ,evolution explains the diversity of life on the planet.
The neo-Darwinist picture of evolution is the dominant 'central myth' of modern society. In this picture the essential characteristics of human nature are to be understood as accidental - without purpose or meaning. This 'central myth' infuses our education, health care policy, legal justice system, business practices, and other social institutions. If it were to be found fundamentally in error, the implications would be far reaching." (Willis W. Harman, President, Institute of Noetic Sciences)
Cremo commented on a recent fossil skull discovery which suggests that Homo erectus may not have evolved from Homo habilis, as previously thought. What is not being reported, is that humans just like us, also co-existed with these early peoples,
++ ""Homo erectus is within the parameters of present humans." Wrong. If it were, it would be called Homo Sapiens. Nice lie, Hume, but you've been caught at it. Next time you talk about what "science says", you'd be better off if you got it right." ++
You are wrong again. The Neanderthals, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are all humans. Plus scientists accept they may have breed.
"The Neanderthals, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are all humans. Plus scientists accept they may have breed" -
Incorrect as has been already stated if they were the same they would simply be called homo sapiens.
"The Neanderthals, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are all humans" - incorrect, Neanderthals definetly are not, however if you would like to call homo erectus 'human' and reduce the definition of human to this then you are welcome.
From time to time I encounter the assertion that H. sapiens (and/or H. sapiens sapiens) could not have interbred with H. erectus, because they are different species. I've also been told that, "If they could have produced fertile offspring, then they weren't really different species". These fairly common misconceptions proceed from a misunderstanding .....
..... of the 'biological species concept', which makes species distinctions based on fertility. Most people leave school thinking that, if two creatures can produce fertile offspring, then they must belong to the same species. I wouldn't be surprised if many teachers actually tell students that, but it simply isn't so. The biological species concept was developed by Ernst Mayr, in 1942. Here it is, as first .....
"Most people leave school thinking that, if two creatures can produce fertile offspring, then they must belong to the same species" - perhaps at your school hume :)
..... formulated, and quoted in Douglas J. Futuyma's EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY (1998): "Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups". The "reproductive isolation" can be genetic (non-fertility), geographic, or behavioral; there is NO criteria that says (as is commonly believed) that if two populations can interbreed they are the SAME species. .....
..... There is NO criteria that says that two distinct species CAN'T interbreed. Consider the example of wolves, coyotes and dogs: three distinct species that can interbreed. In fact, all species of the genus Canis can mate and produce fertile offspring (Wayne et al., 1997, re: A. P. Gray, Mammalian Hybrids). ++
++ The evidence lies in the fact that Homo Erectus was a more similar to Australopithecus Africanus than we are. Great starting point: Erectus' average brain size was much smaller than the modern human's. But you want another one? Sure thing. Homo Habilis. Most creationists seem to disagree on wether this one was %100 human or %100 (because it's so similar to both).
Homo erectus was a human, and nothing to do with Australopithecus Africanus! Homo habilis was not a human.
Quote 1:
++ Morphology and interpretations
Like A. afarensis, A. africanus the South African counterpart was generally similar in many traits, a bipedal hominin with arms slightly larger than the legs (a physical trait also found in chimpanzees). Despite its slightly more human-like cranial features, seen for example .......
....... in the craniums Mr. Ples and Sts 71, other more primitive features including ape-like curved fingers for tree climbing are also present.
Due to other more primitive features visible on A. africanus, some researchers believe the hominin, instead of being a direct ancestor of more modern hominins, evolved into Paranthropus. The one particular robust australopithecine .......
....... seen as a descendent of A. africanus is Paranthropus robustus. Both P. robustus and A. africanus craniums seem very alike despite the more heavily built features of P. robustus that are adaptations for heavy chewing like a gorilla. A. africanus, on the other hand, had a cranium which quite closely resembled that of a chimp, yet both their brains measure about 400 cc to 500 cc and probably had an ape-like intelligence. ++
Still avoiding the point, and distinctly not mentioning either Homo Erectus or Homo Habilis.
Homo Erectus was much more similar to Homo Habilis than we are today. Similarly, Homo Habilis was much more like Homo Erectus than any Australopithicene. This is exactly the kind of progression that the Theory of Evolution predicts.
++ Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for early Homo, finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.51.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to early Homo or Homo habilis/rudolfensis. ++
Let's pretend that your argument makes perfect sense. Let's assume that you are right about H. Erectus and A. Africanus because "some scientists" think A. Africanus took a different evolutionary path. Let's say that your quote is a valid argument and that your conclusion that humans are not descendant from either species is right on the money.
You are using an argument that is BASED ON evolution in order to DISPROVE evolution. If evolution is wrong, so is your argument.
Yes, I'm fully aware that there are many scientists who think that Homo Habilis should be in a different genus. Most scientists disagree (that's why it is still classified as 'homo').
But by all means, let's go with that THESE scientists say, shall we? Now... their paper clearly states that Homo Erectus was a different species than us, and shows an evolutionary path. Would you agree with these scientists that you've quoted?
one theory that i lean toward is that hairless skin(or finer hair) makes it easier to remove ectoparasites like fleas and ticks, and that humans' loss of body hair was first favored by natural selection for this reason, then reinforced by sexual selection(which has to work together to work at all for population, natural selection only provides the nessesary mutation, sexual selection has to make wider spread). 'A naked ape would have fewer parasites' thus a longer lifespan to reproduce maybe?
the link between the loss of body hair and the use of clothing becomes less plausible when one remembers that most modern hunter-gatherers in tropical countries (Australian aborigines, Bushmen, various pygmies), who are presumably the best model for our out-of-Africa ancestors, traditionally wore little or no clothing. The aborigines are noted for their ability to sleep naked on cold nights.
Antigens from the human ABO blood group system are also found in apes such as chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas.
Socha WW. Blood groups of apes and monkeys: current status and practical applications.Lab Anim Sci. 1980 Aug;30(4 Pt 1):698-702. PMID 6775134.
Chimpanzees have blood antigens that are identical to those of humans (J. Ruffie, "Immunogenetics of Primates" Perspectives in Primate Biology edited by A. B. Chigrelli, Plenum Press, 1972, p. 217).
Fetal hemoglobin. Hemoglobin has four globin molecules, each arranged around a central iron atom and a porphyrin ring. Fetal hemoglobin has two alpha globins and two gamma globins, each with 146 amino acids. Chimpanzees do too, and it is identical to that of humans (W. De Jong, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 251:217-226).
Milk chemistry.Human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes are identical
Boyd, WC. Fundamentals of Immunology Third Edition 1956, Interscience.
Tear enzymes. The enzyme referred to here is lysozyme, which is found in human milk, tears, leukocytes, and so forth. Chimpanzee lysozyme is identical to human lysozyme
Boyd, WC. Fundamentals of Immunology Third Edition 1956, Interscience.
Milk chemistry.Human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes are identical
Boyd, WC. Fundamentals of Immunology Third Edition 1956, Interscience.
There is a better way of confirming ape-human lineage: the indisputable fact that great apes have human blood types and antigens---not similar, but the same! This can only happen by one mechanism-direct descent...at one point, apes and humans MUST have had a common ancestor [PRIOR to divergence into present lineages]...you can't avoid this or explain it away spume, the evidence is overwhelming, and some follows...
Hi folks...You will note spume fails to cite any source alleging that "science has rejected EVERY fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged Ancestry Line leading to humans". He then speciously whines I have not presented 'just one fossil' to support evolution, what is known as the Burden of Proof fallacy...his point is false [and he knows it], yet wants me to prove my case in support of evolution. Provide evidence confirming your claim spume! The burden of proof is upon you!
++ hume1947 Science rejects the first 3? Not according to every single source I just checked. Please post references. ++
Re: Homo habilis
Quote 1:
++ It is thought to have descended from a species of australopithecine hominid. Its immediate ancestor may have been the more massive and ape-like Homo rudolfensis. ++
As direct ancestors, I didn't know you were trying to make that point when I had responded. I thought you said they don't accept them as RELATED to humans, which is, of course, absolute false, as ALL the people we are talking about accept that these fossils are RELATED to us, just not "direct descendants", which is completely irrelevant, anyway.
If you dug up EVERY SINGLE HUMAN FOSSIL, what percentage of those fossils would be your direct descendants? 1 out of a million? billion?
++ Debates continue over whether H. habilis is a direct human ancestor, and whether all of the known fossils are properly attributed to the species. However, in 2007, new findings suggest that the two species coexisted and may be separate lineages from a common ancestor instead of H. erectus being descended from H. habilis. ++
So we have all these fossils, some look human, some look ape, and some looks half way between and we can't figure out which ones are which.
[sarcasm] Yeah, that doesn't support the theory of evolution at all, does it? [/sarcasm]
If the flood story were true, we shouldn't find ANY of these fossils. How can you POSSIBLY explain this without descent with modification and natural selection (IE, all of these species are related on some level).
Do you know your great, great grandfather's name? Can you trace your family lineage back 1000 years? 2000? Yet you expect me to tell you who my ancestor was over 1 million years ago?
There are many extinct primate species. If you're asking for a specific species which may be ancestral to all great apes, Australopithecus afarensis is a likely candidate. That is, it is either our direct ancestor, or is a close relative of our direct ancestor.
What a stupid comment. Do you really think biologists are so dumb, or are you asking a question because you are clueless as to how evolution works?
Apes didn't turn into humans. If you want more explanation that that, PLEASE go google around for some grade school level biology that will explain the basics of evolution very nicely.
Your first 3 fossils come within the terms of the following.
Quote 3:
++ Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for early Homo, finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5--1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to early Homo or Homo habilis/rudolfensis. ++
However, all your arguments against evolution seem to really targeted against the certainty of all science. Yes, scientists make new discoveries in many fields, including biology. Increasing and improving our understanding of a subject means correcting mistakes, it doesn't mean that mistakes are never made.
++ hume1947 Science does not reject H. Rudolfensis. ++
Science rejects H. rudolfensis as being on the alleged ancestry line LEADING to humans.
Quote 1:
++ As in the case of H. habilis, there is large amount of controversy about the classification of H. rudolfensis into the Homo genus. Although no reliably associated postcranial remains have been discovered for H. rudolfensis, it is thought that — like H. habilis — H. rudolfensis .....
There are three things that I'm getting out of this:
1) H. Rudolfensis is an extinct primate species that many thought appeared to have human characteristics, which led some paleontologists to think he was our direct ancestor.
2) After much study, it is determined that he was most likely not our direct ancestor.
3) The fact that we're having this argument at all is proof that you're missing the point, because evolution is the framework we are arguing within.
..... lacked many of the features unique to later hominins (that is, creatures that include humans and their ancestors), such as slim hips for walking long distances, a sophisticated sweating system, narrow birth canal, legs longer than arms, noticeable whites in the eyes, smaller hairs resulting in naked appearance and exposed skins, etc.[citation needed]
In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed .....
..... the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looks very ape-like and the cranial capacity based on the new construction is downsized from 752 cubic centimeters to about 526 cm³. Bromage said his teams reconstruction includes biological principles not known at the time of the skulls discovery, which state that a mammals eyes, ears and mouth must be in precise relationships relative to one another. ++
++ Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for early Homo, finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.51.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to early Homo or Homo habilis/rudolfensis. ++
++ Also, that study by Bromage was made in 2007, and that conclusion was made then. When he actually finished his studies and published a year later, he adjusted the cranial capacity back up to 700 cm. You're obviously intellectually dishonest. ++
I find it strange that you are willing with zero evidence to call someone dishonest.
All you had to do was state where your alleged new facts could be scrutinised but you have not!
Hume, I'm amazed you have the balls to use the word dishonest at all. Still trolling the "evolution debate" (started by people with no credentials to debate evolution) on a popular video website?
What, couldn't get your science paper published?
Dude, you really need a new hobby. How much evidence can you ignore?
++ However, there ARE other differences in the skull. For instance, the cranial bones (the "casing") is much thicker in H. Erectus than in any known human, among other differences. ++
Differences within a species (or KIND) give no support to the theory of evolution due to the fact that ALL creatures have DNA & a reproduction system that allow for great variation. Science accepts the Neanderthals and Homo erectus were humans.
Please provide a science definition of your use of the word kind, which you insist on capitalizing.
Also, please find a biologist who agrees with this ridiculous and dumbass statement: "Differences within a species give no support to the theory of evolution",.
++ "Also, please find a biologist who agrees with this ridiculous and dumbass statement: "Differences within a species give no support to the theory of evolution"." ++
Every evolutionist (except you) agrees with this statement. You are blinded by your dogma that you do not fully understand the theory. Look at the many differences among manKIND one species and confirmed by DNA. How does that support your theory of evolution? It is proof of creation as stated by Genesis 2:7.
Hume, I can't count the number of times you've stated with a satisfaction that is purely internal that the ToE has collapsed and therefore Genesis is true.
You usually use the word "proves" in such an instance.
Are you lying about your lies now?
I am the deceiver? ROFLMAO!
You should certainly recognize a strwman argument, though - you use them all the time.
"Look at the many differences among manKIND one species and confirmed by DNA."
The fact that Chimps and humans are related is also confirmed by DNA, with both mitochondrial DNA analysis and retro-viral DNA analysis, not to mention that common desent is the only reasonable explanation for the extra centromeres and telomeres in human chromosome #2.
Saying that the differences within a species don't support evolution is like saying orbits don't support gravity.
i love it when some hillbilly that probably couldnt get a good grade in english, let alone biology, dismisses evolution because they think theyre much too advanced to be linked to apes... meanwhile theyre runnin around praying to imaginary friends, mating with their cousins and voting for people like sarah palin, who needs cheat sheets on her hands to get through softball Q&A sessions with her own constituents. what clowns.
++ "i love it when some hillbilly that probably couldnt get a good grade in english, let alone biology, dismisses evolution because they think theyre much too advanced to be linked to apes." ++
If you act and think you are an ape ... that is not evidence to support your theory of evolution ... sorry.
Hi ... can you please explain why science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged Ancestry Line leading to humans? If you disagree name one. Your best one?
Pelonetillo ---spume is incapable of rational integration of information, as indicated by his posts here, especially "explain why science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged Ancestry Line leading to humans"...this is complete horseshit and he knows it...believe anything he says at your own risk.
++ "spume is incapable of rational integration of information, as indicated by his posts here, especially "explain why science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged Ancestry Line leading to humans"...this is complete horseshit and he knows it...believe anything he says at your own risk." ++
A threat from pontecanis that you must not think! Notice that pontecanis fails to suggest just one fossil to support the theory of evolution.
Why do you think it's so important that we have a fossil that is proven to be our direct ancestor? You don't have to prove that it is a direct ancestor to prove that we are related.
Many of the fossils that we see just simply shouldn't exist at all if there were no genetic relationships between humans and other primate species.
++ "Many of the fossils that we see just simply shouldn't exist at all if there were no genetic relationships between humans and other primate species." ++
Absolute nonsense. What about Homo Erectus? Most creationists believe that Homo Erectus was completely human, so it was obviously a group that was ancestral to humans today, right?
++ "Absolute nonsense. What about Homo Erectus? Most creationists believe that Homo Erectus was completely human, so it was obviously a group that was ancestral to humans today, right? ++
What is absolutely nonsense? Every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged ancestry line from the alleged Last Common Ancestor LEADING to humans has been rejected by science. Due to the fact Homo erectus is human he is not LEADING to humans is he?
Ah... but you said "Ancestral" to humans, remember? That is to say... you believe that some of our ancestors were the same species as Homo Erectus.
But recall your original statement: that no species that paleontologists have ever dug up could be ancestral to humans. That's not true, and you know it. Homo Erectus certainly was a species that we descended from... you just happen to believe it was the same species as us.
Which mean that our ancestors were very different from us...
++ Ah... but you said "Ancestral" to humans, remember? That is to say... you believe that some of our ancestors were the same species as Homo Erectus. ++
Where did I say a certain creature or fossil was "Ancestral" to humans? You know it is my contention that this is not so. Why play on words?
My great, geat, great uncle can still be called my "ancestor", even though he is not technically my ancestors.
I am part french, so I could say that the history of France is the history of my ancestors, even though I may not be directly related to them.
YOU are the one focusing on words. We're all admitting that a certain species may not technically be our direct ancestor. YOU are the only forcing this semantics argument.
This was your comment: "Hi ... can you please explain why science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged Ancestry Line leading to humans? If you disagree name one. Your best one?"
You're quite correct that you didn't say "Ancestral"... you said "Ancestry". My mistake.
But the point still stands: obviously we HAVE found fossils that are ancestral to modern humans.
++ Homo Erectus certainly was a species that we descended from... you just happen to believe it was the same species as us. Which mean that our ancestors were very different from us. ++
The only fossil evidence you can come up with to support your theory is Homo erectus? You could not name another. Thus because Homo erectus is within the parameters of humans you have zero evidence to support your theory that humans descended from a monkey or chimp like creature.
I think that any successful theory for the loss of body hair will need to look more closely at the physiology and genetics of human hair development. Humans are not really hairless at all, but have dense hair everywhere except the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. The appearance of hairlessness depends on the length and fineness of the hair, which is under complex hormonal control in different parts of the body and at different stages of the life cycle.
"you have zero evidence to support your theory that humans descended from a monkey or chimp like creature."
I realize you don't accept the MASSIVE amounts of fossil evidence which suggest otherwise because we haven't found a DIRECT ancestor yet, but there IS evidence outside of the fossil record. It's in our BLOOD.
1) Mitochondrial DNA
2) Retro-viral DNA
3) Human Chromosome #2
This is evidence ADMISSIBLE IN COURT which demonstrate we share a common ancestor with Chimps.
This is evidence ADMISSIBLE IN COURT which demonstrate we share a common ancestor with Chimps." ++
Your remarks fail because animals are not allowed in Court. You have zero evidence from any Court decision that contends the theory of evolution is proven true or correct.
"Your remarks fail because animals are not allowed in Court."
Are you serious? Besides, DNA evidence IS allowed in court. You're right about one thing - science is not decided in a court. Well, at least the "court" has many more "jurors", and the deliberations last much longer, and if the lawyers are caught lying, the trial is over. Its a trial called "peer review", and it's much more stringent than a courtroom trial.
"Your remarks fail because animals are not allowed in Court."
Wow. In the first place, somecomputergeek isn't talking about walking the chimp into court... he's talking about the DNA evidence, which IS admissible in court. They use this DNA evidence in court to convict people of crimes and prove paternity.
In the second place, sometimes animals ARE allowed in court (they can even be brought into the courtroom to use as evidence, or to provide a demonstration).
The evidence lies in the fact that Homo Erectus was a more similar to Australopithecus Africanus than we are. Great starting point: Erectus' average brain size was much smaller than the modern human's.
But you want another one? Sure thing. Homo Habilis. Most creationists seem to disagree on wether this one was %100 human or %100 (because it's so similar to both).
The King of England ... Henry the Eight may have been ancestral to you but it does not support the theory of evolution does it? Homo erectus is within the parameters of present humans.
++ My point is that you are wrong when you suggest that "Science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged ancestry line leading to humans." On the contrary, scientists agree that Homo Erectus was ancestral to us. You try to escape this by saying that Homo Erectus was the same species as us (any evidence of this?), but regardless of whether this is true, Homo Erectus was obviously ancestral.
..... the Hobbit is yet going by what it looks similar to.
QUOTE:
++ One should remember, that basing on a very large number of skull features of apes and Homo sapiens, it had been determined, that chimpanzee is related in a greater degree to gorilla than to a man. Yet later analysis of genetic material showed, that the DNA structure of genus Pan is more similar to that of Homo sapiens than to that of gorilla. ++
++ Homo Erectus was more similar to (other) apes than modern humans.
Homo Habilis was more similar to humans than any Australopiticene or modern ape..
Science has rejected the idea that what looks similar confirms actual similarity. Note that after publication of the Origins of the Species evolutionists contended for 100 years that the gorilla was closer in similarity to humans than any other creature. Plus evolutionists have no idea what .....
It has nothing to do with what "looks" similar. It has to do with what IS similar. That is what comparative morphology is - the study of similarity, and science has not "rejected" this area of study in any way.
@somecomputergeek sorry your superior intelligence really shines forth with your vids, 'listen you bunch of monkeys cant you see that we all come from apes', your ignorance is ironic, and btw if we did come from apes it would make this whole conversation pointless anyway! In fact it would make everything pointless so whats the point? [that was a rhetorical question theres no point answering its pointless].
After all, if we couldn't PROVE that we are decendent from apes, but since we CAN, it's NOT pointless.
It MIGHT be pointless if we couldn't PROVE that we humans were VERTIBRATES, but since we ARE, it's NOT pointless.
I guess the point of this is, you're an idiot, and everyone knows it. Anyway, keep trying. It's important to science that there are idiots in the word who think stupid things.
@iamjohnyboy The oldest human relative was 7 million (toumai skull) and was millions older than the transitions (the entire tree was completely redone, and still the picture shows no transitional forms, just adaptation and possibly devolving or maybe God cursed some races to become Monkeys.) but no evidence yet for transitions. And in young deserts, our own in California, we have highly evolved forms yet the closest location where they exist is 5000 miles in Argentina, major problem, and ..
My point is that you are wrong when you suggest that "Science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged ancestry line leading to humans."
On the contrary, scientists agree that Homo Erectus was ancestral to us. You try to escape this by saying that Homo Erectus was the same species as us (any evidence of this?), but regardless of whether this is true, Homo Erectus was obviously ancestral.
Hume needs to be reminded there is no such term as manKIND and Genesis is false;Hume knows nothing of science;Hume can't tell the truth;great apes have human blood types and identical blood antigens...and the only "missing link"is the apparently human person who first appears in the vid...he is the link between actual moral humans and lying psychopathic manipulators who pretend to be fundy pastors in order to dupe willing idiots like Hume...take your lies somewhere else Hume,preferably far away.
pontecanis @ ++ "Hume needs to be reminded there is no such term as manKIND and Genesis is false." ++ Quote: ++ man•kind (mnknd) n. 1. The human race; humankind. ++ Quote: ++ gen•e•sis n. pl. gen•e•ses (-s z ) 1. The coming into being of something; the origin. See Synonyms at beginning. ++ Please note ... A perfect title for the first book of the Bible see Genesis 1:1.
Evolutionists go to school to study their alleged missing links. They are thus experts in the field of missing links. They know lots about zero. The alleged human ancestor missing link starts allegedly 6 million years ago and goes to the present time. What a record GAP?
Missing link or what ever prefabricated name you may attach to these dead animals that seem to have a growing brain size, the point of the question is why are we not seeing these changes in the last 6000 years of recorded history? You sir or mam are either a liar or stupid or confused or ignorant, pic one they are all free.
clawedification 4 months ago
@clawedification
I'll pick one, sure. Confused.
I'm especially confused why you don't know why we can not see evidence of millions of years of evolution in the fossils and rock dated to the past 6000 years of fossil evidence.
I'm confused because "recorded history" includes the discovery of archeological finds, as well as all the other discoveries in multiple lines of study showing the obvious relationships between modern species.
somecomputergeek 4 months ago
@somecomputergeek Recorded means recorded not some bones that didn't record anything. You can look all day and talk to them all day and never truly know what happened, records on the other hand are concrete in the way that they do have a clear message. So where is the message that tells us we have increased in brain size? We already know ancient man was very clever, so clever in fact some of the stuff we can not duplicate! Get over it evolution is a lie,the sad thing is you believe it.
clawedification 4 months ago
@clawedification
If I dig up bones and RECORD the details of those bones, they are "recorded".
There is no "message" that "we" increased in brain size. We just look at all of the recorded finds, and the details of those finds (including brain pan size and dating), and see a PATTERN showing an increase in brain size...
You know what? This is pointless. You're an idiot, and you're too committed to being an idiot to have a conversation with.
somecomputergeek 3 months ago
@somecomputergeek Yes but the bones still have said nothing.That is not recorded history,im talking about reading it not speculating on what this may have been. your bones prove something died that is all.
clawedification 3 months ago
@clawedification
The bones say a lot, but you need to understand some basic animal morphology to "read" them.
For instance, if you look at the bones of a fish, those bones are saying "I was a fish". The bones of a squirrel say "I was a squirrel". The bones of tiktaalik say "I was a fish with four limbs, wrist bones, and many features common to all tetrapods".
watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU
somecomputergeek 3 months ago
congratulations sir you get epic fail award
the real question is which fossil is irrefutable proof of a transitional form not one under question and speculation by the entire scientific community.
now that you know the question the answer is 0
good day.
thegeniushasreturned 5 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
None of the fossils is "irrefutable proof". In fact, it IS refutable, very specifically, in that the theory is falsifiable. There's always going to be speculation, but there's also the fossil record as a whole, giving us plenty of information and clearly showing related species and a taxonomic pattern.
No, it might not be "irrefutable proof", but do you have "irrefutable proof" that you can telepathically communicate with an invisible wizard in another dimension?
somecomputergeek 5 months ago
@somecomputergeek i never claimed i can telepathically communicate with wizards?
if this is a joke trying to somehow involve god then no this is why its called religion which you just admitted you had no facts which puts you in the same boat.
by the way if a clear unambiguous transitional form was ever found it would be irrefutable proof of a transitional form.
thegeniushasreturned 5 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
"telepathically communicating with an invisible wizard from another dimension" is a painfully accurate description of the act of praying to a God.
What would you consider "clear, unambiguous transitional form"? What would that look like? There are plenty of unambiguous transitional forms in dinosaurs alone. What features would you expect to find in the common ancestor? What would the "link" between chimps and humans look like, for instance?
somecomputergeek 5 months ago
@somecomputergeek another atheist with misinformation about religion not impressive
your missing at least 20,000 transitional forms between each species you claim evolved surely you can find one just one? to know what it would look like just go to the silly cartoon drawings evolutionist in the text books.
thegeniushasreturned 5 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
Actually, we're "missing" a lot more than 20,000 transitional forms, but all you need is one, and, unless I'm wrong, there are dozens in homo sapiens alone. In fact, every time a new transitional form is found, closing a "gap", there become TWO gaps.
You didn't answer the question. What do YOU think a transitional fossil would look like? I mean, some people say crockoduck. I'm hoping you're not that stupid.
somecomputergeek 5 months ago
@somecomputergeek no there is no transitional form not a single one, the ones you probably are referring to are illustrations complete apes or complete humans, no sub species, no developing organs, characteristics, abilities, no signs of any mutation which could have benefited them.
thegeniushasreturned 5 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
"not a single one"
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
You don't see any transitional fossils because you think you'll go to hell if you do.
somecomputergeek 5 months ago
@somecomputergeek haha that comment made me laugh :)
but no these are just similar to other life forms so evolutionist say they must have evolved gradually and these are missing fossils. problem is if that statement is true then it creates more problems then answers as the mutations to build up to the new creatures must show in the fossil record and they dont
thegeniushasreturned 5 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
which one, specifically, do you have the most problem with? Common ancestors of chimps and humans? Vertebrates and non-vertebrates? Mammals and reptiles? What, exactly, do you THINK you're supposed to see. What would the common ancestor of a crocodile and a duck look like, for example? Do you think it would look like a crockoduck?
somecomputergeek 4 months ago
@somecomputergeek its not me who has the problem its the evolutionst who have been searching for 100s of years and still nothing.
evolution by mutation and natural selection which would create a gradual buildup in all creatures look for any ability or organ and still we cant trace it. Without sketches propaganda cherry picking certain pieces etc
thegeniushasreturned 4 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
OK, I'll bite. Which of the fossils dug up in the past 100 years do you have the most problem with? Which one wasn't predicted or allowed giving the evolutionary paradigm? YOU pick the "cherry".
Just tell me how a fossil like tiktaalik, fits in with your theory. I understand how it fits in with evolution, so this fossil can be at least be explained by evolution. I'm wondering how you explain it. Why did God create this creature, at this time in earth's history?
somecomputergeek 4 months ago
@somecomputergeek again its not me who has the problem its the scientific comminty!
which fossil is depicted as a transitional form and is not under suspect by the scientific community thats the real question after all the hoaxes evolutionist have lost their credibility.
tiktaalik is a fish is it not? because its able to go onto land it must of evolved?? indoctrination at its finest look for all possibilities and compare them.
thegeniushasreturned 4 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
I asked you to explain the tiktaalik fossils, not argue (poorly) why you think it doesn't prove evolution. "tiktaalik is a fish is it not?" just shows your ignorance.
Yes, tiktaalik is a fish - a fish with lungs, a robust rib cage, and wrist bones homologous to those found in amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. The fossils also only appear in Devonian rock. All of these facts, and more, are exactly what was predicted by evolutionary theory.
somecomputergeek 4 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
"its the evolutionst who have been searching for 100s of years and still nothing."
Just because YOU are ignorance of the hundreds of thousands of fossils that have been found doesn't mean everybody else is.
watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y
somecomputergeek 4 months ago
@somecomputergeek no fossils necessary to indicate evolution.
the fossils that have been called missing links are misleading and at times highly suspect.
clean unambiguous forms must be found but we don't have any why?
thegeniushasreturned 4 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
"clean unambiguous forms must be found but we don't have any why?"
You're ignoring the other comments I've made pointing out just how many we DO have. Face it - the facts don't fit your theory. Ignoring those facts doesn't change that.
somecomputergeek 4 months ago
@somecomputergeek not ignoring just thought youd realize these dont account for anything they are hyped.
where famlies are so called becoming "bridged" the fossils all go missing the same excuses of fossils werent left are weak
thegeniushasreturned 4 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
You say they are "hyped", but aren't showing how. You can't even tell me what a transitional fossil would look like. You have no idea what you're even looking at, let alone what kinds of structures you would be looking for in order to support your theory. Every fossil is a bridge. All of these fossils are transitional. Some of them may look superficially like modern species, but if you want to be taken seriously, you need to look at a fossils for more than 2 seconds.
somecomputergeek 4 months ago
@somecomputergeek you want to know how they are hyped? aida? ardi? tiktalic? straw man resistant bacteria? desperation both scientifically and morally
just open a biology book look at the sketches which do not exist but should or go to a museum youll see them there to and im sorry i didnt realize i was talking to a child. At a certain point NEW famlies are so called bridged. If evolution is true there must be Missing Links, if we go on fossils we have now evolution never happened.
thegeniushasreturned 4 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
You ask for a missing link, I show you dozens, focusing on tiktaalik, and describing specific characteristics which clearly show it to be transitional, and how it perfectly fits everything creationists ask for when they demand to see a transitional form.
You tell me they don't count, and I ask why.
You refuse to answer why, and then repeat claims that these fossils don't count, and call me a "child".
Your ignorance is infuriating.
somecomputergeek 4 months ago
@somecomputergeek those fossls arent mssing links sorry to brake it to you!
when the Tiktaalik is examined, many of the features necessary for terrestrial existence do not exist. This is inconsistent with evolution. There are many more things wrong with this so called missing link that is not even called a proof for evolution anymore.
I understand your desperation to cling to ur theory but this is sad
thegeniushasreturned 4 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
What features, specifically, are necessary for terrestrial existence but "do not exist"?
"not even called a proof for evolution anymore"? When was it ever considered a "proof of evolution"? It's not. It's simply a fossil find that happens to have predicted by evolutionary theory and fits perfectly into the framework.
You're just mad because you can't figure out why God would create a half fish, half lizard, why it's extinct, or why it is only found in Devonian rock.
somecomputergeek 4 months ago
@somecomputergeek Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. In many news articles, Tiktaalik was billed as "the missing link" between fish and land vertebrates but even a hardcore evolutionist like yourself must admit thats misleading.
it was not half fish/half lizard it was a fish but dont take my word for it compare it to a fish!
thegeniushasreturned 4 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
Yes, the mainstream media is misleading. It always is. Even the phrase "the missing link" is misleading, because it implies there are still not enough evidence supporting evolutionary theory.
Many vertebrates' forelimbs do not attach directly to their axial skeleton, yet they still support weight, including the African elephant which can weigh up to 20k lbs.
Google "TIKTAALIK ROSEAE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SPECIES OF" for creationist sites. Still think it was just a fish?
somecomputergeek 4 months ago
During Darwins era science thought that we evolved from Neaderthals.Today we know that thats not the case.
So much for evidence that proves human evolution....
pppaaaooo13 10 months ago
@pppaaaooo13
I don't understand what you mean.
Are you saying that, because some scientists come to incorrect conclusions about the Neanderthals being direct descendants of humans, we should conclude that all conclusions they make should be rejected? Don't we have to accept some conclusions in order to show that other conclusions are invalid?
Besides, don't you still need evolution to show that Neaderthals are cousin species rather than ancestral one?
somecomputergeek 10 months ago
wow.... lol i love the montage at the end of all the skulls. Watch and youll se that you dont get a slow evolution to a humans skull.. The size and shape jumps back and forth to and fro.. without the gradual change to human head... It gets larger smaller, brows larger smaller larger smaller, forhead flat curved flat etc etc.. there isnt a gradual form to human. u should be able to play it and see the pics slowly take on a human form, and it doesnt..
hooseyadaddy 11 months ago
This video has important content, but is hard on the ears (a discordant soundtrack) the eyes (a typeface that is hard to read), and the mind (the video as a whole is hard to assimilate).
10/10 for content, 2/10 for communication. Could do better.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 year ago
i am a christian and i believe in evolution, cause without evolution a species would die
colbyman12 1 year ago
Really? Bird to fish? Gee I thought birds just transformed into fish when they felt like it. That's what Darwin wrote about after all. "THESE FINCHES KEEP TRANSFORMING! EVOLUTION!" sheesh, are people really that dumb? I pity such stupidity.
RyanKaufman 1 year ago
Thanks for the post
Jayoung1000 1 year ago
the people who dont believe in evolution seem to be the ones who dont understand it. e.g. they argue about turtles and aharks no evolving for millions of years. if you studied evolution and understood it, then you wud realise that some species dont evolve because some simply dont have to if they are already perfect killers for their environment. e.g. no transitional fossils from ape to man? go study the subject!!!!!! then ud know that we didnt come from apes but a common ancestor!!!!!!!!
Redrocket14 1 year ago
APES AND HUMANS CAME FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR. SO HUMANS DIDNT COME FROM APES. HENCE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS
Redrocket14 1 year ago
@Redrocket14 If the apes you're talking about are chimpanzees, then yes. Also, typing in all caps doesn't make it true, it just makes you seem like you're shouting stupidly at your computer screen.
morpheus8624 1 year ago
@morpheus8624 thats because i am at you creationalist idiots. evo only talks bout wat happened once we got here. i believe in god. and evolution. evolution doesnt talk about how we ultimately got here but only how, once we got here as some type of organisms, wat happened after that.
Redrocket14 1 year ago
@Redrocket14
Humans ARE apes in the same way lions are cats. The term "ape" doesn't describe a single species, but a parent group, or clade, of several species with common characteristics. We share those characteristics, and we are included in that clade, meaning we ARE apes. Yes, that means that we are descendant from apes, as well.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek Humans and apes are primates. We are related to apes. We are in the same family as apes, but we arent apes. We are primates.
Arcrer 1 year ago
No!!! Lies Lies Lies Lalalalalalal I'm not listening!!! Lalalalalala. A magic man in a cloud made man from mud. With magic!!! Lalalalalala ,,
Killjeser 1 year ago
@Killjeser ...must be lies lalallalla magic man dosent exist lalalal must have come from monkeys lalal they came from fish lalalalala they came from single cell lalalala that came from, wait for it...Nothing! much more scientific and believable..NOT
iamjohnyboy 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy Yeah, like God created stuff from nothing. You obviously lalalala'd your way through science class. Evolution does not explain where life came from.
Killjeser 1 year ago
@Killjeser Exactly my point, evolution does not explain where life came from yet you laugh at the idea of a higher being that created it!
iamjohnyboy 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy No, I laugh at the idea that people claim faith in God, yet when something as amazing as evolution is discovered they say it cannot be because it's not in the graven idol called the bible. If God came to earth today and had eight nipples people would reject him because eight nipples are not mentioned in the bible. If there is evidence for God it will undoubtedly be demonstrated through nature, not works of literary fiction where man creates God out of his own image.
Killjeser 1 year ago
@Killjeser The bible declares to be Gods revelation to man and it also declares us sinners in need of a saviour, if you repent and believe in Jesus you will be saved! if you dont you will die in your sin! I pray that God will show you his love and make you turn, untill then we'll agree to disagree.
iamjohnyboy 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy
There is no "agree to disagree" when it comes to rationality. We can't "agree to disagree" about the answer to the question "what is 2 + 2?".
You can make all the unsubstantiated CLAIMS you want, but that's not a rational position that I can "disagree" with, anymore than you can "disagree" with the claim "aliens from Pluto run an invisible manufacturing plant in my colon". You REJECT the claim because it's RIDICULOUS.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek There is not a shred of evidence of us evolving! Not a shred! animals cannot change species! A fish cannot become a bird, a bird cannot become an animal! This is AN OBSERVED FACT! You want to talk about being rational? Dont make me laugh, and as for evolution disproving God, how can 'the theory of evolution' disprove anything as long as its a theory???? unsubstantiated CLAIMS by the bucketload! I REJECT the claim because it's RIDICULOUS!
iamjohnyboy 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy
I just spent 15 minutes recording a rant about all the things you just said, but I'm not going to post it. It's too offensive.
The main point is this - you don't know what you're talking about, and you don't want to. You obviously care more about your "faith" than the truth, and that is offensive to me. You don't even understand the definitions of the words you are using (like "theory"), or have a basic understanding of the theory that you reject.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy While most of us evolved it appear you are still primeval slime without thought or intellect. That is OK as I have no issues with slime. The names you give to animals are human constructs only and do not denote the quality of the being. You can reject what you want the the truth is a little more interesting: why because it just happens to be true.
nicksynnz 1 year ago
@nicksynnz oh sorry and theres me thinking a fish was not a bird how silly of me
iamjohnyboy 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy Yes very silly of you, you clearly show your ignorance and lack of education on genetics and evolutionary theory. I recommend you finish high school and attend an accredited University, and study. Your knowledge at the moment is clearly limited.
nicksynnz 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy '' a bird cannot become an animal!''
Stay in school little boy, read a science book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy
"A bird cannot become an animal."
^^^ LMFAO!!!
Evolution is a Scientific Theory, meaning it has loads of evidence to support it. Sorry that your "bird can't become an animal." theory doesn't check out..
TVOham 1 year ago
@TVOham I'd like to see this 'evidence' that you evos keep referring to...........
iamjohnyboy 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy
Pick up a Biology text book. If you want me to name specific experiments so be it I will in a private message if need be, but I think that constitutes a bit of laziness on your part, although since you've clearly never taken Biology(probably aren't even in highschool yet) I can send you a link to an online one if you'd like.
TVOham 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy I'd like to see one of you theists actually acknowledge the evidence when it is shown to you.........
nothingtoyouatall 1 year ago
@nothingtoyouatall Oh yes this 'evidence' that you all keep referring to which, one has to admit, is more elusive than the scarlet pimpernel, I think I've got more chance of finding some hens teeth.........
iamjohnyboy 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy why does it not surprise me to see you your using strawman arguments to "support" your claims ,you're basically telling accredited evolutionary biologists that they are wrong,which is tantamount to a Macdonalds fry cook giving a a dissertation on neurology.its funny that you bring up hens teeth, through gene manipulation embryonic chickens have been noted to develop minute teeth and an elongation of tail vertebrae which again shows that residual evolutionary genetic traits (cont.)
nothingtoyouatall 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy are present just not expressed.
nothingtoyouatall 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy yeah you're right evolution doesn't explain where life came from ,Abiogenesis does ,evolution explains the diversity of life on the planet.
nothingtoyouatall 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The neo-Darwinist picture of evolution is the dominant 'central myth' of modern society. In this picture the essential characteristics of human nature are to be understood as accidental - without purpose or meaning. This 'central myth' infuses our education, health care policy, legal justice system, business practices, and other social institutions. If it were to be found fundamentally in error, the implications would be far reaching." (Willis W. Harman, President, Institute of Noetic Sciences)
AbuIbraheemC 1 year ago
Man didn't evolve from ape. Apes and man have a common ancestor; a basic fact of evolution.
Antarblue 1 year ago
Cremo commented on a recent fossil skull discovery which suggests that Homo erectus may not have evolved from Homo habilis, as previously thought. What is not being reported, is that humans just like us, also co-existed with these early peoples,
farinango 1 year ago
@farinango hey we lived with the hobbits too if you have not heared by now
bjam89 1 year ago
Skeletons of baby apes are not transitional fossils. Baby apes have a very roundish skull shape when they are young, and it changes greatly with age.
micah1116 1 year ago
1 / 5
fkbryce @
++ ""Homo erectus is within the parameters of present humans." Wrong. If it were, it would be called Homo Sapiens. Nice lie, Hume, but you've been caught at it. Next time you talk about what "science says", you'd be better off if you got it right." ++
You are wrong again. The Neanderthals, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are all humans. Plus scientists accept they may have breed.
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
"The Neanderthals, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are all humans. Plus scientists accept they may have breed" -
Incorrect as has been already stated if they were the same they would simply be called homo sapiens.
"The Neanderthals, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are all humans" - incorrect, Neanderthals definetly are not, however if you would like to call homo erectus 'human' and reduce the definition of human to this then you are welcome.
types10000 1 year ago
2 / 5
Quote:
++ Interbreeding Between Species
From time to time I encounter the assertion that H. sapiens (and/or H. sapiens sapiens) could not have interbred with H. erectus, because they are different species. I've also been told that, "If they could have produced fertile offspring, then they weren't really different species". These fairly common misconceptions proceed from a misunderstanding .....
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
3 / 5
..... of the 'biological species concept', which makes species distinctions based on fertility. Most people leave school thinking that, if two creatures can produce fertile offspring, then they must belong to the same species. I wouldn't be surprised if many teachers actually tell students that, but it simply isn't so. The biological species concept was developed by Ernst Mayr, in 1942. Here it is, as first .....
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Most people leave school thinking that, if two creatures can produce fertile offspring, then they must belong to the same species" - perhaps at your school hume :)
types10000 1 year ago
4 / 5
..... formulated, and quoted in Douglas J. Futuyma's EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY (1998): "Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups". The "reproductive isolation" can be genetic (non-fertility), geographic, or behavioral; there is NO criteria that says (as is commonly believed) that if two populations can interbreed they are the SAME species. .....
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
5 / 5
..... There is NO criteria that says that two distinct species CAN'T interbreed. Consider the example of wolves, coyotes and dogs: three distinct species that can interbreed. In fact, all species of the genus Canis can mate and produce fertile offspring (Wayne et al., 1997, re: A. P. Gray, Mammalian Hybrids). ++
Google:
Interbreeding Between Species, rafonda.
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947 wolves and dog? wolves ARE dogs you dumb shit
Redrocket14 1 year ago
1 / 5
FiverBeyond @
++ The evidence lies in the fact that Homo Erectus was a more similar to Australopithecus Africanus than we are. Great starting point: Erectus' average brain size was much smaller than the modern human's. But you want another one? Sure thing. Homo Habilis. Most creationists seem to disagree on wether this one was %100 human or %100 (because it's so similar to both).
Which do you think it is? ++
Your conclusions on the evidence are faulty.
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
As far as I can tell, you're not addressing my statement at all.
Here, let's see if we can agree on a few things.
Homo Erectus was more similar to (other) apes than modern humans.
Homo Habilis was more similar to humans than any Australopiticene or modern ape.
Wouldn't you agree?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
2 / 5
Homo erectus was a human, and nothing to do with Australopithecus Africanus! Homo habilis was not a human.
Quote 1:
++ Morphology and interpretations
Like A. afarensis, A. africanus the South African counterpart was generally similar in many traits, a bipedal hominin with arms slightly larger than the legs (a physical trait also found in chimpanzees). Despite its slightly more human-like cranial features, seen for example .......
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
Doesn't seem to address my point about either homo erectus or homo habilis... where is this quote going?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
3 / 5
....... in the craniums Mr. Ples and Sts 71, other more primitive features including ape-like curved fingers for tree climbing are also present.
Due to other more primitive features visible on A. africanus, some researchers believe the hominin, instead of being a direct ancestor of more modern hominins, evolved into Paranthropus. The one particular robust australopithecine .......
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
Still not addressing my point... you make a bold claim about homo erectus and homo habilis without citing any evidence?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
4 / 5
....... seen as a descendent of A. africanus is Paranthropus robustus. Both P. robustus and A. africanus craniums seem very alike despite the more heavily built features of P. robustus that are adaptations for heavy chewing like a gorilla. A. africanus, on the other hand, had a cranium which quite closely resembled that of a chimp, yet both their brains measure about 400 cc to 500 cc and probably had an ape-like intelligence. ++
Google:
Australopithecus africanus, wikipedia
hume1947 1 year ago
Still avoiding the point, and distinctly not mentioning either Homo Erectus or Homo Habilis.
Homo Erectus was much more similar to Homo Habilis than we are today. Similarly, Homo Habilis was much more like Homo Erectus than any Australopithicene. This is exactly the kind of progression that the Theory of Evolution predicts.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
5 / 5
Quote 2:
++ Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for early Homo, finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.51.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to early Homo or Homo habilis/rudolfensis. ++
Google:
Evolution of the Genus Homo, arjournals
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
Let's pretend that your argument makes perfect sense. Let's assume that you are right about H. Erectus and A. Africanus because "some scientists" think A. Africanus took a different evolutionary path. Let's say that your quote is a valid argument and that your conclusion that humans are not descendant from either species is right on the money.
You are using an argument that is BASED ON evolution in order to DISPROVE evolution. If evolution is wrong, so is your argument.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek well said mate
Redrocket14 1 year ago
Ah, finally, a quote about the Homo family.
Yes, I'm fully aware that there are many scientists who think that Homo Habilis should be in a different genus. Most scientists disagree (that's why it is still classified as 'homo').
But by all means, let's go with that THESE scientists say, shall we? Now... their paper clearly states that Homo Erectus was a different species than us, and shows an evolutionary path. Would you agree with these scientists that you've quoted?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
one theory that i lean toward is that hairless skin(or finer hair) makes it easier to remove ectoparasites like fleas and ticks, and that humans' loss of body hair was first favored by natural selection for this reason, then reinforced by sexual selection(which has to work together to work at all for population, natural selection only provides the nessesary mutation, sexual selection has to make wider spread). 'A naked ape would have fewer parasites' thus a longer lifespan to reproduce maybe?
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
the link between the loss of body hair and the use of clothing becomes less plausible when one remembers that most modern hunter-gatherers in tropical countries (Australian aborigines, Bushmen, various pygmies), who are presumably the best model for our out-of-Africa ancestors, traditionally wore little or no clothing. The aborigines are noted for their ability to sleep naked on cold nights.
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
Antigens from the human ABO blood group system are also found in apes such as chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas.
Socha WW. Blood groups of apes and monkeys: current status and practical applications.Lab Anim Sci. 1980 Aug;30(4 Pt 1):698-702. PMID 6775134.
Chimpanzees have blood antigens that are identical to those of humans (J. Ruffie, "Immunogenetics of Primates" Perspectives in Primate Biology edited by A. B. Chigrelli, Plenum Press, 1972, p. 217).
pontecanis 1 year ago
Fetal hemoglobin. Hemoglobin has four globin molecules, each arranged around a central iron atom and a porphyrin ring. Fetal hemoglobin has two alpha globins and two gamma globins, each with 146 amino acids. Chimpanzees do too, and it is identical to that of humans (W. De Jong, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 251:217-226).
Milk chemistry.Human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes are identical
Boyd, WC. Fundamentals of Immunology Third Edition 1956, Interscience.
pontecanis 1 year ago
Tear enzymes. The enzyme referred to here is lysozyme, which is found in human milk, tears, leukocytes, and so forth. Chimpanzee lysozyme is identical to human lysozyme
Boyd, WC. Fundamentals of Immunology Third Edition 1956, Interscience.
Milk chemistry.Human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes are identical
Boyd, WC. Fundamentals of Immunology Third Edition 1956, Interscience.
pontecanis 1 year ago
There is a better way of confirming ape-human lineage: the indisputable fact that great apes have human blood types and antigens---not similar, but the same! This can only happen by one mechanism-direct descent...at one point, apes and humans MUST have had a common ancestor [PRIOR to divergence into present lineages]...you can't avoid this or explain it away spume, the evidence is overwhelming, and some follows...
pontecanis 1 year ago
Hi folks...You will note spume fails to cite any source alleging that "science has rejected EVERY fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged Ancestry Line leading to humans". He then speciously whines I have not presented 'just one fossil' to support evolution, what is known as the Burden of Proof fallacy...his point is false [and he knows it], yet wants me to prove my case in support of evolution. Provide evidence confirming your claim spume! The burden of proof is upon you!
pontecanis 1 year ago
1 / 3
somecomputergeek @
++ hume1947 Science rejects the first 3? Not according to every single source I just checked. Please post references. ++
Re: Homo habilis
Quote 1:
++ It is thought to have descended from a species of australopithecine hominid. Its immediate ancestor may have been the more massive and ape-like Homo rudolfensis. ++
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
As direct ancestors, I didn't know you were trying to make that point when I had responded. I thought you said they don't accept them as RELATED to humans, which is, of course, absolute false, as ALL the people we are talking about accept that these fossils are RELATED to us, just not "direct descendants", which is completely irrelevant, anyway.
If you dug up EVERY SINGLE HUMAN FOSSIL, what percentage of those fossils would be your direct descendants? 1 out of a million? billion?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
2 / 3
Quote 2:
++ Debates continue over whether H. habilis is a direct human ancestor, and whether all of the known fossils are properly attributed to the species. However, in 2007, new findings suggest that the two species coexisted and may be separate lineages from a common ancestor instead of H. erectus being descended from H. habilis. ++
Quotes 1 & 2 Google:
Homo habilis, wikipedia
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
So we have all these fossils, some look human, some look ape, and some looks half way between and we can't figure out which ones are which.
[sarcasm] Yeah, that doesn't support the theory of evolution at all, does it? [/sarcasm]
If the flood story were true, we shouldn't find ANY of these fossils. How can you POSSIBLY explain this without descent with modification and natural selection (IE, all of these species are related on some level).
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek if we came from apes and there are both apes and humans today.......where are the transitional ape/humans?????
adam9920042004 1 year ago
@adam9920042004
Do you know your great, great grandfather's name? Can you trace your family lineage back 1000 years? 2000? Yet you expect me to tell you who my ancestor was over 1 million years ago?
There are many extinct primate species. If you're asking for a specific species which may be ancestral to all great apes, Australopithecus afarensis is a likely candidate. That is, it is either our direct ancestor, or is a close relative of our direct ancestor.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
What a stupid comment. Do you really think biologists are so dumb, or are you asking a question because you are clueless as to how evolution works?
Apes didn't turn into humans. If you want more explanation that that, PLEASE go google around for some grade school level biology that will explain the basics of evolution very nicely.
fkbryce 1 year ago
3 / 3
Your first 3 fossils come within the terms of the following.
Quote 3:
++ Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for early Homo, finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5--1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to early Homo or Homo habilis/rudolfensis. ++
Google:
Evolution of the Genus Homo, arjournals
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
Quote mining is not a good argument.
However, all your arguments against evolution seem to really targeted against the certainty of all science. Yes, scientists make new discoveries in many fields, including biology. Increasing and improving our understanding of a subject means correcting mistakes, it doesn't mean that mistakes are never made.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
1 / 4
somecomputergeek @
++ hume1947 Science does not reject H. Rudolfensis. ++
Science rejects H. rudolfensis as being on the alleged ancestry line LEADING to humans.
Quote 1:
++ As in the case of H. habilis, there is large amount of controversy about the classification of H. rudolfensis into the Homo genus. Although no reliably associated postcranial remains have been discovered for H. rudolfensis, it is thought that — like H. habilis — H. rudolfensis .....
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
There are three things that I'm getting out of this:
1) H. Rudolfensis is an extinct primate species that many thought appeared to have human characteristics, which led some paleontologists to think he was our direct ancestor.
2) After much study, it is determined that he was most likely not our direct ancestor.
3) The fact that we're having this argument at all is proof that you're missing the point, because evolution is the framework we are arguing within.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
2 / 4
..... lacked many of the features unique to later hominins (that is, creatures that include humans and their ancestors), such as slim hips for walking long distances, a sophisticated sweating system, narrow birth canal, legs longer than arms, noticeable whites in the eyes, smaller hairs resulting in naked appearance and exposed skins, etc.[citation needed]
In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed .....
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
3 / 4
..... the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looks very ape-like and the cranial capacity based on the new construction is downsized from 752 cubic centimeters to about 526 cm³. Bromage said his teams reconstruction includes biological principles not known at the time of the skulls discovery, which state that a mammals eyes, ears and mouth must be in precise relationships relative to one another. ++
Google:
Homo rudolfensis, wikipedia
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
4 / 4
Quote 2:
++ Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for early Homo, finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.51.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to early Homo or Homo habilis/rudolfensis. ++
Google:
Evolution of the Genus Homo, arjournals
hume1947 1 year ago
somecomputergeek @
++ Also, that study by Bromage was made in 2007, and that conclusion was made then. When he actually finished his studies and published a year later, he adjusted the cranial capacity back up to 700 cm. You're obviously intellectually dishonest. ++
I find it strange that you are willing with zero evidence to call someone dishonest.
All you had to do was state where your alleged new facts could be scrutinised but you have not!
hume1947 1 year ago
Hume, I'm amazed you have the balls to use the word dishonest at all. Still trolling the "evolution debate" (started by people with no credentials to debate evolution) on a popular video website?
What, couldn't get your science paper published?
Dude, you really need a new hobby. How much evidence can you ignore?
fkbryce 1 year ago
somecomputergeek @
++ However, there ARE other differences in the skull. For instance, the cranial bones (the "casing") is much thicker in H. Erectus than in any known human, among other differences. ++
Differences within a species (or KIND) give no support to the theory of evolution due to the fact that ALL creatures have DNA & a reproduction system that allow for great variation. Science accepts the Neanderthals and Homo erectus were humans.
hume1947 1 year ago
Please provide a science definition of your use of the word kind, which you insist on capitalizing.
Also, please find a biologist who agrees with this ridiculous and dumbass statement: "Differences within a species give no support to the theory of evolution",.
fkbryce 1 year ago
fkbryce @
++ "Also, please find a biologist who agrees with this ridiculous and dumbass statement: "Differences within a species give no support to the theory of evolution"." ++
Every evolutionist (except you) agrees with this statement. You are blinded by your dogma that you do not fully understand the theory. Look at the many differences among manKIND one species and confirmed by DNA. How does that support your theory of evolution? It is proof of creation as stated by Genesis 2:7.
hume1947 1 year ago
Evolution isn't true, therefore Genesis must be.
You're a real piece of work, accusing people of being dogmatic and dishonest when you can't even think coherently.
Or are you being dishonest on purpose and hoping nobody notices?
fkbryce 1 year ago
fkbryce @
++ "Evolution isn't true, therefore Genesis must be.
You're a real piece of work, accusing people of being dogmatic and dishonest when you can't even think coherently." ++
Fkbryce puts up a false quote from me and then condemns it. Thus he is a double deceiver. False facts re me and his theory of evolution.
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
Hume, I can't count the number of times you've stated with a satisfaction that is purely internal that the ToE has collapsed and therefore Genesis is true.
You usually use the word "proves" in such an instance.
Are you lying about your lies now?
I am the deceiver? ROFLMAO!
You should certainly recognize a strwman argument, though - you use them all the time.
fkbryce 1 year ago
@hume1947
"Look at the many differences among manKIND one species and confirmed by DNA."
The fact that Chimps and humans are related is also confirmed by DNA, with both mitochondrial DNA analysis and retro-viral DNA analysis, not to mention that common desent is the only reasonable explanation for the extra centromeres and telomeres in human chromosome #2.
Saying that the differences within a species don't support evolution is like saying orbits don't support gravity.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
i love it when some hillbilly that probably couldnt get a good grade in english, let alone biology, dismisses evolution because they think theyre much too advanced to be linked to apes... meanwhile theyre runnin around praying to imaginary friends, mating with their cousins and voting for people like sarah palin, who needs cheat sheets on her hands to get through softball Q&A sessions with her own constituents. what clowns.
Pelonetillo 1 year ago
Pelonetillo @
++ "i love it when some hillbilly that probably couldnt get a good grade in english, let alone biology, dismisses evolution because they think theyre much too advanced to be linked to apes." ++
If you act and think you are an ape ... that is not evidence to support your theory of evolution ... sorry.
Are you a hillbilly evolutionist?
hume1947 1 year ago
lol, heres one. hi, hume.
Pelonetillo 1 year ago
Pelonetillo @
Hi ... can you please explain why science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged Ancestry Line leading to humans? If you disagree name one. Your best one?
hume1947 1 year ago
uh... it hasnt. google.
Pelonetillo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pelonetillo ---spume is incapable of rational integration of information, as indicated by his posts here, especially "explain why science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged Ancestry Line leading to humans"...this is complete horseshit and he knows it...believe anything he says at your own risk.
pontecanis 1 year ago
pontecanis @
++ "spume is incapable of rational integration of information, as indicated by his posts here, especially "explain why science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged Ancestry Line leading to humans"...this is complete horseshit and he knows it...believe anything he says at your own risk." ++
A threat from pontecanis that you must not think! Notice that pontecanis fails to suggest just one fossil to support the theory of evolution.
hume1947 1 year ago
science has regected every hominid fossil? Not to my knowledge.
EoceneRoxton 1 year ago
EoceneRoxton @
++ science has regected every hominid fossil? Not to my knowledge. ++
I stated ++ The fact is that science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists alleged was on the ancestry line LEADING to humans. ++
Please cite one that you have faith in.
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
Why do you think it's so important that we have a fossil that is proven to be our direct ancestor? You don't have to prove that it is a direct ancestor to prove that we are related.
Many of the fossils that we see just simply shouldn't exist at all if there were no genetic relationships between humans and other primate species.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
somecomputergeek @
++ "Many of the fossils that we see just simply shouldn't exist at all if there were no genetic relationships between humans and other primate species." ++
Please name one and explain why?
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
Absolute nonsense. What about Homo Erectus? Most creationists believe that Homo Erectus was completely human, so it was obviously a group that was ancestral to humans today, right?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
FiverBeyond @
++ "Absolute nonsense. What about Homo Erectus? Most creationists believe that Homo Erectus was completely human, so it was obviously a group that was ancestral to humans today, right? ++
What is absolutely nonsense? Every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged ancestry line from the alleged Last Common Ancestor LEADING to humans has been rejected by science. Due to the fact Homo erectus is human he is not LEADING to humans is he?
hume1947 1 year ago
Ah... but you said "Ancestral" to humans, remember? That is to say... you believe that some of our ancestors were the same species as Homo Erectus.
But recall your original statement: that no species that paleontologists have ever dug up could be ancestral to humans. That's not true, and you know it. Homo Erectus certainly was a species that we descended from... you just happen to believe it was the same species as us.
Which mean that our ancestors were very different from us...
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
FiverBeyond @
++ Ah... but you said "Ancestral" to humans, remember? That is to say... you believe that some of our ancestors were the same species as Homo Erectus. ++
Where did I say a certain creature or fossil was "Ancestral" to humans? You know it is my contention that this is not so. Why play on words?
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
My great, geat, great uncle can still be called my "ancestor", even though he is not technically my ancestors.
I am part french, so I could say that the history of France is the history of my ancestors, even though I may not be directly related to them.
YOU are the one focusing on words. We're all admitting that a certain species may not technically be our direct ancestor. YOU are the only forcing this semantics argument.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This was your comment: "Hi ... can you please explain why science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged Ancestry Line leading to humans? If you disagree name one. Your best one?"
You're quite correct that you didn't say "Ancestral"... you said "Ancestry". My mistake.
But the point still stands: obviously we HAVE found fossils that are ancestral to modern humans.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
FiverBeyond @
++ Homo Erectus certainly was a species that we descended from... you just happen to believe it was the same species as us. Which mean that our ancestors were very different from us. ++
The only fossil evidence you can come up with to support your theory is Homo erectus? You could not name another. Thus because Homo erectus is within the parameters of humans you have zero evidence to support your theory that humans descended from a monkey or chimp like creature.
hume1947 1 year ago
I think that any successful theory for the loss of body hair will need to look more closely at the physiology and genetics of human hair development. Humans are not really hairless at all, but have dense hair everywhere except the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. The appearance of hairlessness depends on the length and fineness of the hair, which is under complex hormonal control in different parts of the body and at different stages of the life cycle.
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
@hume1947
"you have zero evidence to support your theory that humans descended from a monkey or chimp like creature."
I realize you don't accept the MASSIVE amounts of fossil evidence which suggest otherwise because we haven't found a DIRECT ancestor yet, but there IS evidence outside of the fossil record. It's in our BLOOD.
1) Mitochondrial DNA
2) Retro-viral DNA
3) Human Chromosome #2
This is evidence ADMISSIBLE IN COURT which demonstrate we share a common ancestor with Chimps.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
somecomputergeek @
++ "1) Mitochondrial DNA, 2) Retro-viral DNA, 3) Human Chromosome #2
This is evidence ADMISSIBLE IN COURT which demonstrate we share a common ancestor with Chimps." ++
Your remarks fail because animals are not allowed in Court. You have zero evidence from any Court decision that contends the theory of evolution is proven true or correct.
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
"Your remarks fail because animals are not allowed in Court."
Are you serious? Besides, DNA evidence IS allowed in court. You're right about one thing - science is not decided in a court. Well, at least the "court" has many more "jurors", and the deliberations last much longer, and if the lawyers are caught lying, the trial is over. Its a trial called "peer review", and it's much more stringent than a courtroom trial.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@hume1947
"Your remarks fail because animals are not allowed in Court."
Wow. In the first place, somecomputergeek isn't talking about walking the chimp into court... he's talking about the DNA evidence, which IS admissible in court. They use this DNA evidence in court to convict people of crimes and prove paternity.
In the second place, sometimes animals ARE allowed in court (they can even be brought into the courtroom to use as evidence, or to provide a demonstration).
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You have zero evidence from any Court decision that contends the theory of evolution is proven true or correct. "
That's right, Hume, thankfully science is the continual examination and challenge of theories based on evidence, not the result of a court decision.
Do I need a court decision to determine if a nuclear reactor will work? A computer? These complex items are based on many theories, and they work.
Your comment shows how resistant you are to understanding what science IS.
fkbryce 1 year ago
The evidence lies in the fact that Homo Erectus was a more similar to Australopithecus Africanus than we are. Great starting point: Erectus' average brain size was much smaller than the modern human's.
But you want another one? Sure thing. Homo Habilis. Most creationists seem to disagree on wether this one was %100 human or %100 (because it's so similar to both).
Which do you think it is?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
2 / 2
The King of England ... Henry the Eight may have been ancestral to you but it does not support the theory of evolution does it? Homo erectus is within the parameters of present humans.
hume1947 1 year ago
" Homo erectus is within the parameters of present humans. "
Wrong. If it were, it would be called Homo Sapiens.
Nice lie, Hume, but you've been caught at it. Next time you talk about what "science says", you'd be better off if you got it right.
Of course, that would require talking to a biologist or at least reading a science text, and we all know you can't be bothered with such things.
fkbryce 1 year ago
1 / 2
FiverBeyond @
++ My point is that you are wrong when you suggest that "Science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged ancestry line leading to humans." On the contrary, scientists agree that Homo Erectus was ancestral to us. You try to escape this by saying that Homo Erectus was the same species as us (any evidence of this?), but regardless of whether this is true, Homo Erectus was obviously ancestral.
hume1947 1 year ago
2 / 2
..... the Hobbit is yet going by what it looks similar to.
QUOTE:
++ One should remember, that basing on a very large number of skull features of apes and Homo sapiens, it had been determined, that chimpanzee is related in a greater degree to gorilla than to a man. Yet later analysis of genetic material showed, that the DNA structure of genus Pan is more similar to that of Homo sapiens than to that of gorilla. ++
Google:
TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION AND THE ORIGIN OF MAN*
hume1947 1 year ago
1 / 2
FiverBeyond @
++ Homo Erectus was more similar to (other) apes than modern humans.
Homo Habilis was more similar to humans than any Australopiticene or modern ape..
Science has rejected the idea that what looks similar confirms actual similarity. Note that after publication of the Origins of the Species evolutionists contended for 100 years that the gorilla was closer in similarity to humans than any other creature. Plus evolutionists have no idea what .....
(continued)
hume1947 1 year ago
@hume1947
It has nothing to do with what "looks" similar. It has to do with what IS similar. That is what comparative morphology is - the study of similarity, and science has not "rejected" this area of study in any way.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek ~They really don't come much more stunned than Hume, except for Nephy and GSFY!
pontecanis 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek No, you've convinced me we have at last found the missing link, wait for it....ITS YOU haha
iamjohnyboy 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy
I sure that would be hilarious if I knew as little as you do.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Comment removed
iamjohnyboy 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek sorry your superior intelligence really shines forth with your vids, 'listen you bunch of monkeys cant you see that we all come from apes', your ignorance is ironic, and btw if we did come from apes it would make this whole conversation pointless anyway! In fact it would make everything pointless so whats the point? [that was a rhetorical question theres no point answering its pointless].
iamjohnyboy 1 year ago
pointless? Well, it MIGHT me.
After all, if we couldn't PROVE that we are decendent from apes, but since we CAN, it's NOT pointless.
It MIGHT be pointless if we couldn't PROVE that we humans were VERTIBRATES, but since we ARE, it's NOT pointless.
I guess the point of this is, you're an idiot, and everyone knows it. Anyway, keep trying. It's important to science that there are idiots in the word who think stupid things.
Please, keep science going - keep believing stupid things.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek sigh.......................
iamjohnyboy 1 year ago
@iamjohnyboy The oldest human relative was 7 million (toumai skull) and was millions older than the transitions (the entire tree was completely redone, and still the picture shows no transitional forms, just adaptation and possibly devolving or maybe God cursed some races to become Monkeys.) but no evidence yet for transitions. And in young deserts, our own in California, we have highly evolved forms yet the closest location where they exist is 5000 miles in Argentina, major problem, and ..
brother234 1 year ago
My point is that you are wrong when you suggest that "Science has rejected every fossil that evolutionists have put up as being on the alleged ancestry line leading to humans."
On the contrary, scientists agree that Homo Erectus was ancestral to us. You try to escape this by saying that Homo Erectus was the same species as us (any evidence of this?), but regardless of whether this is true, Homo Erectus was obviously ancestral.
Agreed?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
Hume needs to be reminded there is no such term as manKIND and Genesis is false;Hume knows nothing of science;Hume can't tell the truth;great apes have human blood types and identical blood antigens...and the only "missing link"is the apparently human person who first appears in the vid...he is the link between actual moral humans and lying psychopathic manipulators who pretend to be fundy pastors in order to dupe willing idiots like Hume...take your lies somewhere else Hume,preferably far away.
pontecanis 2 years ago
@pontecanis your a great statist but do you have any evidence and if you do present it in your next comment please. Thank you!!
Iraqveterankill4real 2 years ago
hume1947 1 year ago
manKIND ---spume's own made-up nonsense....
Genesis---the fictional 1st book of the bible,or a rock band...spume looks up
genesis, a generic term...
So typical of your crap spume--go and look up Dunning-Kruger Effect
pontecanis 1 year ago
Hey, SPume, that's "mankind" not "manKIND".
Please deomonstrate that you are capable of learning and spell kind in lower case from now on.
Unless you want to continue to sound like a petulant 6 year old, that is.
fkbryce 1 year ago
pontecanis @
++ "and the only "missing link"is .." ++
Evolutionists go to school to study their alleged missing links. They are thus experts in the field of missing links. They know lots about zero. The alleged human ancestor missing link starts allegedly 6 million years ago and goes to the present time. What a record GAP?
hume1947 1 year ago