Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science Disproves Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 121 of 196 (444671)
12-30-2007 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Pahu
12-29-2007 8:51 PM


Re: Moon Recession
We're just not sure whether you really know what all those big words mean.
I don’t. Do you? Does that change the value of the information I am sharing?
It means that to you it is not information and has no value.
Why are you presenting us with "information" which, so far as you know, may be worthless or even meaningless?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Pahu, posted 12-29-2007 8:51 PM Pahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Pahu, posted 01-01-2008 3:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 122 of 196 (444677)
12-30-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Percy
12-30-2007 8:49 AM


Re: You Can't Debate What You Don't Understand
Homo Habilis has been proven to not even belong in the family Homo.(see B. Wood & M. Collard, "The Human Genus",Science, vol.284:65-71,April 2,1999).Their research proves they are actualy in the family Australopithicus.And using a computer reconstruction as evidence is another deceptive tactic by evolutionist.A computer can only tell you what you program into it.That is not a seperate piece of evidence that happens to agree with evolution.The program was based on the assumption that evolution did occur to start with.Thank you for sharing all of your views and time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Percy, posted 12-30-2007 8:49 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2007 11:13 AM Jason777 has not replied
 Message 124 by jar, posted 12-30-2007 11:18 AM Jason777 has replied

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


Message 123 of 196 (444679)
12-30-2007 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Jason777
12-30-2007 10:54 AM


Re: You Can't Debate What You Don't Understand
Homo Habilis has been proven to not even belong in the family Homo.(see B. Wood & M. Collard, "The Human Genus",Science, vol.284:65-71,April 2,1999).Their research proves they are actualy in the family Australopithicus.
(1) These are genera, not families. Again, could I suggest that you learn the "big words".
(2) What the heck is this meant to prove? You can CALL Homo habilis what you like, it still has the same anatomical features, none of which is disputed by Wood or Collard, and remains an intermediate form between ancestral apes and modern humans.
As Collard and Wood point out --- as you would know if you'd bothered to so much as glance at their paper --- the conclusion that habilis is not Homo comes not from re-appraising the fossils, but from redefining Homo.
Let me know if you need any help with the big words.
A computer can only tell you what you program into it.
Rubbish.
The program was based on the assumption that evolution did occur to start with.
As a computer scientist, I should be fascinated to learn how, in your daydreams, one programs this "assumption" into a computer.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Jason777, posted 12-30-2007 10:54 AM Jason777 has not replied

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


Message 124 of 196 (444681)
12-30-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Jason777
12-30-2007 10:54 AM


Re: You Can't Debate What You Don't Understand
Homo Habilis has been proven to not even belong in the family Homo.
Suggested, not proven. But what difference would that make? How would that disprove evolution?
And using a computer reconstruction as evidence is another deceptive tactic by evolutionist.A computer can only tell you what you program into it.That is not a seperate piece of evidence that happens to agree with evolution.The program was based on the assumption that evolution did occur to start with.
Sorry but that is absolute nonsense. The computer program had nothing to do with whether or not evolution happened, it was a simulation of gait based on morphological features of anatomy, bone and muscle structure. The goal was to see what normal strides would look like for someone walking who was the same height, had the same bone structure and musculature as the sample. The results were then compared to the control, the actual footprints, and a very high degree of correspondence was found.
Edited by jar, : hit wrong key. added part on computer simulation.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Jason777, posted 12-30-2007 10:54 AM Jason777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Jason777, posted 12-30-2007 6:53 PM jar has replied

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


Message 125 of 196 (444686)
12-30-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Jason777
12-29-2007 4:25 PM


So, let's make this clear.
When you wrote that:
b.woods and m. collard ... conclude australopithicenes including aferensis,africanus,a. robustus,and homo habilis are all knuncle walking apes.Sorry there is too many experts that refute the claim they are human ancestors ...
... you were talking about a paper which says no such thing, which you hadn't read, and the very title of which you didn't understand.
This lends a certain humorous irony to your other remarks in this post, such as:
But surely you havent studied human evolution to a very extensive point.
... and ...
If you have read all of their papers and books you would find it hard to swallow as well.
You haven't read all their papers and books, Jason. You don't know what their papers and books are about, Jason, and Jason, if you don't know basic biological terms --- such as the difference between a genus and a family --- then even if you had read their papers you still wouldn't know what they were about.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Jason777, posted 12-29-2007 4:25 PM Jason777 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by molbiogirl, posted 12-30-2007 6:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 126 of 196 (444756)
12-30-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
12-30-2007 11:41 AM


Just a smidge more from the paper.
From their conclusion:
We suggest that a fossil species should be included in Homo only if it can be demonstrated that it (i) is more closely related to H. sapiens than it is to the australopiths, (ii) has an estimated body mass that is more similar to that of H. sapiens than to that of the australopiths, (iii) has reconstructed body proportions that match those of H. sapiens more closely than those of the australopiths, (iv) has a postcranial skeleton whose functional morphology is consistent with modem human-like obligate bipedalism and limited facility for climbing, (v) is equipped with teeth and jaws that are more similar in terms of relative size to those of modern humans than to those of the australopiths, and (vi) shows evidence for a modern human-like extended period of growth and development.
Thus, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato for those who do not subscribe to the taxonomic subdivision of "early Homo") should be removed from Homo. The obvious taxonomic alternative, which is to transfer one or both of the taxa to one of the existing early hominin genera, is not without problems, but we recommend that, for the time being, both H. habilis and H. rudolfensis should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus.
Nothing of Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus africanus ... which, btw, are not Homo, Jason.
Australopithecus is one genus. Homo is another genus.
They are 2 entirely different things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2007 11:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 127 of 196 (444758)
12-30-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
12-30-2007 11:18 AM


Re: You Can't Debate What You Don't Understand
Well that is very funny.Ive provided enough observable and unrefutable evidence to sink the titanic.Oxnard is an anatomist who specializes in primate anatomy.His publishing clearly states that the australopithicenes are more dissimalar from humans than modern apes are from humans.Another evidence that clearly agrees with them not being a bipedal hominid is found in(science news april,8 2000 p.225)that proves they have wrist capable of locking the hands in place during knuckle walking.And if that werent enough another nail was driven in the coffin by israeli researchers(Health & Sci-Tech April,16 2007:Israeli researchers:"Lucy"Is not direct ancestor of humans)They have found that the "ramus element" of the mandible connecting the lower jaw to the skull is like that of the robust forms,Therefore eliminating the possibility that lucy and her kind are mans direct ancestor.And all you have presented is rehtoric"No its not".Sorry but there is no such thing,and i refuse to debate the issue with anyone who cant produce any evidence except nonsence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 12-30-2007 11:18 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 12-30-2007 7:03 PM Jason777 has not replied
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2007 7:16 PM Jason777 has not replied
 Message 132 by molbiogirl, posted 12-30-2007 8:21 PM Jason777 has not replied
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2007 8:50 PM Jason777 has not replied

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


Message 128 of 196 (444759)
12-30-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Jason777
12-30-2007 6:53 PM


Re: You Can't Debate What You Don't Understand
Sorry but nothing you have presented has any relationship to the topic, which in case you missed it is "Science Disproves Evolution". Australopithecus may or may not be an ancestor of Homo but it is not a major issue. No one but Creationists seem to be making that claim.
But even if everything you said was true all it would show is that the various Australopithecus species are transitional.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Jason777, posted 12-30-2007 6:53 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 129 of 196 (444760)
12-30-2007 7:09 PM


And yes im sorry about the mixup with the paper it didnt claim they are Knuckle walkers.It indicates Homo-Habilis should be Reassigned the name Australopithicus Habilis.Because its morphology is closer to them than to homo sapiens.Which in effect excludes them as well.I said knuckle walker because i couldnt hardly beleive anyone doesnt know lucy wasnt,and if she was and the morphology of homo habilis is similar in every way it means they cant be related either.

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2007 7:30 PM Jason777 has not replied

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


Message 130 of 196 (444761)
12-30-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Jason777
12-30-2007 6:53 PM


Re: You Can't Debate What You Don't Understand
Well that is very funny.Ive provided enough observable and unrefutable evidence to sink the titanic.Oxnard is an anatomist who specializes in primate anatomy. His publishing clearly states that the australopithicenes are more dissimalar from humans than modern apes are from humans.Another evidence that clearly agrees with them not being a bipedal hominid ...
If you had read Oxnard's paper, which you haven't, you would know that he states the australopithecines were bipedal, contrary to your assertions.
Here's Oxnard on australopithecines:
"Because they have pelves that have articular relationships parallel to those of man, we may guess that ... they stood and moved upright with a vertical load distribution ... They may have been bipedal in a way that is no longer seen, but have retained abilities for climbing." (Oxnard, 1975)
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Jason777, posted 12-30-2007 6:53 PM Jason777 has not replied

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


Message 131 of 196 (444771)
12-30-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Jason777
12-30-2007 7:09 PM


And yes im sorry about the mixup with the paper it didnt claim they are Knuckle walkers.It indicates Homo-Habilis should be Reassigned the name Australopithicus Habilis.Because its morphology is closer to them than to homo sapiens.Which in effect excludes them as well.
Excludes them from what?
I said knuckle walker because i couldnt hardly beleive anyone doesnt know lucy wasnt ...
You have, as yet, presented no evidence that she was. Indeed, one of your few references, Oxnard, maintains that Australopithecus was bipedal. Wood and Collard, as I have shown, do not deny that Lucy was bipedal, and your remaining source, Solly Zuckerman, was writing before Lucy was discovered. So far, you have come up with not one scientist who denies that Lucy was bipedal. Would you like to try again?
and if she was and the morphology of homo habilis is similar in every way ...
It isn't similar in every way. This is why they're classified as different species.
I think you still haven't figured out what Wood and Collard are driving at. Just as a genus is not a family, it's not a species, either.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Jason777, posted 12-30-2007 7:09 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 132 of 196 (444780)
12-30-2007 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Jason777
12-30-2007 6:53 PM


Re: You Can't Debate What You Don't Understand
Another evidence that clearly agrees with them not being a bipedal hominid is found in(science news april,8 2000 p.225)that proves they have wrist capable of locking the hands in place during knuckle walking.
Wrong again.
Here is the link to the article you reference:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000408/note11ref.asp
Here is the paper than article references:
Richmond, B.G., and D.S. Strait. 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404(March 23):382-385.
Here is a quote from that paper:
Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER 20419)11 and A. afarensis
(AL 288-1)12 retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking.
Australopithecus, Jason. Not Homo.
And if that werent enough another nail was driven in the coffin by israeli researchers(Health & Sci-Tech April,16 2007:Israeli researchers:"Lucy"Is not direct ancestor of humans)
Health & Sci Tech is not a journal, you moron.
Here is the link to the Jeruselam Post article you cited.
Here is the proper cite:
PNAS, April 17, 2007, vol. 104, no. 16, 6568-6572
From the article you cited:
Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory that "Lucy" - the world-famous 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in Ethiopia 33 years ago - is the last ancestor common to humans and another branch of the great apes family known as the "Robust hominids."
Australopithecus, Jason. Not Homo.
Here are all the species:
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens
Even if you knocked Lucy out of Australopithecus, that would have no effect on the ToE.
Lucy is but one example of Australopithecus afarensis.
One example out of dozens.
wiki writes:
However, in 2006 scientists Yoel Rak, Avishag Ginzburg, and Eli Geffen carried out a morphological analysis which found that the mandibular ramus (jawbone) of australopithecus afarensis specimen A. L. 822-1 discovered in 2002 closely matches that of a gorilla, and from further studies they concluded that "australopithecus afarensis" is more likely a member of the robust australopithecines branch of the hominid evolutionary tree and so not a direct ancestor of man. They concluded that Ardipithecus ramidus discovered by White and colleagues in the 1990s is a more likely ancestor of the human clade.
Did you catch that last bit, Jason?
They are not claiming that Lucy was a knuckle walking ape with no relation to humans.
They are arguing that a different Australopithecus is more likely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Jason777, posted 12-30-2007 6:53 PM Jason777 has not replied

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


Message 133 of 196 (444782)
12-30-2007 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Jason777
12-30-2007 6:53 PM


Re: You Can't Debate What You Don't Understand
Another evidence that clearly agrees with them not being a bipedal hominid is found in(science news april,8 2000 p.225)that proves they have wrist capable of locking the hands in place during knuckle walking.
OK, let's look at Richmond and Strait.
"Fossil evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago, and perhaps earlier, hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking ... Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER 20419) and A. afarensis (AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking. This distal radial morphology differs from that of later hominids and non-knuckle-walking anthropoid primates, suggesting that knuckle-walking is a derived feature of the African ape and human clade."
Richmond and Strait are not saying that these australopithecines aren't facultatively bipedal. On the contrary, they know that they are. They're saying that they're bipeds retaining knuckle-walking features, reflecting their knuckle-walking ancestry.
Oh look, intermediate forms!
---
BTW, where are you getting this rubbish from? Obviously you haven't read the papers yourself, so who's been lying to you about what they say?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Jason777, posted 12-30-2007 6:53 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Pahu
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 12-19-2007


Message 134 of 196 (445160)
01-01-2008 11:57 AM


Moon Dust and Debris
If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust”possibly a mile in thickness (a). This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67th of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon.
a. Before instruments were sent to the Moon, Isaac Asimov made some interesting, but false, predictions. After estimating the great depths of dust that should be on the Moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by stating:
“I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight.” Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,” Science Digest, January 1959, p. 36.
Lyttleton felt that the dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.” Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72.
Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, [/I] Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585-604.
Fears about the dust thickness were reduced when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern still remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. It’s a Young World After[/I] All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.
Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!
Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young”possibly less than 10,000 years old.
Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by anglagard, posted 01-01-2008 12:18 PM Pahu has replied
 Message 138 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2008 4:14 PM Pahu has not replied
 Message 142 by edge, posted 01-01-2008 6:30 PM Pahu has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 135 of 196 (445166)
01-01-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Pahu
01-01-2008 11:57 AM


Re: Moon Dust and Debris
Every six months or so, some YEC chooses to embarrass the creationist community with the moon dust argument.
From AIG's Arguments we think creationists should NOT use at Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis :
quote:
“Moon-dust thickness proves a young moon.”
For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates”by evolutionists”of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one, either). See Moon-dust argument no longer useful and Moon dust and the age of the solar system (Technical).
Sheesh, your own people beg you not to make them look like fools by using this old PRATT.
So what can we expect from you next? Perhaps men have one more rib than women?

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Pahu, posted 01-01-2008 11:57 AM Pahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 1:29 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 139 by Pahu, posted 01-01-2008 4:17 PM anglagard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024