Posted on 02/18/2006 1:21:05 PM PST by DeweyCA
TalkOrigins calls them transitional fossils
If it doesn't imply a specific relationship why put the chimp in A? If it were just a mug book why not put the chimp next to modern human and keep chronological consistency?
The chart you posted shows the latest thinking. In other words, VBS is wrong that no one denies Australopithecus to be an ancestor of man.
If you were right, there would be no paleontology at all, as nothing means anything. But when, starting in the 60s and gathering momentum through the present, we generated molecular phylogenies, they wonderfully matched the "don't mean a thing" morphological phylogenies based on the mere physical shapes of extant and fossil life. If there were nothing going on, that wouldn't have happened.
All you're showing is that there is no amount whatsoever of real-world data that will make a witch doctor give up his mask and rattle.
Do so. Some people hide behind a wishy-washy lawyerism which seems to be based upon an equivocation between "extant ape species" and "ape." Evos should be better than that and leave the weasly lawyering to the creationists.
Give it a rest already. In case you haven't noticed, we're not at Sunday school here, we're on a friggin' debating forum. If you have a problem with that, then I suggest you troll elsewhere. Otherwise, you might actually want to add something meaningful to the discussion, if that is at all possible...
Hmmmm...I made only two posts on this thread. The first was an observation of fact. The second, to which you responded, had nothing to do with the first. And you think I should 'Give it a rest already'.
As to the rhetoric I was referring to, I would hardly think it adds anything meaningful to the so-called debate.
Fair enough :-)
Why don't creationists ever know the answers to their questions? You asked me and I told you. Post 200.
Now I'll answer my own question. Creationists don't know any answers because they think ignorance is wisdom. It keeps "the controversy" alive if they never learn anything.
" Traditional (radiocarbon) dating results had caused stagnation in our understanding of modern human evolution. The introduction of more advanced dating methods led to significant revisions, which have been backed up by DNA analyses. These showed that modern humans probably evolved in Africa around 200,000 years (e.g. Ingman et al. 2000) and that an eastward migration of modern humans took place well before the population of Europe (e.g., Hedges 2000). This means that the aboriginal peoples are more ancient in the Australian landscape than Europeans are in Europe. The emerging migration patterns of modern humans are summarised in Fig. 11."
Curious, are the DNA analyses referring to Berkeley's "Mitochondrial Eve"?
If it doesn't imply a specific relationship why put the chimp in A? If it were just a mug book why not put the chimp next to modern human and keep chronological consistency?
The chart you posted [#205] shows the latest thinking. In other words, VBS is wrong that no one denies Australopithecus to be an ancestor of man.
You make a lot of points, so I'll try to deal with them one by one.
I'm not sure what you mean by "TalkOrigins calls them transitional fossils." While all fossils are transitional between something and something else, the term as usually used in the context of these crania would mean as transitional between ape and human. Many of these crania are transitional, but I don't think Neanderthal is considered by most authorities as transitional on the human line, and some of the others surely are not. Not sure if this answers the question you posed or not.
The original responses on this thread were generated by the photograph of many fossil crania, with modern chimp on one end and modern human on the other for comparison. It is a collection of crania, and the position of each shows a general progression from ape-like to human-like. That does not mean any adjacent crania are related in any specific way. That is the purpose of the subsequent chart (post #205).
If you check the chart it does show Australopithecus as an ancestor of man.
One of the controversies in paleoanthropology is what to call various fossils. Some might prefer to call Australopithecus species Homo but this is a matter of classification and does not change the line of descent.
I have not studies the fine details for some years, but from what I remember, Australopithecus is in the line of descent. The fact that some are shown as dead-enders in the chart is immaterial--so are Neanderthal, P. robustus and P. boisie.
For some numbers, try the Consilience of Independent Phylogenies section of the 29+ Evidences article.
There was a thread here about a week ago titled New analysis shows three human migrations out of Africa, Replacement theory 'demolished'.
The section you posted to me was dated 2000. A lot has changed even since then. Have fun!
That's a dump. I am not worthy, evidently.
Thanks. Along with some other things that I need to get done, this should keep me busy for awhile.
No you are correct. To my knowledge the only thing close to flesh from that age is imprints. And they are very rare.
Yes. If evolution is bunk, then all creatures today existed in the same form hundreds of millions of years ago. Am I not correct? Since animals do not change, then we should see the single hooved horse fossils at the same time we see 5 toed versions. My point is you do not see that at all.
There are lots of other animal we do see fossils for but the farther you go back... all you see are animals that do not exist today. You would think that you would see fossils of modern day animals but you do not.
Shark fossils and crocodiles do go back pretty far... but not even close to far enough to say they never changed.
Oh sorry I was not put off in the least. Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the designer created new species as time went on... that the designer made a 5 toed horse... then decided on a 3 toed one... then decided on a single hooved horse. But it was not the evolutionary process at all... it was a designer that did this.
One problem with this argument is it is scientifically lazy. People used to use God as an excuse to explain disease and mental illnesses, that people were being punished for diseases because they did not know what a virus or bacteria was. If scientists answered everything like that you and I probably would not have survived birth to be discussing this now would we?
Let me give an example. I have been to Maui and Kauai. While visiting I saw a number of birds that look EXACTLY like a Canadian Goose but it had some strange markings on the side and you could tell there was a subtle difference.(it is called a Nene by the way) Now the Canadian Goose doesn't normally fly to Hawaii so it seems that a long time ago they flew thereby accident and ended up staying there. Of course who can blame them.
Now if you saw a picture of the Nene, you would know that it was a Canadian Goose but with some subtle differences. The Nene doesn't have feet as webbed as the Canadian goose. They actually have longer toes. They don't swim and their wings are not as strong because they normally don't swim. They are a ground bird basically.
So what gives? Is this a designer at work? Or is it that geese got blown off course and landed in Hawaii and the differences in the birds are one of adaptation?
Is this conclusive proof of evolution. Well... no... but this is just one among many examples that exist that seem to support it.
The disticntion between whether one is studying purposeful design or studying design-free, purposeless patterns arised from random dyanmics is one of metaphysical splits of the big argument.
More is to be gained, scientifically, imo, by restoring a preference for purposeful design.
Here is one scientists documentation of problems with Relativity. There are many many more such sources
http://members.aol.com/carmam1534/Hollings.html
Please point me to the same list of problems with Evolution.
My main point is that Evolution, like global warming are much better theories than Einsteins. He has many problems with his theory. Evolution and global warming have none.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.