It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

page: 48
14
<< 45  46  47   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You're such a liar. Peter Vlar has responded to your stupid post about that skeleton several times.


Yeah and the other supposed australopithecus remains he mentioned were even more lacking than Lucy. It's honestly the saddest theory of all time.




posted on Jun, 22 2020 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You're such a liar. Peter Vlar has responded to your stupid post about that skeleton several times.


Yeah and the other supposed australopithecus remains he mentioned were even more lacking than Lucy. It's honestly the saddest theory of all time.



The extremely simple thing about multicellular organisms that flies right over your head is symmetry. While there are minor differences in soft tissue that make H. Sapiens Sapiens appear.slighltly assymetrical on the outside, our skeletal structures are actually.symetrical. wjat.thst.means is if you have the fossils from the.left side, you know wjat the.right side will look like. Please show me the.remains of an average human that this degree of symmetry does NOT apply to. Where you see missing bones, I dont because they are represented throughout the morphology.of our entire genus. Its hillarious how the simplest of biological concepts flies so far above your head time and time again and.you are so blinded that you cant even look up at the reality you live within without being blinded to it.



posted on Jun, 23 2020 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

The extremely simple thing about multicellular organisms that flies right over your head is symmetry. While there are minor differences in soft tissue that make H. Sapiens Sapiens appear.slighltly assymetrical on the outside, our skeletal structures are actually.symetrical. wjat.thst.means is if you have the fossils from the.left side, you know wjat the.right side will look like. Please show me the.remains of an average human that this degree of symmetry does NOT apply to. Where you see missing bones, I dont because they are represented throughout the morphology.of our entire genus. Its hillarious how the simplest of biological concepts flies so far above your head time and time again and.you are so blinded that you cant even look up at the reality you live within without being blinded to it.




Hmm I don't suppose that even doubling the cranial remains for Lucy would do much help in identification. It's a mess. Your faith is strong Peter, I'll give you that. Australopithecus transitional hominids were supposedly around for almost a million years and this is the best we can find? It goes to show how lacking the evidence is.
edit on 23-6-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2020 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Why do you insist on such dishonest tactics to prop up something that exists only in your mind. You keep trotting out the same photo of Lucy knkwing full well that she's n2kt the only Australopithecus remains ever found. Apparently the 100's of 1000's of peer reviewed papers dont count for anything unless someone on a conspiracy site proves you wrong. Oh, and the cranium you claim doesnt exist and somehow demonstrates the lack of evidence as opposed to your inability to engage in anything resembling due diligence or even a modest effort on your end.


Again,.youre wrong.



Or does that not count because it's a side view? Provinf I'm hiding something in your warped sense olf reality.



posted on Jun, 26 2020 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

Evolutionary theory has been repeatedly scientifically refuted over and over again...
Only to be replaced by the next faith based theory that can be backed by loosely suggestible implied evidence...


You have anything to support the above claims or should we just take your word as an authority on all biological sciences?



posted on Jun, 26 2020 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

Why do you insist on such dishonest tactics to prop up something that exists only in your mind. You keep trotting out the same photo of Lucy knkwing full well that she's n2kt the only Australopithecus remains ever found. Apparently the 100's of 1000's of peer reviewed papers dont count for anything unless someone on a conspiracy site proves you wrong. Oh, and the cranium you claim doesnt exist and somehow demonstrates the lack of evidence as opposed to your inability to engage in anything resembling due diligence or even a modest effort on your end.


Again,.youre wrong.



Or does that not count because it's a side view? Provinf I'm hiding something in your warped sense olf reality.


How were they even able to compare that to Lucy's cranium which is mostly missing? I know how - assumption. You're an assumptionist Peter.



^Here's another view of how lacking Lucy's cranium is. If you really think they can make any cranial comparison with such a lacking specimen, then you must be the greatest assumptionist of them all. I prefer science... it demands conclusive evidence.



posted on Jun, 26 2020 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Why would they have to comlare it to Lucy's crania when the post cranial remains are the same. Thsts wjat you either dont get or are incapable of understanding. You essentially.want me to disseminate years of education amd research down to a short blurb on here and thats not how it works. We get it, you dont understand the science you hate and it's evertone else's fault, not yours. Well played.



posted on Jun, 26 2020 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

Why would they have to comlare it to Lucy's crania when the post cranial remains are the same. Thsts wjat you either dont get or are incapable of understanding. You essentially.want me to disseminate years of education amd research down to a short blurb on here and thats not how it works. We get it, you dont understand the science you hate and it's evertone else's fault, not yours. Well played.



I am referring to Lucy being classified as Australopithecus afarensis. How do they even attribute a new species to something that's cranium is mostly missing? It's because they're assumptionists, not scientists. At first you said there was ample data to apply the notion of bilateral symmetry to get a full picture of the skull, but you realize there isn't even ample enough cranium for that to be useful. They have the narrative they want to run, and they distort perception to make it seem factual. Like for example, the CGI images that misrepresent the data:



How do they know what it's face looks like when there aren't any nasal, maxillary or ocular (facial) bones found??? These transitional hominids between the ape pre-cursor and modern humans were supposedly walking around for 5 million years, so where's all the remains? We find many unambiguous dinosaur fossils because dinosaurs are real. Transitional hominids are not.
edit on 26-6-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 45  46  47   >>

log in

join