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.

 

The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

page: 17
34
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Genetic mutation and natural selection did it


You might as well just say "God did it". Instead you say "evolution did it". HOW would genetic mutation have been able to upgrade the optic tract, retina, and visual cortex all at once? With 1.7 million neurons in the optic tract, and 140 million in the visual cortex, this would be nothing short of a miracle to have formed by random chance through genetic mutation. Keep in mind a genetic mutation makes an alteration to a sequence for a protein, so how could an alteration to a protein:

1) vastly increase the total functionality of the optic tract?
2) organize the increased neuronal mass to the posterior of the telencephalon during embryonic development?
3) signal this new mass to connect to the optic tract and retina?
4) avoid making any alterations that would cause an epileptogenic mis-wiring of the human brain?

You can't just simply wave the magic wand and say "genetic mutation and natural selection did it". It shows your faith-based belief has no basis in demonstrable data.




Humans ARE apes there is no between!


That's absurd. How far away from reality must you get to defend your baseless theory? There is a vast difference between any ape and humans. If there ever was a morphological leap from apes to humans, there would be evidence of it in the fossil record. Yet there are no complete missing links that show this theorized gradual morphological change. You would think over the course of the theorized 25 million years there would have been one, just one, example of these transition animals that could be found in the fossil record. But there isn't, because evolution is a lie.
edit on 6-6-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
You might as well just say "God did it". Instead you say "evolution did it".


No, I did not say that. You edited and changed my quote after the fact and that is not the first time you have intentionally misquoted me in that manner. Genetic mutations and natural selection have been documented and proved to be legitimate real things, backed up by experiment and testing. God has not. The fact that you would even compare those as equal is laughably absurd. That's like comparing the theory of gravity to karma.


HOW would genetic mutation have been able to upgrade the optic tract, retina, and visual cortex all at once?


As always, the same exact misunderstanding repeated over and over. Scientists do not say that it all happened at once. Why do you constantly misrepresent science?


1) vastly increase the total functionality of the optic tract?
2) organize the increased neuronal mass to the posterior of the telencephalon during embryonic development?
3) signal this new mass to connect to the optic tract and retina?
4) avoid making any alterations that would cause an epileptogenic mis-wiring of the human brain?


Silly buzz words and catch phrases. Look up the evolution of the eye.


You can't just simply wave the magic wand and say "genetic mutation and natural selection did it". It shows your faith-based belief has no basis in demonstrable data.


No faith required when something is backed by experiment, bud.




That's absurd. How far away from reality must you get to defend your baseless theory?


Again, you claim the theory is baseless when I have quoted for you numerous scientific studies chock full of hard evidence and data and they are ALWAYS ignored by you. In fact you still have not refuted a SINGLE ONE. You have no ground to stand on here. You just dismiss and deny all evidence, while embracing pseudo-science and blatant lies to preserve a religion. All I ask for is ONE SINGLE refutation of a scientific research paper that backs evolution (out of hundreds of thousands of them). Decades later, creationists STILL can't even refute ONE. You just keep repeating the lies that have been programmed into you without critically analyzing any of them. You have severe double standards and your arguments are always full of fallacies.


There is a vast difference between any ape and humans.


Blatant lie. Have you not seen a chimp? Humans ARE apes. I get you hate that fact, but that's how we classify humans in biology because they are much much much more similar to apes than any other family of classification. To pretend like there are no similarities between the other great apes and humans is laughable. They are 90-98% the same genetically depending on which great ape you are referring to.


If there ever was a morphological leap from apes to humans, there would be evidence of it in the fossil record.


The lies never stop with you. There was no leap, just slow development over time as clearly documented in the fossil record.

humanorigins.si.edu...

24+ species of human that document development of modern humans. You keep baselessly claiming that there is no evidence when there is too much evidence to even count.



Yet there are no complete missing links that show this theorized gradual morphological change.


You STILL repeat this lie from decades ago. LMAO @ "complete missing links." You don't even grasp the basics of science and any evidence I give you will be ignored, so what exactly do you want here? All fossils are invalid unless they reflect all 200+ bones of an organism from millions of years ago???? It's funny how dishonest your argument is here. You just default to your catch phrases every time and ignore all evidence.


You would think over the course of the theorized 25 million years there would have been one, just one, example of these transition animals that could be found in the fossil record. But there isn't, because evolution is a lie.


en.wikipedia.org...

There are tons of them. Once again you just repeat lies. Creationists are NEVER honest. You are biased to the extreme degree and cherry pick evidence and think that lack of understanding of one thing is the equivalent of knowing nothing. The real question is, how much does AIG or DI pay you to spew this bull#? Your argument hasn't "evolved" itself despite being explained to you thousands of times, you just keep repeating the same misunderstandings. Nobody does that on purpose. You are clearly a shill for ID / creationism.
edit on 6 6 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

There are tons of (transition fossils)



Then show me one complete fossil that demonstrates a transition from apes to humans. anywhere along the line. With 25 million years of theorized time that they existed, it shouldn't be hard.

Just show me one. One complete transition fossil between apes and human. Science relies on empirical evidence, not imagination.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
in reply to: cooperton

...
The lies never stop with you. There was no leap, just slow development over time as clearly documented in the fossil record.

humanorigins.si.edu...

24+ species of human that document development of modern humans. You keep baselessly claiming that there is no evidence when there is too much evidence to even count.
...

Leading experts in the field are the first to acknowledge that there is a serious lack of fossil evidence in support of the ape(like)-to-man story. For instance, famed paleo-expert Richard Leakey and David Pilbeam (a well-known expert in human evolution) have confessed:

“Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.” David Pilbeam comments wryly, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.”

Who's misrepresenting the situation now? Especially when one uses the word “clearly” when claiming it's so well documented in the fossil record and refer to the so-called “meagre evidence”* (David Pilbeam) as “too much evidence to even count”?
*: even that term is already stretching it, regarding what's really going on with the so-called “evidence” and for example the supposed “24+ species of human” Barcs linked to, 7 of which are named “pithecus” (ape) rather than the 8 named “homo” (human). Hmm, perhaps there was a reason for that that somewhat conflicts with the statement that “humans ARE apes”. Apparently counting is hard as well cause there are only 21 species named there in total. The chart at the bottom seems to add “early Homo” as nr.22.

The extreme uncertainty regarding the lineage of man can be seen in an article of National Geographic which showcases two charts on human evolution. The charts are from 2 world authorities on human evolution, each with a competing view, Philip Tobias and Bernard Wood. Tobias' chart is covered with 9 question marks, at every major evolutionary junction. Wood's shows 15 question marks, starting with the first link to the Homo (english: human) genus and continuing all the way down to the first ape-like australopiths (english: southern apes). Wood published an updated tree diagram in 2014 in Scientific American. In place of the question marks, Wood now shows an equivalent number of broken, disconnected branches. He admits the picture has only become more obscure (the opposite of "clear"), more uncertain, and more convoluted with every new discovery. In an article published in Nature (2014), Wood states:
“Even with all the fossil evidence and analytical techniques from the past 50 years, a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo [humans] remains elusive.”

Hmm, “elusive” also sounds rather different than “clearly documented in the fossil record” in response to a question about transitional fossils in between ape (Pithecus) and man (Homo). Thus also a statement concerning “the origin of Homo” and the “development of modern humans”.

On the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, paleo-expert Richard Klein showed a tree diagram in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Similar to Wood's latest depiction, there are question marks and dashed lines at every major evolutionary junction. Klein's tree diagram shows that there is no fossil evidence connecting Ardi to Afarensis; no fossil evidence connecting Afarensis to Habilis; no fossil evidence connecting Habilis to Ergaster/Erectus, and no fossil evidence connecting them to Homo sapiens through an archaic intermediate form.

Paleoanthropologist Ian Tattershall, emeritus curator of the American Museum of National History says:
“Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo Sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” —Masters of the Planet: The Search for our Human Origins, Palgrave MacMillan, New York.

These honest remarks expressed by experts in the field, would most often be made in private conversations or obscure books. However, no trace of uncertainty is seen in textbooks or popular media. It's even all supposedly “clearly documented” according to some on the internet. When it comes to the classroom or the internet, the mandate seems to be that “the fact of human evolution” must be vigurously championed, even at the expense of academic transparancy. The controversial aspects about the hominin bones are largely hidden from public view. One is not allowed to question if ape(like)-to-man evolution happened, only how it happened.

Most of the words above are not my words but I wanted to make a few adjustments and I didn't know how many yet when I started.
edit on 7-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

There are tons of (transition fossils)



Then show me one complete fossil that demonstrates a transition from apes to humans. anywhere along the line. With 25 million years of theorized time that they existed, it shouldn't be hard.

Just show me one. One complete transition fossil between apes and human. Science relies on empirical evidence, not imagination.


Did I not just post a list with 24+ different species between ancient ape and modern human???? You just ignored it as usual. This really gets old. You got no argument, you just follow your programming. Again humans ARE apes, so your question of "in between" is nonsensical. The transitions are well documented, from brain development, to walking upright, to opposable thumbs, to smoother skin, etc etc etc. Are you EVER going to once address the evidence I post??????
edit on 6 7 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Did I not just post a list with 24+ different species between ancient ape and modern human???? You just ignored it as usual. This really gets old. You got no argument, you just follow your programming. Again humans ARE apes, so your question of "in between" is nonsensical. The transitions are well documented, from brain development, to walking upright, to opposable thumbs, to smoother skin, etc etc etc. Are you EVER going to once address the evidence I post??????


Take a breath. Go and look at all of those supposed transitional species. None are complete fossils. That is why they use cgi or an artist rendition for every picture:

CGI or artist rendition

Here is the most complete "australopithecus" sample:



It's sad. There is nowhere near ample remains to conclude what this is. Without a complete sample we are only left to speculate. My speculation is that the lack of a complete sample ANYWHERE between apes and humans demonstrates that transitional species did not exist, and therefore evolutionary theory is invalid.

Stop blindly believing others, and look at the evidence for your self.
edit on 7-6-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Humans are not apes and I don’t care how hard you try to sell it it’s just not so...
Long ago somebody decided to lump humans and apes together during classification...
There is no real proof of it just an assumption based on similarities, it was just a long ago made guess...
The fossil record shows a lot of diff apes but the they are all apes and
aside from the deliberate attempts to outright produce fraudulent fossils indicating a transition from ape to man, any semblance of such an offering is quite simply an evolutionists were dream...

edit on 7-6-2019 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Did I not just post a list with 24+ different species between ancient ape and modern human???? You just ignored it as usual. This really gets old. You got no argument, you just follow your programming. Again humans ARE apes, so your question of "in between" is nonsensical. The transitions are well documented, from brain development, to walking upright, to opposable thumbs, to smoother skin, etc etc etc. Are you EVER going to once address the evidence I post??????


Take a breath. Go and look at all of those supposed transitional species. None are complete fossils. That is why they use cgi or an artist rendition for every picture:

CGI or artist rendition

Here is the most complete "australopithecus" sample:



It's sad. There is nowhere near ample remains to conclude what this is. Without a complete sample we are only left to speculate. My speculation is that the lack of a complete sample ANYWHERE between apes and humans demonstrates that transitional species did not exist, and therefore evolutionary theory is invalid.

Stop blindly believing others, and look at the evidence for your self.



As Barcs says, you’ve got absolutely nothing but a handful of lies that you recirculate in every thread and post. This lie regarding “Lucy” has been discussed and debunked several times now yet you continue to repost the same lie again. Why are you so scared of an honest discussion? Your level of zealotry is on par with ISIL/Daesh if you simply refuse to be honest. It doesn’t say much about the strength of your position if you refuse to entertain concepts like truth and evidence.

Let’s try a quick refresher course for the literate amongst us....
Australopithecus is a genus, not a species. If we’re being honest and using facts, Lucy is an Australopithecus Afarensis. Lucy is not the most complete Australopithecus Afarensis let alone Australopithecus period. Furthermore, anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can put together simple concepts. For example, if Lucy is lacking a specific post cranial structure on the right side, we then look to see if that assemblage exists on the left side. In many cases, this is indeed what we see with Lucy. Why? Because primates are notoriously symmetrical organisms. If we’re missing the left wrist but have the right, then we can be very certain that both sides will be similar. Are you following along yet?

And for anyone who can grasp comparative anatomy, if one exemplar, (we can stick with Lucy as this is the only one you know of from the entire genus and seem to believe that she represents ALL Australopithecines for some reason) is lacking specific assemblages, but other exemplars DO have the missing assemblages preserved, it’s not much of a leap to understand that those assemblages would be the same in Lucy despite being missing from her post cranial remains.

You can talk about speculation all you like but speculating is as close as you’ve come to honesty. It’s not as if you look at the evidence and data period, let alone without the colored lenses of confirmation bias. Otherwise you wouldn’t repeat the same BS lies over and over.



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
Apart from the Lucy skeleton, Afarensis is only represented by a loose collection of isolated bones and bone fragments (see picture at 8:19 in the video below). Although the Lucy skeleton is incomplete, it is the only specimen of A.Afarensis that can be assembled with any degree of confidence. The Lucy skeleton (AL 288-1) reveals the limb proportions and overall body size of an ordinary chimpanzee. Lucy was about 3.5 feet high, had a skull that was the size and general shape of a chimpanzee's, and had the long arms and shortened legs of an ape. The Lucy skeleton has no hands, the legs are incomplete, and the feet are essentially absent. The hip, shoulders, ribs, and spine are all fragmentary.

Moreover, Lucy's incomplete anatomy is not readily validated by other Afarensis remains, because isolated bones and bone fragments cannot unambiguously be classified as being the same species. As one can gather from the evidence discussed in detail in the videos below, it is quite clear that many of the isolated bones attributed to Afarensis are in fact not of the same species. As Johanson himself writes in his 1979 Science paper that described his findings, “… a number of skeletal elements found at Hadar (particularly some of the hand and foot bones) are either absent or poorly represented at other sites, which makes meaningful comparisons impossible.” (Johanson, D., White, T. D., A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids, Science, 1979.)

However, wherever meaningful comparisons between Lucy and other proposed Afarensis specimens have been possible, they have confirmed Lucy's apish anatomy (i.e., “Lucy's baby”). Although many of the Afarensis bones are described as very ape-like, there are bones that appear to be a distinctly different species, that in fact belong in a different genus. These “out-of-place” bones were acknowledged to be present from the onset by Johanson and his co-workers in the field (including Mary Leakey who was working in Laetoli). Remarkably, both Johanson and Leaky classified the other species as Homo (human), and independently reported their findings in Nature. This is the most shocking part of the Lucy story (discussed further in chapter/part 11 of the book review linked below). This explains why some bones of the Afarensis type (as proposed that is) have been described as remarkably human, while others have been described as strikingly similar to those of chimpanzee. Nevertheless, because the human bones in the proposed Afarensis mix were relatively rare, the overall anatomical picture of Afarensis (including the Lucy skeleton) is unmistakably ape.

The level of deception and misrepresentation and twisting of the facts and the evidence is uncanny again. Here's more about Afarensis that promoters of evolutionary philosophies will not emphasize in their marketing articles but can be found in the fineprint (figuratively, reading between the lines):


More insane levels of deception discussed regarding Johanson and Lucy below from 19:53 - 23:16 (regarding the subject of walking upright, the 'reconstructed' hipbone and a human knee found 2.5 km away from the rest of the skeleton used to interpret the Lucy skeleton and its 'reconstruction' and artistic renderings; the topic of the footprints is already discussed in chapter 6 above):

“Lucy” had a brain one third the size of a human’s. Clearly it was nothing more than a now extinct species of ape.
edit on 8-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Let's have a look at some of the past claims regarding supposed species of “ape-men”, “missing links” and supposed “actual human ancestors” and see if we can notice a pattern. Cause for many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”⁠ (Science 81, “How Ape Became Man,” by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, April 1981, p. 45.)

True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting. (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 31.) Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”⁠ (Boston Magazine, “Stephen Jay Gould: Defending Darwin,” by Carl Oglesby, February 1981, p. 52.) And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”⁠ (Lucy, p. 27.)

Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. There is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.

From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes? That is the legitimate rational and reasonable way of asking the question why the supposed “inferior” ape family is still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution. Unlike the strawman version of that question often used in meme-form to ridicule only part of that question without emphasizing what the real issue here is with the evolutionary storyline.

From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.” (The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution,” by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41.)

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.” (Spectator, The University of Iowa, April 1973, p. 4.) New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”⁠ (New Scientist, “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” by John Reader, March 26, 1981, p. 802.)

Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.” (Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 55.) Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”⁠ (Science, “The Politics of Paleoanthropology,” by Constance Holden, August 14, 1981, p. 737.)

Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding “ape-men”? Note the following. Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University.” (Newsweek, “Bones and Prima Donnas,” by Peter Gwynne, John Carey and Lea Donosky, February 16, 1981, p. 77.⁠) The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.”* (The New York Times, “How Old Is Man?” by Nicholas Wade, October 4, 1982, p. A18.⁠) Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans​—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—​is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.” (Science Digest, “The Water People,” by Lyall Watson, May 1982, p. 44.)

*: Since then, the number of fossils used to support the theory that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor has increased. In 2009 it was claimed that they would fill a railroad boxcar. (The Human Lineage, by Matt Cartmill and Fred H. Smith, 2009, Preface, p. xi.) However, the vast majority of those fossils consist only of single bones and isolated teeth. Complete skulls​—let alone complete skeletons—​are rare. (Fossils, Teeth and Sex​—New Perspectives on Human Evolution, 1987, Preface, pp. xi, xii.; From Lucy to Language, 1996, p. 22.; Anthropologie, XLII/​1, “Palaeodemography and Dental Microwear of Homo Habilis From East Africa”, 2004, p. 53.; In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, p. 22.)
edit on 8-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 05:17 AM
link   
< continuing with footnote >

Has the increased number of fossils attributed to the human “family tree” settled the question among evolutionary experts as to when and how humans evolved from apelike creatures?

No. In fact, the opposite is true. When it comes to how these fossils should be classified, Robin Derricourt of the University of New South Wales, Australia, wrote in 2009: “Perhaps the only consensus now is that there is no consensus.” (Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), “Patenting Hominins​—Taxonomies, Fossils and Egos,” by Robin Derricourt, 2009, pp. 195-196, 198.) In 2007 the science journal Nature published an article by the discoverers of another claimed link in the evolutionary tree, saying that nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes. (Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.) Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.” This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures. (Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings​—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.)

Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, notes: “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago.”⁠ (The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1981, p. 324.) Thus, the book The Universe Within asks: “What caused evolution . . . to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?” Evolution is unable to answer. But could the answer lie in the creation of a very complex, different creature? (The Universe Within, by Morton Hunt, 1982, p. 45.)

Where are the “links”?

However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.” (Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 91.) Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”⁠ (Newsweek, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” by Jerry Adler and John Carey, November 3, 1980, p. 95.)

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”⁠ (Science 81, “Human Evolution: Smooth or Jumpy?” September 1981, p. 7.)

Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.” He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary. (Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, “Myths and Methods in Anatomy,” by Solly Zuckerman, January 1966, p. 90.) Nothing significant has changed since then in this pattern of behaviour (bringing us back to the opening sentence of my previous comment, with which we will continue all the way through as we look at the claims of the past century and even some from this century so we can see nothing significant has changed).

As a result, the “family tree” often drawn of man’s claimed evolution from lower animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a more recent fossil discovery “leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”⁠ (National Geographic, “Skull 1470,” by Richard E. Leakey, June 1973, p. 819.) And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared: “Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of man, every drawing of man’s family tree will have to be junked. They are apparently wrong.”⁠ (The Boston Globe, “He’s Shaking Mankind’s Family Tree,” by Joel N. Shurkin, December 4, 1973, p. 1.)

The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted “links.” An editorial in The New York Times observed that evolutionary science “includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.” (The New York Times, October 4, 1982, p. A18.)

In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’” And continues to occur I might add again, bringing us back to the pattern I mentioned.

Discover concluded: “The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past.”⁠ (Discover, book review by James Gorman of The Myths of Human Evolution by Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, January 1983, pp. 83, 84.) Yay, long live convenient selective agnosticism when one doesn't want to deal with a reality of a situation. Perhaps “lost” from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative “found” our parents as they actually are in the fossil record​—fully human, just as we are?

The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based?



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based?

The book The Biology of Race answers: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds: “Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face​—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.” (The Biology of Race, by James C. King, 1971, pp. 135, 151.)

Science Digest also commented: “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.” (Science Digest, “Anthro Art,” April 1981, p. 41.) The level of dishonesty in those who present this stuff as “science”, “fact” and “clearly documented” is just staggeringly epic. It surprises me everytime how mild the words are of those who also have an issue with this pattern of behaviour in education and educational media. This is Donald Trump-worthy. What a disgusting scam. I don't like it when I see Donald Trump(-types) getting away with it either. Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.”⁠ (Lucy, p. 286.) Then stop putting it in the fineprint please, pretty please? Where's your integrity man.

Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.” (New Scientist, book review of Not From the Apes: Man’s Origins and Evolution by Björn Kurtén, August 3, 1972, p. 259.) So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects . . . sheer invention.” (The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 224.) That includes the pictures used on the website Barcs linked. Thus in Man, God and Magic Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.” (Man, God and Magic, by Ivar Lissner, 1961, p. 304.)

In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.⁠ (Missing Links, by John Reader, 1981, pp. 109, 110; Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1983, pp. 201-226.)

If “ape-man” reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote: “They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels.”⁠ (Lucy, p. 315.) Richard Leakey called the mammal a “rat-like primate.” (Origins, p. 40.) But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.

Next on the generally accepted list (in the 1980's), with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus​—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as: “Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time, “Just a Nasty Little Thing,” February 18, 1980, p. 58.) “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times)⁠ “Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins, p. 52) But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found.

Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus​—Rama’s ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India). Fossils of it were found in India about half a century ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: “As far as one can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the human family.”⁠ (p. 56)

What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same publication remarked: “The evidence concerning Ramapithecus is considerable​—though in absolute terms it remains tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth.”⁠ (p. 67) Do you think that this was “considerable” enough “evidence” to reconstruct an upright “ape-man” ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an “ape-man,” and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature​—all on the basis of jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.” (The New York Times, “Time to Revise the Family Tree?” February 14, 1982, p. E7.)

However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist 'now' declares: “Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line.”⁠ (New Scientist, “Jive Talking,” by John Gribbin, June 24, 1982, p. 873.) Such new information provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws​—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—​sneak into this manward-marching procession?” (Natural History, “False Start of the Human Parade,” by Adrienne L. Zihlman and Jerold M. Lowenstein, August/​September 1979, p. 86.) Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say.

Another gap of vast proportions lies between that creature and the next one that had been listed as an “ape-man” ancestor. This is called Australopithecus​—southern ape. Fossils of it were first found in southern Africa in the 1920’s. It had a small apelike braincase, heavy jawbone and was pictured as walking on two limbs, stooped over, hairy and apish looking.
edit on 8-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

...This is called Australopithecus​—southern ape. Fossils of it were first found in southern Africa in the 1920’s. It had a small apelike braincase, heavy jawbone and was pictured as walking on two limbs, stooped over, hairy and apish looking.

It was said to have lived beginning about three or four million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor. 5 subspecies of australopiths or australopithecines (southern apes) are listed on the website Barcs linked that according to him has “24+ species of human” (of course to him this is no big deal cause to him the words “ape” and “human” are interchangeable because of his claim and argument that “humans ARE apes”; a claim he will obviously only support with vague referrals to an imaginary scientific consensus on classifications that plug the evolutionary storyline or vague referrals to that evolutionary storyline supposedly being well established, documented and evidenced in the sciences, all nicely circular. Nevertheless, even paleoanthropologists don't classify and name humans/Homo as apes/Pithecus. They make a distinction by the very act of naming species for specific fossils, and then they contradict themselves if and when they call them “actual human ancestors” or something like that, blurring the lines again between ape and human and treating the words as if they are interchangeable).

For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: “With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines . . . are actual human ancestors.” Then why do you call them southern apes in a fancy language that the gullible don't understand? Is it to hide your game? (The Social Contract, by Robert Ardrey, 1970, p. 299.) The New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.”⁠ (The New York Times, “Bone Traces Man Back 5 Million Years,” by Robert Reinhold, February 19, 1971, p. 1.) And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” Emphatically she declared: “The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found.”⁠ (Man, Time, and Fossils, by Ruth Moore, 1961, pp. 5, 6, 316.)

But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”

So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.”⁠(The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 142.) Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian​—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”⁠ (Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, January 1966, p. 93.) He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.”⁠ (Beyond the Ivory Tower, by Solly Zuckerman, 1970, p. 90.) Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines . . . were not men.”⁠ Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”⁠ (Lucy, p. 38.; Origins, p. 86.)

If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.”⁠ (The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 114.) Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.” (New Scientist, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” by Jeremy Cherfas, January 20, 1983, p. 172.)

Another fossil type is called Homo erectus​—upright man. Its brain size and shape do fall into the lower range of modern man’s. Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica observed that “the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of H[omo] sapiens.” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1976, Macropædia, Vol. 8, p. 1032.) However, it is unclear whether it was human or not. If so, then it was merely a branch of the human family and died off.

The human family:

Neanderthal man (named after the Neander district in Germany where the first fossil was found) was undoubtedly human. At first he was pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. Now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern humans. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle stated: “There is no evidence that Neanderthal man was in any way inferior to ourselves.”⁠ (Ice, by Fred Hoyle, 1981, p. 35.) As a result, recent drawings of Neanderthals have taken on a more modern look.

Another fossil type frequently encountered in scientific literature is Cro-Magnon man. It was named for the locality in southern France where his bones were first unearthed. These specimens “were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans,” said the book Lucy.⁠ (p. 29)

Thus, the evidence is clear that belief in “ape-men” is unfounded. Instead, humans have all the earmarks of being created​—separate and distinct from any animal. Humans reproduce only after their own kind. They do so today and have always done so in the past. Any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that​—apes, or monkeys—​not humans. And fossils of ancient humans that differ slightly from humans of today simply demonstrate variety within the human family, just as today we have many varieties living side by side. There are seven-foot humans and there are pygmies, with varying sizes and shapes of skeletons. But all belong to the same human “kind,” not animal “kind.”

When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said: “The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior.” He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution “and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy.” Muggeridge concluded: “Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied.”⁠ Can't say I'm amused. (Esquire, book review by Malcolm Muggeridge of The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski, July 1974, p. 53)
edit on 8-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 08:35 AM
link   
On a slightly different subject, but still talking about dishonesty and a misleading way of talking about some part of the evolutionary storyline in public media as opposed to acknowledgements made in literature not read by most of the public:

Strenuous efforts have been made to link the amphibians to some fish ancestor, but without success. The lungfish had been a favorite candidate, since, in addition to gills, it has a swim bladder, which can be used for breathing when it is temporarily out of the water. Says the book The Fishes: “It is tempting to think they might have some direct connection with the amphibians which led to the land-living vertebrates. But they do not; they are a separate group entirely.”⁠ (The Fishes, by F. D. Ommanney, 1964, p. 65.) David Attenborough disqualifies both the lungfish and the coelacanth “because the bones of their skulls are so different from those of the first fossil amphibians that the one cannot be derived from the other.”⁠ (Life on Earth, by David Attenborough, 1979, p. 137.)

Then checkout the way David Attenborough talks about lungfish in the context of an evolutionary relation between amphibians and some fish ancestor, giving the impression lungfish still support his evolutionary storyline without actually contradicting his admission above (as if lungfish are still part of the mythological 'mountain of evidence' you so often hear about from the flock). Subtle, very subtle:



posted on Jun, 9 2019 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

Another fossil type is called Homo erectus​—upright man. Its brain size and shape do fall into the lower range of modern man’s. Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica observed that “the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of H[omo] sapiens.” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1976, Macropædia, Vol. 8, p. 1032.) However, it is unclear whether it was human or not. If so, then it was merely a branch of the human family and died off.

Until very recently, only one nearly complete Erectus skeleton has been recovered, which was dubbed “Turkana Boy.” It was found in Kenya in 1984, and is the only Homo erectus (or H. ergaster) skeleton where the skull has been found clearly associated with the rest of the body. Before the discovery of Turkana Boy previous Erectus remains primarily consisted of isolated, broken bones. Eg. one intact femur mixed with numerous broken femurs. Two prominent paleo-experts, Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey Schwartz, noted that the general absence of other Erectus bones confounded the analysis of Turkana Boy:

“Although it is truly remarkable just how much of a single individual's skeleton could be recovered, this amazing find also presents a dilemma because, H. erectus or not, most of it couldn't be compared with anything else closely related to it because the comparable parts weren't known!”

The Java skullcap discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 (the first fossil remains found that are currently classified as Homo erectus, he found a tooth, a skullcap and a femur bone; the Greek/Latin name he assigned to these bones translates as “upright ape-man”, Pithecanthropus erectus) is the “type specimen” or “defining specimen” of the H. erectus species. This is problematic, since it is essentially just a skullcap. On the other hand, “Turkana Boy” is the most complete Erectus skeleton, and would arguably be the better choice for a type specimen.

The cranial capacity of the Java skullcap is estimated to be considerably larger than apes but overlaps with the lower end of human variation. Paleoanthropologists have long acknowledged that the morphological boundary between Erectus and Homo sapiens is arbitrary and “not clearly demarcated.” However, as evidenced by some of the details discussed under the link I quoted at the start of the comment, most of the remains attributed to Erectus are fully human and could therefore be easily reclassified to Homo sapiens, as some in the field advocate (and if one really wants to be honest one should let go of all these fancy beguiling and distracting names and just call them humans and be done with it).

Prominent paleo-experts agree: Homo erectus is Homo sapiens. Some paleo-experts have insisted for decades that the variation found within Erectus specimens overlap extensively with modern humans. On that basis, these experts agree that Erectus should be grouped together with Homo sapiens as a single species. Many other paleo-experts object to this and claim Erectus exhibits a distinct morphology that merits its classification as a separate species. But, as Gabriel Lasker, the internationally known paleo-expert from Wayne State University conceded:

“Homo erectus is distinct from modern man (Homo sapiens), but there is a tendency to exaggerate the differences. Even if one ignores transitional or otherwise hard to classify specimens and limits consideration to the Java or Peking populations, the range of variation of most features of Homo erectus falls within that of modern man.” —Gabriel Ward Lasker, Physical Anthropology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), p. 284, see also Repairing the Breach, p. 584.

Paleo-expert Milford Wolpoff, recipient of the Darwin Lifetime Achievement Award, agrees with this view, as do his colleagues Alan Thorne and Wu Xin Zhi. They note that the differences between the two are arbitrary and should be regarded as the same species: “In our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the Homo erectus/Homo sapiens boundary is arbitrary and use nonmorphological (i.e. temporal) criteria for determining it, or Homo erectus should be sunk [into Homo sapiens].” —Milford H. Wolpoff, Wu Xin Zhi, and Alan G. Thorne, “Modern Homo sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involving the Fossil Evidence From East Asia,” The Origins of Modern Humans: A World Survey of the Fossil Evidence, Fred H. Smith and Frank Spencer, eds. (New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1984), pp. 465-467.

Paleoanthropologist Michael Day, Professor of Anatomy at University of London, asks: “Does Homo erectus exist as a true taxon or should it be sunk into Homo sapiens?” Sinking Homo erectus into Homo sapiens, would mean simultaneously folding in other very similar “species” such as Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo antecessor, Homo ergaster, and all the other so-called “archaic humans.”

Since the time of Dubois (1891), it has been claimed that the “Java Man” type (Erectus) is a sub-human ancestor (as it is depicted on the webpage Barcs linked, particularly recognizable if you know your history regarding racism, eugenics and social Darwinism). Yet almost a century passed before any substantial Erectus skeleton was found. This happend with the discovery of Turkana Boy in 1984. Prior to that time, almost no non-skull (postcranial) bones were recovered—just a severely diseased and distorted partial skeleton from Kenya with no analytical value (KNM-ER 1303), a partial pelvis, one complete femur, and other bone fragments.

Upon examining the bones of Turkana Boy, it was immediately obvious that Erectus was anatomically human. Seddon, human evolution researcher and author of Humans: From the Beginning notes, “Turkana Boy was unquestionably human.”
edit on 9-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2019 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Did I not just post a list with 24+ different species between ancient ape and modern human???? You just ignored it as usual. This really gets old. You got no argument, you just follow your programming. Again humans ARE apes, so your question of "in between" is nonsensical. The transitions are well documented, from brain development, to walking upright, to opposable thumbs, to smoother skin, etc etc etc. Are you EVER going to once address the evidence I post??????


Take a breath. Go and look at all of those supposed transitional species. None are complete fossils. That is why they use cgi or an artist rendition for every picture:

CGI or artist rendition

Here is the most complete "australopithecus" sample:



It's sad. There is nowhere near ample remains to conclude what this is. Without a complete sample we are only left to speculate. My speculation is that the lack of a complete sample ANYWHERE between apes and humans demonstrates that transitional species did not exist, and therefore evolutionary theory is invalid.

Stop blindly believing others, and look at the evidence for your self.


LOL! The same exact lie you posted before! There are a bunch of Asutralopithecus samples. That is not the only one. To claim the whole thing is incomplete and unknown simply because one specimen doesn't have every single fossil is ridiculous. You've made a career on this site of lying, why keep up the charade?

Either way, pretending like an incomplete fossil specimen is somehow the equivalent of having NO evidence is as dishonest as it gets. No surprise. That's your MO.
edit on 6 9 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2019 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You are a spambot. Stop it.



posted on Jun, 10 2019 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Great wall of text batman!

I somehow feel if you have to post so much to make your point, you may not have much of a point at all.

Can you summarise in a short paragraph or two?
edit on 10-6-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
Who cares about (100%) complete skeletons anyway? Works as a nice red herring-type distraction from the real issues* with the supposed fossil 'evidence' though...


You should make a new forum post with all the content you have collected including pictures and being concise. More people need to realize how sparse the evidence is for the evolution fairy tale.


originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: whereislogic

Great wall of text batman!

I somehow feel if you have to post so much to make your point, you may not have much of a point at all.

Can you summarise in a short paragraph or two?


All the supposed "evidence" for transitional fossils is too ambiguous, and in most cases totally non-existent, to prove evolution. This lack of evidence, despite scientists vigorously looking for over a hundred years, insists that evolutionary theory is incorrect.
edit on 10-6-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So what is correct then? What testable framework or collection of theories best describes all of the existing evidence?







 
34
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join