yes I know this post is long. really long. I have to respond to numerous things including so called ape-like-men-creature skulls.
delta9 uk said:
Quote:
You do realize that ALL species are pretty much intermediates. We are STILL EVOLVING the fossil record has plenty of evidence of this, plenty. We are all transitional forms.
When will you stop making then blatantly assumption based statements.?? I fear never.
delta9uk:
Quote:
Remember that classification is a human invention - we "invent" species - they don't exist in nature - nature doesn't compartmentalize things that way. This is an important concept.
You're right , species are a human term applied to phenomena in nature But they do exist. There is a special order in nature and we distinguish different groups together by their characteristics. In the bible, they are distinguished also, but not as species but rather as created kinds of animals..
Quote:
Classification systems are used to help us organize and study living things. There are many different ways to group living things depending on the presuppositions that you start with. Evolutionists believe that all living things descended from a single common ancestor. Because they have this presupposition, they use the differences in physical traits, DNA, and protein sequences to determine relationships among different kinds of animals and plants. This assumption of a common ancestor has forced evolutionists to reorganize many of the original classifications of animals. Dinosaurs are now believed to be the ancestors of birds. Some have even suggested reclassifying birds as reptiles since the molecular evidence is interpreted to support this claim. The classification of the apes, among which evolutionists include humans, has changed to reflect the evolutionary view that humans are just intelligent apes. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that chimpanzees be included in the human genus Homo.
Chapter 2: Classifying Life - Answers in Genesis
And no delta9uk, I would not deny speciation in the wild at all .Actually, the current system of animal classification was first developed by Carolus Linnaeus who was a creationist, then was hijacked by evolutionists.
Creationists believe that all of the diversity we see in the world today was originality created in the genetic makeup of the created kinds. Then as time when on, groups became more specialized and lost genetic information giving them the ability to interbreed , creating a new species. This phenomena is a well established fact observable today. Furthermore, there is scientific evidence in the genetic makeup of living things that shows the ability for possibility of rapid speciation, of note I believe herv-k. There is also observable evidence of rapid speciation that has surprised evolution believing scientists such as this:
Speedy species surprise
The definition of species is :
Quote:
a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or sub genus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name
When a kind of animal is no longer able to interbreed with a another kind it was previously part of, that animal becomes a new species.Furthermore it is very important to recognize that this never involves an increase of information but always a decrease in genetic information.
delta 9 uk:
Quote:
Stop now before I hurt myself.
Of course it isn't carbon dating, only a Moron would think that.
Besides, carbon dating is really only useful for dead Carbon (why am I trying to explain this FFS??.....)
I suggest you learn more about these systems before you try arguing over what is and what isn't Junk DNA. Your definition was falsified and you just copy-pasted a response without understanding what you are arguing about.
yes you're right, carbon dating can only be used on dead things. How does this negate my argument again?
delta9 uk:
Quote:
evolution-ists don't exist.
Quote:
Definitions of evolutionist on the Web:
a person who believes in organic evolution
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Evolutionism is any one of a number of theories that the form and nature of living things that exist at a given time are natural (unplanned) outgrowths of those that existed before, and the first living things arose by random events in an abiotic world. By "nature" one means the biochemistry, histology, genetic complement, etc. An evolutionist is a proponent of evolutionism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionist
delta 9 uk:
Quote:
I'm approaching your argument HEAD-ON and the only evidence you supply is the "opinions" of Creationists - that's not science mate.
That's not true. I review the information I post from articles before hand. You don't know . You're not here. And you're wrong anyway. The main popular term is junk DNA or non coding DNA used less frequently. Are you from Australia?
Quote:
Do you have a degree in Genetics? Biochemistry? Microbiology?
I have a mind that can learn . You don't have to be a genius to understand evolutionary theory and you don't have to be a genius to understand creation ideas either. When you attack me because i don't have a degree like you you actually attack your own evolution comrades who don't have a degree either. You're just a using your degree to bully me . "look , I have a degree. That' means I'm wrong and you're right." I never used this type of argument against you, never tried to post things and expect you to simply accept it because they have phd's. I expected you to accept it based on the evidence. You're arrogant , far more than I am. What do you know about virology that you haven't learned from others?
Quote:
Yet, I'm using my cells right now and they work just great I suppose it must have been god then.....
This is the type of response I would expect. " We're here, that must mean evolution is true."
Here is an article that deals with the blood flow and shows that the way it is is actually the ideal . It also deals with several other topics such as the verted retina of some other animals. I have a dvd called " the hearing ear and the seeing eye" lecture. I've watched it several times and it specifically addresses the blood flow in the eye. It does serve a purpose and it's the best way for it to be for our purposes.
Is our ??inverted?? retina really ??bad design???
Quote:
Although it would appear at first sight that the inverted arrangement of the retina has disadvantages and is inefficient, in reality these objections amount to little. Even evolutionists concede that the inverted retina serves those creatures that possess it, very well;41 it affords them superb visual acuity. We have reviewed the necessity for this arrangement which turns on the nature of the photoreceptors.
Summarizing:
Light at various wavelengths is capable of very damaging effects on biological machinery. The retina, besides being an extremely sophisticated transducer and image processor, is clearly designed to withstand the toxic and heating effects of light. The eye is well equipped to protect the retina against radiation we normally encounter in everyday life. Besides the almost complete exclusion of ultraviolet radiation by the cornea and the lens together, the retina itself is endowed with a number of additional mechanisms to protect against such damage:
The retinal pigment epithelium produces substances which combat the damaging chemical by-products of light radiation.
The retinal pigment epithelium plays an essential part sustaining the photoreceptors. This includes recycling and metabolising their products, thereby renewing them in the face of continual wear from light bombardment.
The central retina is permeated with xanthophyll pigment which filters and absorbs short-wavelength visible light.
The photoreceptors thus need to be in intimate contact with the retinal pigment epithelium, which is opaque. The retinal pigment epithelium, in turn, needs to be in intimate contact with the choroid (also opaque) both to satisfy its nutritional requirements and to prevent (by means of the heat sink effect of its massive blood flow) overheating of the retina from focused light.
If the human retina were ??wired?? the other way around (the verted configuration), as evolutionists such as Dawkins propose,2 these two opaque layers would have to be interposed in the path of light to the photoreceptors which would leave them in darkness!
Thus I suggest that the need for protection against light-induced damage, which a verted retina in our natural environment could not provide to the same degree, is a major, if not the major reason for the existence of the inverted configuration of the retina.
Here's an interview with an eye disease researcher.
" He obtained his Ph.D. in Ophthalmic Science at Glasgow in 1991 and was elected to chartered biologist (C.Biol.) status and to membership of the Institute of Biology (M.I.Biol.) in 1993. He is now Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer in Ophthalmic Science."
Quote:
Creation magazine [CM]: Dr Marshall, you wrote to us to comment on the article Seeing back to front which appeared in the March??May 1996 issue of Creation magazine. What was your comment?
Dr George Marshall [GM]: I pointed out that the principal reason as to why the eye cannot be regarded as being wired backward (as some evolutionists claim) was hidden in a footnote in your article.
CM: Would you care to elaborate?
GM: The light-detecting structures within photoreceptor cells are located in the stack of discs. These discs are being continually replaced by the formation of new ones at the cell body end of the stack, thereby pushing older discs down the stack. Those discs at the other end of the stack are ??swallowed?? by a single layer of retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. RPE cells are highly active, and for this they need a very large blood supply??the choroid. Unlike the retina, which is virtually transparent, the choroid is virtually opaque, because of the vast numbers of red blood cells within it. For the retina to be wired the way that Professor Richard Dawkins suggested, would require the choroid to come between the photoreceptor cells and the light, for RPE cells must be kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor to perform their job. Anybody who has had the misfortune of a hemorrhage in front of the retina will testify as to how well red blood cells block out the light.
An eye for creation
Let's see here , here are the examples he gave us of transitional fossils.:
Quote:
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Quote:
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
Modern chimpanzee is not transitional, so we can throw that one out right now.
Quote:
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
This is the Taung skull. It was discovered in the 1920's I believe.
The Taung Skull: ??missing link??? :
Quote:
Bearing in mind that his evidence involved only teeth and a supposed ??improved quality?? of brain (based on cranial size), Dart concluded from his limited information that the animal to which the skull belonged:
could appreciate colour and weight;
knew the significance of sound;
was on the way to articulate speech;
walked upright, with hands free to become manipulative organs.
Dart claimed a creature with an ape-sized brain could have dental and postural characteristics approaching those of humans. However, this idea was met with skepticism, as it required ??mosaic?? evolution (development of some characteristics in advance of others).
. ...Nature then published reports of four experts who reviewed Dart??s paper. According to Reader??who referred to Dart??s new species and genus as ??strange small-brained creatures which could be explained away as odd apes????all four saw more immediate affinities with the apes than with man...
Even though evolutionists could not identify the skull, or find a place for it in their evolutionary charts, they did not want to discard it altogether. (Dart was unable to produce data to contradict suggestions the skull was younger than claimed.)
..While Dart continued to promote his findings in the press, expert opinion was steadily hardening towards the conclusion that Australopithecus africanus was a form of chimpanzee, with its man-like attributes due to the phenomenon of ??parallel?? evolution, rather than because it was on the way to becoming man...
..When Dart visited London, and was invited to address the Zoological Society, he later admitted, ??I realized the inadequacy of my material?? while facing an unresponsive audience...
..Recently some evolutionists have shifted in their thinking as to whether any of the australopithecines (other fossils have been placed in this category) are legitimate human ancestors...
...Today, many authorities dismiss the Taung Skull as simply that of a young ape, which shares interesting, but irrelevant, features with man. "
So we can throw that one out too, even dart admitted it was insufficient.
Quote:
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
Next up is Homo habilis
Quote:
or ??handy man??, so named because he supposedly was handy with tools. The most well known is called KNM-ER 1470,12 comprising a fossil skull and leg bones found by Richard Leakey in Kenya in 1972. Spoor??s CAT scans of the inner ear of a Homo habilis skull known as Stw 53 show that it walked more like a baboon than a human.6 Today most researchers, including Spoor, regard Homo habilis as ??a waste-bin of various species??, including bits and pieces from Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and not as a valid category. In other words, it never existed as such, and so cannot be the supposed link between australopithecine apes and true man.
It is now commonly acknowledged that the Homo habilis assemblage actually constitutes at least two if not three different species, almost all of the alleged Homo habilis fossils being australopithecines.
The famed paleontologist Richard Leakey describes the situation:
Of the several dozen specimens that have been said at one time or another to belong to this species [Homo habilis], at least half probably don??t. But there is no consensus as to which 50 percent should be excluded. No one anthropologist??s 50 percent is quite the same as another??s.3
Because the tremendous need for that transitional form between the australopithecines and humans still persists, Milford Wolpoff (University of Michigan), who needs Homo habilis and believes in it, states it well: ?? ? the phylogenetic outlook suggests that if there weren??t a Homo habilis we would have to invent one.? 4
Invention is something that many evolutionists do well.
Fact versus fiction: the recent Ethiopian fossils
I don't think I need to say anything.
Quote:
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
The non-transitions in ??human evolution????on evolutionists?? terms
Quote:
In comparable manner, Homo habilis has now been split up into Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis sensu lato
So it's really just homo habilis.Let's move on.
Quote:
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(halfway down) Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?
Quote:
..The finding of ER 3733 and WT 15000 therefore appears to strongly reinforce the validity of Java and Peking Man. The clear similarities shared by all four (where skeletal and cranial material is available), render untenable any claims that the two Asian specimens are nothing more than exceptionally large apes. Further, their affinities with both archaic sapiens and Neanderthal sapiens are so strong that it can hardly be denied that all are closely related human beings...
People were always people!
Quote:
The question of course is - are erectus forms proof of an evolutionary progression from the apes, or are they simply temporal, regional, climatic, dietary or pathological variants of human beings?
According to evolutionists, Homo erectus was a separate species which evolved into Homo sapiens??even though the theory has been embarrassed by the finding of erectus and sapiens fossils in the same evolutionary time-sectors.
More and more creationist writers are pointing out that there is a wide range of variation among fossil human skulls, and that well defined specimens of H. erectus (along with Neanderthals, etc.) do not represent any sort of evolutionary sequence, but are part of the spectrum of variation. They should therefore be classified as the same species as modern man, Homo sapiens.
Now prominent evolutionist paleoanthropologists, Milford Wolpoff and Alan Thorne, have unwittingly supported this creationist contention. (They favour the ??multiregional hypothesis?? as opposed to the more popular ??out-of-Africa?? view of human evolution??see Creation, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 20??23.)
Having carefully studied specimens of erectus and sapiens they ??could not find any anatomical markers that consistently separated Homo erectus from Homo sapiens.?? They therefore maintain that all such fossil specimens, and also the ??archaic?? Homo sapiens as well as the Neanderthals, should all be reclassified into one species, Homo sapiens, with the differences being on the level of racial variation.
They also studied so-called Homo habilis, a group which many evolutionists argue should really be lumped together with the australopithecines such as ??Lucy??. There were indeed consistent differences between these and the erectus/sapiens groups as creationists would also argue.
Computer analysis by evolutionary experts has long shown that the unique, extinct australopithecine/habiline group was anatomically more distinct from both apes and humans (see The Revised Quote Book, p. 14) than these two are from each other.
They are therefore not intermediate and not in the human line.
Quote:
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
Here, take it from the evolutionists themselves:
The non-transitions in ??human evolution????on evolutionists?? terms
Quote:
...??The relevant evidence for H. ergaster suggests that it was an obligate terrestrial biped much like H. sapiens. Remains of the lower limb and pelvis indicate that it had a commitment to bipedal locomotion that was equivalent to that seen in modern humans, and there is no evidence in the upper limb bones for the sort of climbing abilities possessed by the australopiths and H. habilis.??14
As a result of this, the recurring and sharp dichotomy (between australopiths??habilines on one hand and true humans on the other hand) surfaces once again:
??Thus, on the basis of the locomotor inferences that can be made from their postcranial morphology, the fossil hominins [sic??hominids2] can be divided into two groups. The first group displays a mixed strategy, combining a form of terrestrial bipedalism with an ability to climb proficiently. This group comprises Praeanthropus, Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and H. habilis. The second group consists of H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. heidelbergensis, and H. neanderthalensis and is characterized by a commitment to modern human-like terrestrial bipedalism and a very limited arboreal facility. The hypothesized contrast between the locomotor repertoires of the two groups is supported by a recent computed [sic] tomography study of the hominin bony labyrinth).[15]??12(Emphasis added)...
conclusion
Typical textbooks show the following progression: an apelike knuckle-walking primate, followed by forms which are progressively larger, progressively more bipedal, and progressively more intelligent??all culminating in us modern humans. As we have seen, the scientific evidence shows no such thing.
The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow9], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man??all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
Quote:
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
I honestly couldn't find much explicitly on this but as the above quoted article shows, it is best to recognise it as simply a variant of a modern man.
Heidelberg Man??
Quote:
Computerized X-ray scanning of fossilized Homo heidelbergensis skulls from Spain shows the ears would have been able to hear sound waves with frequencies of two to four kilohertz??ideal for hearing the range of human speech. So the ears of these skulls, dated at 350,000 years of age, were distinctly different from chimpanzee ears, which aren??t good at picking up sounds in the human range.
New Scientist, 26 June 2004, p. 16.
And touching upon homo sapien isn't necessary. I will point out again a quote from above though.
Quote:
According to evolutionists, Homo erectus was a separate species which evolved into Homo sapiens??even though the theory has been embarrassed by the finding of erectus and sapiens fossils in the same evolutionary time-sectors.
When evolutionists tell you there are "several fine specimens" of intermediate fossils, they're just plain bluffing. The truth is, thier is hardly any type of consensus and much confusion amoung the scientists themselves. On one hand, we have evolutionists who still cling to the original theory of long steady progression, and then on the other hand we have scientists, even very high up the ladder like gould and Ian Tattersall, Chairman and Curator of the Department of Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York who's explanation is punctuated equilibrium (rapid evolution) and no longer recognizes the evolutionary tree at all as such , but more of a bush going in many different dirrections :
(Nailing jello (jelly) to the wall).
But these two different hypotheses are completely and wildly different from each other? How can leading evolutionists have such different interpretations??
Don't insult my intelligence. How about we talk about piltdown man? minnasota ice man? These were total hoaxes that deceived millions of people. And not to mention pathetic attempts such as java man or peking man. You want to talk about illegitimate research?
How about we talk about them?
