More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[Hollie]

You could always provide the fossil record.... Ohh wait no you cant because there is none showing any such thing.

Ohhh, wait. You want to announce your ignorance on a public message board.

CC200: Transitional fossils

www.talkorigins.org

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

Your best argument against the fossil record, peer reviewed data, paleo-biology, etc., amounts to ''nuh -uh, science is a conspiracy''

 

[abu afak]

You could always provide the fossil record.... Ohh wait no you cant because there is none showing any such thing.

1.

2.

3. Rendering

.

 

[Seymour Flops]

LOL!

I love how expressive these are!

The four on the top are clearly apes, or more correctly, badly rendered drawings of apes created from fragments of skulls that may or may not have been from apes, depending on how accurately the fragments were filled in.

The eight on the top look like a cross section of attendees at the last Democratic Party convention. They are silly and ignorant, but clearly, they are human.

 

[abu afak]

View attachment 593585
LOL!

I love how expressive these are!

The four on the top are clearly apes, or more correctly, badly rendered drawings of apes created from fragments of skulls that may or may not have been from apes, depending on how accurately the fragments were filled in.

The eight on the top look like a cross section of attendees at the last Democratic Party convention. They are silly and ignorant, but clearly, they are human.

You Ignored the skeletal and went for the renderings.

NatGeo - Homo Naledi

While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo.

""A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife.
Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans."..."

"....Delezene’s own fossil pile contained 190 teeth—a critical part of any analysis, since teeth alone are often enough to identify a species. But these teeth weren’t like anything the scientists in the “tooth booth” had ever seen. Some features were astonishingly humanlike—the molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive. “We’re not sure what to make of these,” Delezene said. “It’s crazy.”

The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables.
A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees.
The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’s—but the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s. The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.

“You could almost draw a line through the hips—primitive above, modern below,” said Steve Churchill, a paleontologist from Duke University. “If you’d found the foot by itself, you’d think some Bushman had died.”...
[.....]

This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?

Homo naledi, discovered in a cave near Johannesburg, is a human ancestor unlike any species previously known. The find is arguably one of the most important discoveries in human origins research in half a century. It’s also the most perplexing.

www.nationalgeographic.com

`

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I will admit starting with neanderthal science has a direct link to us. Before that the link does not exist, it is a bunch of guesses and assumptions.

 

[abu afak]

I will admit starting with neanderthal science has a direct link to us. Before that the link does not exist, it is a bunch of guesses and assumptions.

Still NOTHING for me?

RetiredGySgt said:
You have not nor has anyone else proven the claim. As for predisposed I am a Mormon hardly what I was brought up to believe. Unlike you godless fools I prayed and God answered my prayers.

Me: Which/Witch god?
Billions of others pray to other gods that contradict yours.
At least 75% of the planet has it wrong.
What we know for sure is man created/fabricated gods.. thousands.

`

 

[Hollie]

I will admit starting with neanderthal science has a direct link to us. Before that the link does not exist, it is a bunch of guesses and assumptions.

''.... because I say so''.

A really compelling argument.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You Ignored the skeletal and went for the renderings.

NatGeo - Homo Naledi

View attachment 593628
While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo.

""A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife.
Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans."..."

"....Delezene’s own fossil pile contained 190 teeth—a critical part of any analysis, since teeth alone are often enough to identify a species. But these teeth weren’t like anything the scientists in the “tooth booth” had ever seen. Some features were astonishingly humanlike—the molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive. “We’re not sure what to make of these,” Delezene said. “It’s crazy.”

The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables.
A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees.
The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’s—but the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s. The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.

“You could almost draw a line through the hips—primitive above, modern below,” said Steve Churchill, a paleontologist from Duke University. “If you’d found the foot by itself, you’d think some Bushman had died.”...
[.....]

This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?

Homo naledi, discovered in a cave near Johannesburg, is a human ancestor unlike any species previously known. The find is arguably one of the most important discoveries in human origins research in half a century. It’s also the most perplexing.

www.nationalgeographic.com

`

All you showed was renderings unless I missed it.

If you showed the skeletal, it would just be small piles of bone fragments. The paleontologists fill in well over half the "fossils" with Imagination and plaster.

 

[abu afak]

All you showed was renderings unless I missed it.

If you showed the skeletal, it would just be small piles of bone fragments. The paleontologists fill in well over half the "fossils" with Imagination and plaster.

And so you Skipped the new NatGeo Homo Naledi Completely. Description of skeletal remains. etc.
You are a Non-answering FRAUD as always.
No answers at all or No answers to vast majority of any post.

Seymour Flops again.

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

And so you Skipped the new NatGeo Homo Naledi Completely. Description of skeletal remains. etc.
You are a Non-answering FRAUD as always.
No answers at all or No answers to vast majority of any post.

Seymour Flops again.

`

I'll look again later. I'm at work right now.

You say I'll see a complete skeleton of a transitory species between non-human and human?

 

[abu afak]

I'll look again later. I'm at work right now.

You say I'll see a complete skeleton of a transitory species between non-human and human?

Sooner, later, you always DISHONESTLY WHIFF.
You're a FRAUD.
No answers to my posts, or like this time, No answer to 95%.

You're a FRAUD.
`

You did the same thing to my post #467.
and I reminded/repeated it in posts #490 and #491 !! and then you didn't answer that at all.

​

And FLOPPED Seymour left out 95% of my post​

namely:​

​

ME: works by mutation and all life forms are constantly evolving.​

No creature is in some final or 'perfect' form.​

​

We are not designed and ergo are not totally separate from our ancestors and always on our way to better evolving to our environments.​

That's WHY we have vestiges and strong evidence of common descent/Evolution.​

All evidence from fossils to DNA Backs this.​

NOTHING backs 'design.'​

​

​

Seymour Flops said:

Without input from some form of intelligence, there is no function, because function requires intent. Intent requires intelligence.​

ME: False, of course, god boy.​

You were the one who I just PORKED when you suggested god sent the meteor which wiped out the dinosaurs.​

Slowest, Sloppiest, most brutal and clumsy 'design/intent' I ever saw.​

You can't show 'Design' or 'intent.​

​

Worse than Flames Blond...​

You're a 100% Proselytizing BS artist.​

A + B = C...​

except there is NO 'A' and NO 'B'​

You Flaming POS.​

​

Seymour Flops said:

The function of water running downhill is not to turn a waterwheel that generates electricity. It may well do that, but designing a wheel to harness the power of running water requires intelligent input.​

​

Maybe - maybe - whatever intelligence designed life on Earth, also placed many strategic streams to be available when humans discovered water power. There seems an abundance of raw materials available awaiting for intelligent uses to be made of it.​

"Maybe" there's a 300 mile high Liberace somewhere in Andromeda controlling the universe.​

​

​

Seymour Flops said:

But we know for sure that a simple machine such as a block and tackle does not occur without intelligent design. If we are honest, we know that life on Earth is far more complicated than a block and tackle, and therefore even less likely to have come about by random events.​

ME: There's no 'design' and no 'intent' and you have shown none.​

Yet you keep DISHONESTLY or DELUSIONALLY trying to inject 'Design' you Cannot show.​

You're a persistent religious Liar.​

​

If it was just you and me you would go away.​

I've stuffed/shut you up numerous times, so you latch on to some weaker reply.​

But I'm still here to call your BS.​

-----
`


You're A FRAUD.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sooner, later, you always DISHONESTLY WHIFF.
You're a FRAUD.
No answers to my posts, or like this time, No answer to 95%.

You're a FRAUD.
`

You did the same thing to my post #467.
and I reminded/repeated it in posts #490 and #491 !! and then you didn't answer that at all.

​

And FLOPPED Seymour left out 95% of my post​

namely:​

​

ME: works by mutation and all life forms are constantly evolving.​

No creature is in some final or 'perfect' form.​

​

We are not designed and ergo are not totally separate from our ancestors and always on our way to better evolving to our environments.​

That's WHY we have vestiges and strong evidence of common descent/Evolution.​

All evidence from fossils to DNA Backs this.​

NOTHING backs 'design.'​

​

​

ME: False, of course, god boy.​

You were the one who I just PORKED when you suggested god sent the meteor which wiped out the dinosaurs.​

Slowest, Sloppiest, most brutal and clumsy 'design/intent' I ever saw.​

You can't show 'Design' or 'intent.​

​

Worse than Flames Blond...​

You're a 100% Proselytizing BS artist.​

A + B = C...​

except there is NO 'A' and NO 'B'​

You Flaming POS.​

​

"Maybe" there's a 300 mile high Liberace somewhere in Andromeda controlling the universe.​

​

​

ME: There's no 'design' and no 'intent' and you have shown none.​

Yet you keep DISHONESTLY or DELUSIONALLY trying to inject 'Design' you Cannot show.​

You're a persistent religious Liar.​

​

If it was just you and me you would go away.​

I've stuffed/shut you up numerous times, so you latch on to some weaker reply.​

But I'm still here to call your BS.​

-----
`


You're A FRAUD.

So, that's a no on that complete skeleton?

 

[abu afak]

So, that's a no on that complete skeleton?

NO CONTENT FRAUD.
There's over 100 Naledi Skeletons of various states.
And even with a partials it/They have modern human hands but Climbing tree fingers.. etc, etc

YOU'RE A FRAUD..
`
\
Again:

"... Some features were astonishingly humanlike—the molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive. “We’re not sure what to make of these,” Delezene said. “It’s crazy.”

The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables.
A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees.
The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’s—but the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s.
The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.

“You could almost draw a line through the hips—primitive above, modern below,” said Steve Churchill, a paleontologist from Duke University. “If you’d found the foot by itself, you’d think some Bushman had died.”...​

 

[Seymour Flops]

NO CONTENT FRAUD.
There's over 100 Naledi Skeletons of various states.
And even with a partials it/They have modern human hands but Climbing tree fingers.. etc, etc

YOU'RE A FRAUD..
`
\
Again:

"... Some features were astonishingly humanlike—the molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive. “We’re not sure what to make of these,” Delezene said. “It’s crazy.”​

​

The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables.​

A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees.​

The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’s—but the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s. ​

The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.​

​

“You could almost draw a line through the hips—primitive above, modern below,” said Steve Churchill, a paleontologist from Duke University. “If you’d found the foot by itself, you’d think some Bushman had died.”...​

Ok if that's all true, show me a picture of the most complete Naledi skeleton. Not a drawing, not bone fragments covered with modelling material to show what it "would have looked like."

Just an actual photograph of the actual specimen, if you please.

 

[abu afak]

Ok if that's all true, show me a picture of the most complete Naledi skeleton. Not a drawing, not bone fragments covered with modelling material to show what it "would have looked like."

Just an actual photow graph of the actual specimen, if you please.

I don't have to show you a complete skeleton.
They have human hands and ape Fingers.
Human molars and ape roots of them
even on the Same Pelvis it differs top to bottom, etc.
in the bolded section.
100+ skeletons found in the same cave

You are DISHONEST and Stupid Liar.

`

 

[Hollie]

So, that's a no on that complete skeleton?

This is the grinding ignorance that typifies the creationer mindset. The expectation of perfectly preserved fossil remains of every single intermediate change of species after hundreds of thousands of years is right of the playbook of the creationer ministries,

It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You could always provide the fossil record.... Ohh wait no you cant because there is none showing any such thing.

The entire fossil record shows us this. It has convinced the entire scientific community. Doesn't that give you pause to wonder if, oh just maybe, you just don't have any idea what you are talking about? A normal person would think that way.

So, the very wolf like animal that appeared then disappeared shortly before wolves appeared... where did it come from? Where did it go?

This should be good.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are the "collective physical laws" self-aware that they are selecting?

Or is that just a way to avoid saying that it is random?

I just covered that. If you have a point to make, go ahead and try to make it.

You either don't know what "select" means, or you want a special definition that allows inanimate factors to "select."

No, it means you don't understand the concept of selection. This is you trying to force your magical sky daddy into a place where it is not required. Again. And again and again and again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Before that the link does not exist, it is a bunch of guesses and assumptions.

Well that's very stupid of you. So everything before neanderthals was magic? Or do you think, oh just maybe, the universe worked the same before neanderthals as after neanderthals?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I don't have to show you a complete skeleton.
They have human hands and ape Fingers.
Human molars and ape roots of them
even on the Same Pelvis it differs top to bottom, etc.
in the bolded section.
100+ skeletons found in the same cave

You are DISHONEST and Stupid Liar.

`

It is you who are making claims but not showing any photos of these supposed skeletons.

What about this fossil discovery. I suppose you will say this is real also?

"The . . . fossils were found over several years and included a mandible and set of teeth, parts of a human-like skull and a canine tooth. There were also rudimentary stone tools, a carved slab of bone and fragments of fossils from Pleistocene- or Pliocene-era mammals, De Groote told Live Science.

"The fossils had the same dark reddish-brown color as the surrounding Pleistocene or Pliocene gravel pits in which they were uncovered. The mandible resembled an ape's, while the skull appeared human, and the canine tooth could have belonged to either species."

That seems just as convincing.

Are you convinced?