Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[Thermos aquaticus]

A: “How you got Lucy’s age?”

B: “Oh, based on the strata above, below, and sides”

A: “But how you got the age of the strata above, below, and sides?”

B: “Based on The Theory of Index Fossil”

False. It is based on the measurement of parent and daughter isotopes in the igneous rocks above and below a fossil. Again, age is a measurement.

I believe in the God of the Bible and I don’t belong to any lineages of chimps, that’s my reality.

Do you really think that reality changes to conform to our grand pronouncements? Do you think you can make the Moon turn into cheese by merely saying that a cheesy Moon is part of your reality?

It still amazes me that people think reality changes to fit their beliefs.

 

[shmogie]

It is the skeletal and tissue structure of the wings that matter. Those are the physical characteristics. Here is a comparison of the bird and bat wing which demonstrates how different they really are, just as we would expect from convergent evolution:

Convergent evolution produces analogies and not homologies. It is pretty easy to see that the bird and bat wing are two very different things and are not homologous.

Nevertheless, basic classification doesn't go into detailed differences in structure till further down the classification chain. My point is that basic classification is arbitrary based upon agreed parameters.

Instead of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, etc. it could be just as easily for classification purposes, animals that fly, animals with two legs, four legs, more than four legs, that swim,etc. Sub classification then would be based on the differences in the particular groups.

Classification isn't an edict of law, it is an arbitrary agreed upon method to bring order to the vast amount of life that exists.

Macro evolutionists sometimes use this system to make connections, that wouldn't exist using another system.

It all depends upon how you are going to decide what goes into which bucket.

I have no problem with the current system. What I have a problem with is the idea that it is flawless and the law, and that life cannot be considered in any other way but how this law dictates

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Nevertheless, basic classification doesn't go into detailed differences in structure till further down the classification chain. My point is that basic classification is arbitrary based upon agreed parameters.

It is a point without basic evidence to back it.

Instead of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, etc. it could be just as easily for classification purposes, animals that fly, animals with two legs, four legs, more than four legs, that swim,etc. Sub classification then would be based on the differences in the particular groups.

That is just a bare assertion. Until you build the phylogenies based on synapomorphies you are just whistling in the wind.

You can't claim that a different classification works better at organizing physical characteristics until you do so.

 

[shmogie]

It is a point without basic evidence to back it.



That is just a bare assertion. Until you build the phylogenies based on synapomorphies you are just whistling in the wind.

You can't claim that a different classification works better at organizing physical characteristics until you do so.

You apparently know little of the history of Classification. I suggest you Begin with Linnaeus and go from there.

It is easy to say what must be done when looking through the filter of an established system, and it's rules.

 

[Neb]

False. It is based on the measurement of parent and daughter isotopes in the igneous rocks above and below a fossil. Again, age is a measurement.

In the absence of igneous rocks, do you think you could measure the age of sedimentary rocks with K/Ar dating method or with just fossil index theory?

Do you really think that reality changes to conform to our grand pronouncements? Do you think you can make the Moon turn into cheese by merely saying that a cheesy Moon is part of your reality?

It still amazes me that people think reality changes to fit their beliefs.

It’s the same thing, do you think you can turn a chimp into a man by merely saying that man came from a chimp? So, if I say my reality is, I believe in God, and your reality is, you believe that you came from a chimp then it shouldn’t amaze at all that our reality came from our beliefs, right?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You apparently know little of the history of Classification. I suggest you Begin with Linnaeus and go from there.

It is easy to say what must be done when looking through the filter of an established system, and it's rules.

I am still waiting for you to construct your alternate classification system based on synapomorphies, and then show how your alternate classification system works better than the modern classifications. Also, you need to test your phylogenies with gold standard algorithms to show that the phylogenetic signal in your new classification system performs better. Surely you have already done this work before trashing the current system, right?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

In the absence of igneous rocks, do you think you could measure the age of sedimentary rocks with K/Ar dating method or with just fossil index theory?

Absolute dating requires igneous rocks. This includes K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating. I am aware of a few newer techniques that are trying to use radiometric methods to date the lithification of sedimentary rock, but the gold standard for dating a fossil are the radiometric methods used on igneous rocks.

Added in edit: Lucy and other Australopithecines are associated with the KBS tuff which is made up of volcanic ash. This is one of the sediments that was used to date quite a few of the hominid transitional fossils.

It’s the same thing, do you think you can turn a chimp into a man by merely saying that man came from a chimp?

No one is saying that man came from a chimp. We are saying that they share a common ancestor from which both species evolved. On top of that, we have evidence such as orthologous ERVs and transitional fossils. We aren't just saying it. We are supporting it with evidence.

So, if I say my reality is, I believe in God, and your reality is, you believe that you came from a chimp then it shouldn’t amaze at all that our reality came from our beliefs, right?

I am pointing to evidence found in reality. You are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The 10 Commandments that God gave to Moses, right?

Let me be clear, Are you talking about the ten laws that were carved in stone, given to Moses by God, and called the "Ten Commandments" in the Bible?

Very bad analogy, the two are not analogous at all. Why would you test something, like a turtle, that is known, i.e., theoretically, that it cannot run 100 mph? You only test something that is falsifiable. If C-14 fails it will prove that it is really a 68 million-year-old t-rex and it will also at the same time disprove my claim. Testing the presence of C-14 will also test the absence of C-14.

No, it is a perfect analogy and it only demonstrates you do not know anything of geology. We already know that Lucy is millions of years old, just as we know that a turtle cannot run at 100 mph. Just because you don't know that a turtle can't run at 100 mph is no excuse to test the speed of the turtle. I already explained to you how we know the date of Lucy. You came back with a bgus argument that involved Steve Austin (Not the Six Million Dollar Man, he is definitely not stronger nor faster).

You don't destroy perfectly good fossils with an idiotic test.

 

[Neb]

Absolute dating requires igneous rocks. This includes K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating. I am aware of a few newer techniques that are trying to use radiometric methods to date the lithification of sedimentary rock, but the gold standard for dating a fossil are the radiometric methods used on igneous rocks.

Like I said, in the absence of igneous rock, and most of the time they are, sedimentary rocks were measured by means index fossil theory and that was the reason for this:
A: “How you got Lucy’s age?”

B: “Oh, based on the strata above, below, and sides”

A: “But how you got the age of the strata above, below, and sides?”

B: “Based on The Theory of Index Fossil”

A: “So, how you got the The Theory of Index Fossil?”

B: “Oh, based on the strata above, below and sides”

A: “Is that how you got Lucy’s age?”

B: “SO WHAT”

So, is it true or false?

No one is saying that man came from a chimp. We are saying that they share a common ancestor from which both species evolved.

From an ape-like being or Lucy, the chimp, right?

On top of that, we have evidence such as orthologous ERVs and transitional fossils. We aren't just saying it. We are supporting it with evidence.

So you're saying from transitional fossils you could extract the dna, right? Explain to me what ERVs in your own words.

I am pointing to evidence found in reality. You are not.

What evidence are you talking about? molecule to man is your evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A: “How you got Lucy’s age?”

B: “Oh, based on the strata above, below, and sides”

What? No, not "sides"!. Once again you show that you are not following the conversation.

A: “But how you got the age of the strata above, below, and sides?”

B: “Based on The Theory of Index Fossil”

Wrong again. Those are dated directly with radiometric dating. Please try to pay attention. And once again not "sides".

A: “So, how you got The Theory of Index Fossil?”

B: “Oh, based on the strata above, below and sides”

A: “Is that how you got Lucy’s age?”

B: “SO WHAT”

When you have to make up such ignorant and blatantly dishonest strawman arguments it shows you are either lying, desperate, or totally lost.

Once again, in Lucy's case layers below her, which had to be older (do you understand that?) were dated directly with the Ar/Ar dating method.

Layers above her, which had to be younger than her (do you understand that?) were dated directly with the Ar/Ar method. That gave us a bracket for her age.

For example if you knew that a person was born after WWI and before WWII we would have a rough estimate of their age. The peace time between the wars puts a bracket on that age.

I believe in the God of the Bible and I don’t belong to any lineages of chimps, that’s my reality.

No, you believe in your own misinterpretation of the Bible. And like it or not you are an ape.

You mean my faith is so strong, and not “so weak”, that I can’t accept “parts of the Bible are morality tales at best”, right?

No, weak. Only the weak in faith have to call God a liar to believe in him. For some reason you can't believe in both reality and God. That indicates a weak faith.

Dawkins, your god, says: “Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying—a replicator.” This is a Rabbit Hole fantasy.

No, you are projecting your flaws upon others. Why do you think that others need a god? And sorry, you are the one that believes in violating the laws of science. There is no violation of those laws in abiogenesis. But then we won't discuss that until you understand your errors in regards to evolution. Your inability to understand science cannot be use to refute it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Like I said, in the absence of igneous rock, and most of the time they are, sedimentary rocks were measured by means index fossil theory and that was the reason for this:

Where did you show that the majority of dates are based on index fossils?

A: “How you got Lucy’s age?”

By using radiometric dating on the KBS tuff.

added in edit: Wiki has a nice discussion on how the fossil was dated:

"Fieldwork at Hadar was suspended in the winter of 1976–77. When it was resumed thirteen years later in 1990, the more precise argon-argon technology had been updated by Derek York at the University of Toronto. By 1992 Aronson and Robert Walter had found two suitable samples of volcanic ash – the older layer of ash was about 18 m below the fossil and the younger layer was only one meter below, closely marking the age of deposition of the specimen. These samples were argon-argon dated by Walter in the geochronology laboratory of the Institute of Human Origins at 3.22 and 3.18 million years."
Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

Pee reviewed paper can be found here:

Age of Lucy and the First Family: Single-crystal 40Ar/39Ar dating of the Denen Dora and lower Kada Hadar members of the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia | Geology | GeoScienceWorld

So you're saying from transitional fossils you could extract the dna, right?

What we are saying is that there are fossils with a mixture of ape-like and human-like features which is support for the theory of humans evolving from an ape-like ancestor.

Explain to me what ERVs in your own words.
What evidence are you talking about? molecule to man is your evidence?

ERV's are endogenous retroviruses. These are pieces of a virus that the virus inserts into the host genome, and they do so randomly. Therefore, finding the same random insertion at the same position in two genomes is evidence that they share a common ancestor into which that virus inserted. If retroviruses inserted into genomes independently then they would produce ERV's that are not found at the same position. There are about 200,000 ERV's in the human genome, and all but ~100 of them are found at the same exact spot in the chimp genome.

 

[Neb]

Let me be clear, Are you talking about the ten laws that were carved in stone, given to Moses by God, and called the "Ten Commandments" in the Bible?

Yeah, that's the one.

No, it is a perfect analogy and it only demonstrates you do not know anything of geology.

So by saying these you think you knew better, right? Wrong!

We already know that Lucy is millions of years old, just as we know that a turtle cannot run at 100 mph. Just because you don't know that a turtle can't run at 100 mph is no excuse to test the speed of the turtle. I already explained to you how we know the date of Lucy. You came back with a bgus argument that involved Steve Austin (Not the Six Million Dollar Man, he is definitely not stronger nor faster).

You don't destroy perfectly good fossils with an idiotic test.

You only test what is falsifiable. In the case of the turtle, theoretically, it cannot run 100 mph while Lucy, a hoax, would need a C-14 testing so you can make your claim valid and at the same time make my claim false. Do you understand this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn’t know that you are being played to believe that Lucy, the 3.2 million-year-old chimp, is only a 92-year-old chimp? You are so naïve, man.

Wrong again. I understand this topic fairly well. You have no clue at all. You believe stories that were morality tales for children at best. Lucy is much closer to you than she is a closer to a chimp. You are in effect calling yourself a chimp. You really need to work on your arguments

Let's start by comparing hip bones. One of these things is not like the other:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, that's the one.

Just checking, then in everyday use is the Tenth Commandment a law against, and forgive the interpretation in to "street language" a ban on:

A Lying.

B Stealing.

C Desiring.

D. Cheesebrugers

Sorry ran out.

So by saying these you think you knew better, right? Wrong!
You only test what is falsifiable. In the case of the turtle, theoretically, it cannot run 100 mph while Lucy, a hoax, would need a C-14 testing so you can make your claim valid and at the same time make my claim false. Do you understand this?

Of course I know better. Every scientist that studies this knows better. And yes, a turtle cannot theoretically run faster than 100 mph and by the same reasoning Lucy cannot be less than 50,000 years old. Once again, just because a person does not know that a turtle cannot run a hundred miles per hour is no excuse to test that turtle.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Wrong again. I understand this topic fairly well. You have no clue at all. You believe stories that were morality tales for children at best. Lucy is much closer to you than she is a closer to a chimp. You are in effect calling yourself a chimp. You really need to work on your arguments

Let's start by comparing hip bones. One of these things is not like the other:

I have always like this one:



These are from CT scans of actual pelvises and fossils with some smoothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have always like this one:



These are from CT scans of actual pelvises and fossils with some smoothing.

Nice one. I have not seen that before. The side view of the pelvis's is obvious to even a four year old.

 

[Neb]

Where did you show that the majority of dates are based on index fossils?

By using radiometric dating on the KBS tuff.


added in edit: Wiki has a nice discussion on how the fossil was dated:


"Fieldwork at Hadar was suspended in the winter of 1976–77. When it was resumed thirteen years later in 1990, the more precise argon-argon technology had been updated by Derek York at the University of Toronto. By 1992 Aronson and Robert Walter had found two suitable samples of volcanic ash – the older layer of ash was about 18 m below the fossil and the younger layer was only one meter below, closely marking the age of deposition of the specimen. These samples were argon-argon dated by Walter in the geochronology laboratory of the Institute of Human Origins at 3.22 and 3.18 million years."

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia


Pee reviewed paper can be found here:


Age of Lucy and the First Family: Single-crystal 40Ar/39Ar dating of the Denen Dora and lower Kada Hadar members of the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia | Geology | GeoScienceWorld

they were saying they couldn't get the right age using K-Ar dating method, right? Why didn't they use the fossil index theory then? They want the millions of years so they invented or updated the Ar-Ar dating method so they could get what they want.

What we are saying is that there are fossils with a mixture of ape-like and human-like features which is support for the theory of humans evolving from an ape-like ancestor.

You simply connecting things that were not there, to begin with. For example, you guys were supposed to evolve from the Hominid, the Javaman, and the Neanderthals but Homo-Sapiens’ remains were found in the same place where most of these supposedly prehistoric ancestors of yours were found. How do you explain that? Homo-Sapiens were running around at the same time with YOUR ancestors, the Hominid, the Javaman, the Neanderthals and of course don’t forget the Piltdown Man?

 

[Subduction Zone]

they were saying they couldn't get the right age using K-Ar dating method, right? Why didn't they use the fossil index theory then? They want the millions of years so they invented or updated the Ar-Ar dating method so they could get what they want.

No, that is now what he said at all. Once again, radiometric dating gave a coarse date. Let's say older than 2 million years, but younger than 3 million years. Other evidence was used to refine that date.

You simply connecting things that were not there, to begin with. For example, you guys were supposed to evolve from the Hominid, the Javaman, and the Neanderthals but Homo-Sapiens’ remains were found in the same place where most of these supposedly prehistoric ancestors of yours were found. How do you explain that? Homo-Sapiens were running around at the same time with YOUR ancestors, the Hominid, the Javaman, the Neanderthals and of course don’t forget the Piltdown Man?

Oh my! The old "If Americans are descended from Europeans how come there are still Europeans?" argument.

What makes you think that species cannot overlap with their forerunners?

Lastly if a hoax against a concept disproves it then by that logic Christianity has been disproved a thousand times over. Pick your arguments a bit better.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

they were saying they couldn't get the right age using K-Ar dating method, right? Why didn't they use the fossil index theory then? They want the millions of years so they invented or updated the Ar-Ar dating method so they could get what they want.

You are ignoring the radiometric dating because it isn't what you want.

You simply connecting things that were not there, to begin with. For example, you guys were supposed to evolve from the Hominid, the Javaman, and the Neanderthals but Homo-Sapiens’ remains were found in the same place where most of these supposedly prehistoric ancestors of yours were found. How do you explain that? Homo-Sapiens were running around at the same time with YOUR ancestors, the Hominid, the Javaman, the Neanderthals and of course don’t forget the Piltdown Man?

Transitional is not the same as ancestral. Those are two different concepts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are ignoring the radiometric dating because it isn't what you want.



Transitional is not the same as ancestral. Those are two different concepts.

That creationists go out of their way to misunderstand what transitional means is indicative of cognitive dissonance at best. Sometimes a person has to "lie to oneself" in self defense of a cherished idea. What drives me nuts are those that get it only half way and then pretend that shows that transitional fossils are not evidence for evolution.