Isn't this cute?

[Dan From Smithville]

I was speaking about war and the idea that it had been taught by some well-educated and influential persons that it was necessary to reduce the population. Further, the idea of eugenics was highly promoted among well-educated and influential people in the not-too-distant past. An interesting thought was put by someone about racisim in marriage, including those of royalty, and the Hindu caste system. In the U.S. not too long ago, some states forbade inter-'racial' marriages. There could be discussion about this, but the question arises: what really is meant by the term 'race'?

In discussions about evolution, creationists generally attempt to connect the science to racism. I can see no other reason for bringing it up here in this thread now than that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please show the evidence.

This is the fiction that you are thriving on. This is not the first thread you have participated in where this has been discussed. On those threads the evidence of Neanderthal and human introgression was discussed by many people. Pretending that you have not seen something previously presented is not expression of the Christian values you claim to hold.

Frankly I am surprised.

 

[exchemist]

This is the fiction that you are thriving on. This is not the first thread you have participated in where this has been discussed. On those threads the evidence of Neanderthal and human introgression was discussed by many people. Pretending that you have not seen something previously presented is not expression of the Christian values you claim to hold.

Frankly I am surprised.

Are you really, though? This repetition of demands to have things explained which have already been explained - or which can be found in countless places in books and on the internet - is just boilerplate creationist timewasting behaviour.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The reason apes are found ugly is precisely because they have features close enough to human ones that it is hard to put aside the comparison to human beings. Whereas with a bear or a penguin nobody makes that comparison.

So in a way the fact we may find these creatures ugly is itself a sort of evidence that we are related to them!

This makes complete sense, and I agree. We have in our minds very specific biases toward "beauty" when it comes to human beings because we are expressly familiar (likely as a result of both nature and nurture) with human features - so when something is close enough to that to pass, but has very significant differences, it can very easily be off-putting. And yes - no such default comparison is available for other categories of creatures, so they get a "free pass" on the "human beauty" metric.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you really, though? This repetition of demands to have things explained which have already been explained - or which can be found in countless places in books and on the internet - is just boilerplate creationist timewasting behaviour.

No, I am not really surprised. I would be surprised if they referred back to the previous discussions of the material they are demanding evidence for. That would be refreshing and surprising.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actual size of the Taung child skull fossil.

This is an infant.....a very small infant......but what species?

This is a young chimp..........................this is a one year old human child.

Now compare......

Which one does the Taung child skull fossil resemble more?
Please note the shape of the upper jaw and position of the nasal cavity.

Isn't it obvious? Isn't this a blind Freddy thing?

That skull you are claiming is a one year old human child is wrong. It looks like a fetal skull. Did you do that on purpose or was this a mistake because you don't know anything about science or anatomy?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please show the evidence.

I've given it to you several times before.
So have many other posters.
You ignored it.

Now for some reason, you're asking for it yet again as if you actually care to learn something.

Why all the games?

 

[exchemist]

No, I am not really surprised. I would be surprised if they referred back to the previous discussions of the material they are demanding evidence for. That would be refreshing and surprising.

Yep. Rule 1 of creationism is "Never, ever, learn."

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

That skull you are claiming is a one year old human child is wrong. It looks like a fetal skull. Did you do that on purpose or was this a mistake because you don't know anything about science or anatomy?

Totally agreed with you.

Deeje, if you want to compare the skull of a human fetus (like the one you posted) with a chimpazee fetus skull, here is the correct picture for comparing :
This is a chimpanzee fetal skull

Spoiler

If you want to compare a 1 year old chimpazee skull (the one you posted) with a 1 year old child skull, here is the correct children skull you should be using for comparison:
Human child skull picture

Spoiler

If you want to play with the physiological comparison at least let's be honest about the material provided then.

 

[metis]

New depictions of ancient hominids aim to overcome artistic biases | Science News

And your point is...?

 

[Deeje]

OK.....Let’s try this again.....

Note that this tiny “infant” has a full set of teeth, so.....
it is not a newborn or very young human, as they do not have a full set of teeth until closer to two years of age.....the skull size is not that of a two year old human.

This is the skull of a 1-2 year old human

This is a young chimp...

Now compare......

Which one does the Taung child skull fossil resemble more?
Please note the shape of the upper jaw and the length of the distance between the nasal cavity and the teeth.

I guess some people only see what they want to see.....

This one skull has to be “evidence” supporting evolution, even though the scientists can’t really tell if its an infant ape or a human. Suggesting that it is an intermediate species between apes and humans is impossible to confirm.

Looks like a chimp to me.....guessing and wishful thinking does not qualify as science......or does it?

 

[Polymath257]

Looks like a chimp to me.....guessing and wishful thinking does not qualify as science......or does it?

Except that the foramen magnum was below the skull, showing upright posture. Not at the location of a chimps (even a young one). The endocast of the brain shows a more complicated pattern than seen in chimps.

So, no, it is definitely NOT a chimp.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK.....Let’s try this again.....

Note that this tiny “infant” has a full set of teeth, so.....
it is not a newborn or very young human, as they do not have a full set of teeth until closer to two years of age.....the skull size is not that of a two year old human.

This is the skull of a 1-2 year old human

This is a young chimp...

Now compare......

Which one does the Taung child skull fossil resemble more?
Please note the shape of the upper jaw and the length of the distance between the nasal cavity and the teeth.

I guess some people only see what they want to see.....

This one skull has to be “evidence” supporting evolution, even though the scientists can’t really tell if its an infant ape or a human. Suggesting that it is an intermediate species between apes and humans is impossible to confirm.

Looks like a chimp to me.....guessing and wishful thinking does not qualify as science......or does it?

Yes, we know you are biased against anything you do not understand and goes against your churches doctrine.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK.....Let’s try this again.....

Note that this tiny “infant” has a full set of teeth, so.....
it is not a newborn or very young human, as they do not have a full set of teeth until closer to two years of age.....the skull size is not that of a two year old human.

This is the skull of a 1-2 year old human

This is a young chimp...

Now compare......

Which one does the Taung child skull fossil resemble more?
Please note the shape of the upper jaw and the length of the distance between the nasal cavity and the teeth.

I guess some people only see what they want to see.....

This one skull has to be “evidence” supporting evolution, even though the scientists can’t really tell if its an infant ape or a human. Suggesting that it is an intermediate species between apes and humans is impossible to confirm.

Looks like a chimp to me.....guessing and wishful thinking does not qualify as science......or does it?

When are you going to publish your work on this?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

OK.....Let’s try this again.....

Looks like a chimp to me.....guessing and wishful thinking does not qualify as science......or does it?

So... in order to refute that humans are descendant of something that was more like a chimp, you present that a current human skull looks less like a chimp and that a proposed older ancestor of human beings looks more like a chimp?

Do you even understand what you are doing?

 

[Deeje]

So... in order to refute that humans are descendant of something that was more like a chimp, you present that a current human skull looks less like a chimp and that a proposed older ancestor of human beings looks more like a chimp?

Do you even understand what you are doing?

Yes.....I am pointing out that this is a very big fraud. Having read up on the findings of later research, I saw that this skull was identified by other scientists as a young ape......not related to humans.

There are no intermediate species, because evolution has NO concrete proof for its validity. It is based on “interpreted” evidence, rather than actual facts. Supposition and suggestions are not facts. “Evidence” can be “interpreted” any way science wants to present it....that doesn’t make it true.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes.....I am pointing out that this is a very big fraud. Having read up on the findings of later research, I saw that this skull was identified by other scientists as a young ape......not related to humans.

It is an ape. But so are humans. And it *is* related to humans.

There are no intermediate species, because evolution has NO concrete proof for its validity.

Funny. The Taung child and other Australopithecus species are good evidence of 'intermediate' species, both in time and in anatomy.

It is based on “interpreted” evidence, rather than actual facts. Supposition and suggestions are not facts. “Evidence” can be “interpreted” any way science wants to present it....that doesn’t make it true.

No, actually, it cannot. Any interpretation has to agree with the actual data. And we can measure various aspects of the fossils and compare to similar aspects of modern apes, modern humans, as well as other ancient apes and ancient humans.

In the case of the Taung child, we have an example of an intermediate between ancient apes and modern humans. That isn't a matter of interpretation alone. it is a matter of looking at the characteristics of the skull and comparing it to ancient apes, modern apes, and modern humans, as well as other ancient human-like species.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, I am not really surprised. I would be surprised if they referred back to the previous discussions of the material they are demanding evidence for. That would be refreshing and surprising.

Think about how many times we've all tried to explain to the same creationists what "theory" means in science, that science doesn't "prove" things, that scientists updating their models to reflect new data is how science works, etc., only to see those creationists go on to repeat the same original mistakes and act as if no one had ever explained anything to them?

For me, at some point the focus turns away from the creationists and their obvious refusal to learn, and towards the people who keep trying to educate them. I can understand trying to explain something to a creationist a few times, but after a while you have to wonder about the person who keeps saying the same things to the same person over, and over, and over, and over....all to no effect.

The "appeal to lurkers" doesn't apply, given how the point had been explained many, many times before, which means something else is going on. The two main things I figure drive folks to this folly are extreme boredom and stubbornness.

 

[YoursTrue]

Aha, moving the goalposts now, are we? Demanding "proof" now, instead of evidence, I see.

As you well know, science deals in evidence. Proof is for mathematics and logic. There is no such thing as "scientific proof" - except in the rhetorical vocabulary of creationists, of course.

So, ask for evidence, by all means.

I know by now that science takes what is deemed to be evidence of a theory and declare it to be right, correct, truth. I say truth even though by this time I know that word isn't used much. Nevertheless though, for the record, I appreciate scientists such as those that look for vaccines, doctors, and others that do such work,
When I went to school we were taught certain things about evolution as FACTS. At that time, I believed everything I was taught about evolution, not realizing (and we were not told) that what are called facts might change.

 

[Bear Wild]

As far as anything to explain the fossils, frankly other than conjecture, I don't see proof that these were ancestors biologically in the direct or indirect (like interbreeding) lineage of homo sapiens. So if you can show proof of this, that would be helpful. Now by that I mean you not only show me what scientists say about it, but the scientific proof (evidence, of course,) they have to show, prove, or demonstrate scientifically that these evolved to the present day human population. Thanks.

So your answer is to completely ignore the evidence because you do not like what it presents? I asked for your explanation and I get nothing but misguided statements of show proof despite the fact you have been told that science does not work with proofs. All theories are based on evidence which support the theory.

From your response we can be fairly certain you have no explanation of fossils and need to redirect the question on a tangent to avoid the fact you have no explanation and that is why your arguments fail. They cannot account for what is found in our world and thus you can only look for problems with Evolution theory instead of supporting what you believe actually occurred.