The Science of Human Evolution

[sayak83]

1.6-0.5 million years:- the emergence of Homo Erectus (Upright Man)

My last post demonstrated the fossil and stone tool evidence from which scientists conclude that the earliest members of our genus (Homo) evolved from the Australopithecines 2 million years ago distinguished by more complex behavior and increase in brain. These species (Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis) also migrated out of Africa for the first time into West Asia where their fossils begin to crop up.

Brain size continues to increase over succeeding generations over time for the human lineage. This gradual evolutionary increase in brain size is clearly seen in the figure below. Creationists should also note the complete absence of anything abrupt in brain size, an excellent vindication of evolution as well as the hard work of paleontologists who have compiled such an excellent fossil record.

Between the crucial period of 1.6-0.5 million years, the most widespread species in the human genus is Homo Erectus or "Upright Man" . An extremely successful lineage, they are credited with developing sophisticated stone tool technology, the first use of fire and the colonization of both Europe and East Asia. Arising at around 1.7 million years in Africa, they are descended from the early Homo species and quickly spread through West Asia and India (1.4 million years), Indonesia (1.2 million years) and China (0.9 million years). During the period from 1.7 million years to 0.5 million years, their brain sizes grow from 700 cc to 900 cc and eventually to 1050 cc.

Innovations included carefully prepared stone tools (the hand-axes)

The first systematic use of fire for cooking by 1 million years.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/ma...earliest-evidence-of-humans-cooking-with-fire

Lots of fossil evidence of Homo erectus have been found throughout Africa and Asia. Here is a complete skeleton of a 1.5 million year old adolescent boy (9 year old, 5 feet 3 inches) with brain size of 880 cc found in East Africa.

A complete skull of an adult female. 1.6 million years, also from East Africa

Notice the large brow-ridge even for a female despite the more human-like teeth and skull. Brain size 850 cc.

The discovery of a complete female pelvis has also shown that females were short and was already having fairly broad hips as the pelvis was getting broader to adjust to the increasing size of the baby's head. This evolution of a broader pelvis for females was also gradual. Homo Erectus females could deliver babies with heading having 315 cc brains, but its still smaller than the head size of our infants

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/11/14/2419711.htm

The expansion of Homo erectus to Indonesia by 1.4 mya and in China by 0.9 mya is also well documented by lots of fossils. Here is one 1.2 million old skull of H. erectus in Java with 1050 cc brain.

The basic differences between the skulls of a modern human and erectus is shown below.

But they still are a lot more similar in size and shape to later humans. One interesting factoid is they would be the first ones to sport a sharper looking nose extending out of the face, a bit like ours.

 

[ftacky]

Ape-men fossils are either ape fossils or outright fakes. None of them are intact and complete skeletons found lying on their side and encased in rock as one complete unit. They are separate bones - found either within the vicinity of each other or, at worst case, collected from miles apart each other.

This article below tells us that scientists believe Lucy is actually a fossil of a pygmy chimp, not an ape-man:

Article: Flesh and Bone (Discover Magazine 1991)

"The actual bones of Lucy are dark brown in this reconstruction. The rest are plaster casts based on other bones that, says Zihlman, may BELONG TO CREATURES OF SEVERAL SPECIES."

"Zihlman went so far as to compare the pygmy chimpanzee with Lucy, the hominid fossil found at Hadar in Ethiopia...The SIMILARITY between the two seemed STRIKING. They were ALMOST IDENTICAL in brain and body size and stature..."

"Lucy" is another evolutionary hoax. This story is very typical of all ape-men fossils.

They brought several crates of bones back from the field, filled with all kinds of animal bones. They pieced Lucy together simply by cherry picking and choosing those bones which seemed to match that of a hominid, and viola!

The book of Lucy's discovery has a large picture of Lucy where you can easily see very obvious mismatch in rib bones. The rib bones actually get larger in diameter (rather than smaller) as they go outward from the center - a real sham, IMHO.

Now some may say the appearance of mismatch is due to metal brackets holding the bones in place but in the book the mismatch is plain to see because the bones are lying on a table and WITHOUT any metal brackets.

To build up the evolutionists's faith, here are a few quotes from the book "Lucy, The beginnings of Humankind" by D.Johanson.

In the book, paleontologist D.Johanson says Lucy's bones were discovered exposed to the surface, scattered over a 3-mile stretch of desert wash (which collects debris from the surrounding area during flash floods), and took 4 years and several separate trips to collect samples for. He also commented on the fear of losing funding if no results were produced, and major competition and jealousy among fellow paleontologists vying for that funding.

In his book he states:

"When bones are scarce, speculation about them can be as daring as one cares to make it, and NO ONE CAN CONTRADICT THE SPECULATOR....When bones become more numerous--when a single fossil is augmented by a large sample of FRAGMENTS from a NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS--those fragments begin to make assertions about themselves that forbid some earlier SPECULATIONS. the increase of information cuts off a number of possibilities as to what they might be or what they might do. On the other hand a good assemblage of bones increases the respectability of certain speculations. On better evidence they improve themselves from merely HOPEFUL GUESSES to logical PROBABILITIES. Once in a great while, a set of bones provides a great certainty."

Comment: a great certainty of what? Especially when ape-men bones cannot be proven to belong to one individual?

In regards to the media reaction to his supposed finding, he says:

"Most of the press followed the line of the New York Times, treating the announcement as a piece of GROUNDBREAKING SCIENTIFIC NEWS, accepting it as reported, and making NO EFFORT TO CRITICIZE IT."

With respect to Lucy's leg bones/pelvis which supposedly showed an upright stance, he says:

"I BELIEVE, although I CANNOT PROVE IT, that they represent the upper legs of one individual."

Comment: If the DISCOVERER of Lucy can't make a solid claim about the leg bones belonging to the same individual, then nobody can.

Here is the problem with all ape-men fossils:
1) They find fragments from multiple individuals. They get FRAGMENTS, not the complete skeletons laying on their side to prove they are ONE individual.

2) They take those FRAGMENTS from DIFFERENT and UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, and try to derive a composite.

3) The last step is to sell their composite to the media for coverage, fame, and fortune. And a good number of faithful followers to believe it.

Verse for the day:
Romans 3: Let God be true and every man a liar.

 

[sayak83]

Ape-men fossils are either ape fossils or outright fakes. None of them are intact and complete skeletons found lying on their side and encased in rock as one complete unit. They are separate bones - found either within the vicinity of each other or, at worst case, collected from miles apart each other.

This article below tells us that scientists believe Lucy is actually a fossil of a pygmy chimp, not an ape-man:

Article: Flesh and Bone (Discover Magazine 1991)

"The actual bones of Lucy are dark brown in this reconstruction. The rest are plaster casts based on other bones that, says Zihlman, may BELONG TO CREATURES OF SEVERAL SPECIES."

"Zihlman went so far as to compare the pygmy chimpanzee with Lucy, the hominid fossil found at Hadar in Ethiopia...The SIMILARITY between the two seemed STRIKING. They were ALMOST IDENTICAL in brain and body size and stature..."

"Lucy" is another evolutionary hoax. This story is very typical of all ape-men fossils.

They brought several crates of bones back from the field, filled with all kinds of animal bones. They pieced Lucy together simply by cherry picking and choosing those bones which seemed to match that of a hominid, and viola!

The book of Lucy's discovery has a large picture of Lucy where you can easily see very obvious mismatch in rib bones. The rib bones actually get larger in diameter (rather than smaller) as they go outward from the center - a real sham, IMHO.

Now some may say the appearance of mismatch is due to metal brackets holding the bones in place but in the book the mismatch is plain to see because the bones are lying on a table and WITHOUT any metal brackets.

To build up the evolutionists's faith, here are a few quotes from the book "Lucy, The beginnings of Humankind" by D.Johanson.

In the book, paleontologist D.Johanson says Lucy's bones were discovered exposed to the surface, scattered over a 3-mile stretch of desert wash (which collects debris from the surrounding area during flash floods), and took 4 years and several separate trips to collect samples for. He also commented on the fear of losing funding if no results were produced, and major competition and jealousy among fellow paleontologists vying for that funding.

In his book he states:

"When bones are scarce, speculation about them can be as daring as one cares to make it, and NO ONE CAN CONTRADICT THE SPECULATOR....When bones become more numerous--when a single fossil is augmented by a large sample of FRAGMENTS from a NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS--those fragments begin to make assertions about themselves that forbid some earlier SPECULATIONS. the increase of information cuts off a number of possibilities as to what they might be or what they might do. On the other hand a good assemblage of bones increases the respectability of certain speculations. On better evidence they improve themselves from merely HOPEFUL GUESSES to logical PROBABILITIES. Once in a great while, a set of bones provides a great certainty."

Comment: a great certainty of what? Especially when ape-men bones cannot be proven to belong to one individual?

In regards to the media reaction to his supposed finding, he says:

"Most of the press followed the line of the New York Times, treating the announcement as a piece of GROUNDBREAKING SCIENTIFIC NEWS, accepting it as reported, and making NO EFFORT TO CRITICIZE IT."

With respect to Lucy's leg bones/pelvis which supposedly showed an upright stance, he says:

"I BELIEVE, although I CANNOT PROVE IT, that they represent the upper legs of one individual."

Comment: If the DISCOVERER of Lucy can't make a solid claim about the leg bones belonging to the same individual, then nobody can.

Here is the problem with all ape-men fossils:
1) They find fragments from multiple individuals. They get FRAGMENTS, not the complete skeletons laying on their side to prove they are ONE individual.

2) They take those FRAGMENTS from DIFFERENT and UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, and try to derive a composite.

3) The last step is to sell their composite to the media for coverage, fame, and fortune. And a good number of faithful followers to believe it.

Verse for the day:
Romans 3: Let God be true and every man a liar.

I do not have any time to spare on outright lies and quote mines made in the writings of a fake, dishonest and pseudo-scientific organization like the discovery institute. Just basic notes based on wikipedia itself is sufficient
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

Lucy's bones were scattered over many miles.

False. The entire fossil was found within a few sqaure meter area

" On a hunch, Johanson decided to look at the bottom of a small gully that had been checked at least twice before by other workers. At first view nothing was immediately visible, but as they turned to leave a fossil caught Johanson's eye; an arm bone fragment was lying on the slope. Near it lay a fragment from the back of a small skull. They noticed part of a femur (thigh bone) a few feet (about one meter) away. As they explored further, they found more and more bones on the slope, including vertebrae, part of a pelvis, ribs, and pieces of jaw. They marked the spot and returned to camp, excited at finding so many pieces apparently from one individual hominin.[2][11]
In the afternoon, all members of the expedition returned to the gully to section off the site and prepare it for careful excavation and collection, which eventually took three weeks. That first evening they celebrated at the camp; at some stage during the evening they named fossil AL 288-1 "Lucy", after the Beatles' song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", which was being played loudly and repeatedly on a tape recorder in the camp.[12]"


Lucy's bones are made up of many different creatures

False
Along with being found at the same few square meter area with the associated rock bed radio-metrically dated to the same time period, all the bones were unique with no repetitions and consistent shape and size proportions, thereby providing overwhelming evidence that they belonged to one individual.

"Over the next three weeks the team found several hundred pieces or fragments of bone with no duplication, confirming their original speculation that the pieces were from a single individual; ultimately, it was determined that an amazing 40 percent of a hominin skeleton was recovered at the site. Johanson assessed it as female based on the one complete pelvic bone and sacrum, which indicated the width of the pelvic opening.[12]"


There are many other cases where bones from multiple individuals are found and they are sorted by their repetitions and size differences. The entire process is computerized now, with the bone features CT-scanned and every feature detail uploaded on a computer where these features are carefully checked for consistency. The bone features of an individual are strongly constrained by the need to join up and articulate together. Other constraints are body symmetry and the fact that all bones of a larger individual must be large together and vice-versa (and these factors can be and are quantified). Each reconstruction team contain doctors in human and primate bone anatomy. The field in human fossil anatomy is especially good as the need to make bone implants and how to properly set fractured bones has led to a detailed knowledge of human bones and their close cousins, primates.


Rest of your stuff is just dishonest quote mines and outright lies and misinformation from the website that specializes in such nonsense. If and when you refer in them in context from the original sources, I will comment, otherwise not.

 

[Sapiens]

Ape-men fossils are either ape fossils or outright fakes. None of them are intact and complete skeletons found lying on their side and encased in rock as one complete unit. They are separate bones - found either within the vicinity of each other or, at worst case, collected from miles apart each other.

This article below tells us that scientists believe Lucy is actually a fossil of a pygmy chimp, not an ape-man:

Article: Flesh and Bone (Discover Magazine 1991)

"The actual bones of Lucy are dark brown in this reconstruction. The rest are plaster casts based on other bones that, says Zihlman, may BELONG TO CREATURES OF SEVERAL SPECIES."

"Zihlman went so far as to compare the pygmy chimpanzee with Lucy, the hominid fossil found at Hadar in Ethiopia...The SIMILARITY between the two seemed STRIKING. They were ALMOST IDENTICAL in brain and body size and stature..."

"Lucy" is another evolutionary hoax. This story is very typical of all ape-men fossils.

They brought several crates of bones back from the field, filled with all kinds of animal bones. They pieced Lucy together simply by cherry picking and choosing those bones which seemed to match that of a hominid, and viola!

The book of Lucy's discovery has a large picture of Lucy where you can easily see very obvious mismatch in rib bones. The rib bones actually get larger in diameter (rather than smaller) as they go outward from the center - a real sham, IMHO.

Now some may say the appearance of mismatch is due to metal brackets holding the bones in place but in the book the mismatch is plain to see because the bones are lying on a table and WITHOUT any metal brackets.

To build up the evolutionists's faith, here are a few quotes from the book "Lucy, The beginnings of Humankind" by D.Johanson.

In the book, paleontologist D.Johanson says Lucy's bones were discovered exposed to the surface, scattered over a 3-mile stretch of desert wash (which collects debris from the surrounding area during flash floods), and took 4 years and several separate trips to collect samples for. He also commented on the fear of losing funding if no results were produced, and major competition and jealousy among fellow paleontologists vying for that funding.

In his book he states:

"When bones are scarce, speculation about them can be as daring as one cares to make it, and NO ONE CAN CONTRADICT THE SPECULATOR....When bones become more numerous--when a single fossil is augmented by a large sample of FRAGMENTS from a NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS--those fragments begin to make assertions about themselves that forbid some earlier SPECULATIONS. the increase of information cuts off a number of possibilities as to what they might be or what they might do. On the other hand a good assemblage of bones increases the respectability of certain speculations. On better evidence they improve themselves from merely HOPEFUL GUESSES to logical PROBABILITIES. Once in a great while, a set of bones provides a great certainty."

Comment: a great certainty of what? Especially when ape-men bones cannot be proven to belong to one individual?

In regards to the media reaction to his supposed finding, he says:

"Most of the press followed the line of the New York Times, treating the announcement as a piece of GROUNDBREAKING SCIENTIFIC NEWS, accepting it as reported, and making NO EFFORT TO CRITICIZE IT."

With respect to Lucy's leg bones/pelvis which supposedly showed an upright stance, he says:

"I BELIEVE, although I CANNOT PROVE IT, that they represent the upper legs of one individual."

Comment: If the DISCOVERER of Lucy can't make a solid claim about the leg bones belonging to the same individual, then nobody can.

Here is the problem with all ape-men fossils:
1) They find fragments from multiple individuals. They get FRAGMENTS, not the complete skeletons laying on their side to prove they are ONE individual.

2) They take those FRAGMENTS from DIFFERENT and UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, and try to derive a composite.

3) The last step is to sell their composite to the media for coverage, fame, and fortune. And a good number of faithful followers to believe it.

Verse for the day:
Romans 3: Let God be true and every man a liar.

I thought that lying would send you to hell ... make room down there for a whole 'nother passel of dem Christians.

Confusing Lucy with a pygmy chimp would require that someone be blind, uneducated, and/or morally compromised.

Let's also keep in mind that apes include humans, chimps, pygmy chimps, etc., and all their progenitors going back some 25 million years to Rukwapithecus fleaglei.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, the abiogenesis line of thinking, and everything spawned from that. This falls on it's face though when you ask the question of why we have both male and female counterparts of the species. Something had to produce asexually to start, think cell division or even a hammerhead shark. If you subscribe to evolution in it's entirety, then at what point did a male counterpart spawn and then a female counterpart? Was it in a single generation?

And we can answer that. Most single celled species are not sexual, although many do allow transfer of DNA from one individual to another.

Many worms are hermaphroditic, they can play the role of both male and female, often simultaneously.

In many species, male and female are not genetically determined, but are determined by the environment. For example, many fish and amphibians will change sexes during their lives because of temperature changes.

Since you mention sharks:Sharks - Asexual Reproduction

Leopard shark makes world-first switch from sexual to asexual reproduction


And specifically hammerheads:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070523072254.htm

Notice that the *only* vertebrate group with no evidence of parthenogenesis (females reproducing without males) is the mammals.


The point is that you may have ideas about sexuality and reproduction that are correct for humans and other mammals, but not correct for the vast majority of species.

 

[Faithofchristian]

My previous posts has shown the fossil evidence for the emergence of the first human-like ancestors (hominins) after the human-chimp lineage divergence at around 7-6 million years ago. The characteristic feature of early hominins is their adaptation to walking on two legs on the ground in response to more open forests of the rapidly drying out tropical and subtropical Africa. Ardipithecus Ramidus fossils clearly show this adaptation while retaining excellent tree climbing ability as well. While many later hominin species will go every which way in adaptation, most will become increasingly better bipedal walkers and spend less time in trees and more time on the ground.

Why did bipedalism evolve?

Theory of evolution predicts that the evolution of bipedalism will be adaptive and will provide significant benefits to human ancestors. Researchers have established that:-

1) Bipedal walking of humans is highly energy efficient. The energy cost of human bipedal walking is two times more efficient than average energy cost of four-legged walking of general mammals and four times more efficient than the quadrupedal knuckle walking of chimpanzees.

Chimpanzee locomotor energetics and the origin of human bipedalism
Why Humans Walk On Two Legs

2)The human ancestors were (like chimps) already capable of upright walking over short distances, and as the forests dried out and gave way to more open woods, natural selection for a more efficient form of locomotion drove the species to evolve more efficient bipedal walking postures.

3) Chimpanzees, who lived in more closed tropical forests, did not face such evolutionary pressures and hence developed knuckle walking that gets the job done on the ground while they spent most of their time in trees where their anatomy is better. However a few groups of chimps engage in more bipedal walking as they live in more open forests and need to carry resources from forest patch to forest patch. These savannah chimps also show a lot of traits (extensive use of wooden sticks for hunting, using caves for shelter, using water for bathing) that give is hints of the behavior of earliest hominins who lived in similar environments.
Are Western Chimpanzees a New Species of Pan?

4) Research has shown that specialization for upright bipedal gait becomes evolutionary favorable for an ape when its habitat shifts enough that it is spending more than 60% of its time foraging on the ground.


All these points show that bipedalism was an adaptive trait that evolved in early hominins in response to drying of the forests so that they can spend more time moving on the ground looking for resources than in the trees.

You know after giving it some thought, and close examination.

You said "The first human like ancestors
( hominins ) after the human chimp lineage divergence at around 6-7 million of years ago.were found to walk on two legs.

Now this explains everything.
Seeing how this takes us back to the dinosaurs of million years ago.

How these ape like humans lived along side with the dinosaurs.

As for me, this explains it all, that back in the first earth age, of the dinosaurs and these human like apes lived along side with the dinosaurs.

That now to day, scientist found these human like ape fossils, buried in rocks.

And trys to tie them to the modern man of today.
You probably have no clue or idea what I'm talking about, when I speak of the first earth age.
But now I see how the first earth age of the dinosaurs and those ape like humans, living together with the dinosaurs back in the first earth age. Those ape like humans, were not actually humans, but resemble humans in their like manner of walking on two legs.
That now I see how this fits into the bible.

I know you have no clue or idea what the heck I'm talking about.

That's because you have no understanding about the first earth age.if you did, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[sayak83]

You know after giving it some thought, and close examination.

You said "The first human like ancestors
( hominins ) after the human chimp lineage divergence at around 6-7 million of years ago.were found to walk on two legs.

Now this explains everything.
Seeing how this takes us back to the dinosaurs of million years ago.

How these ape like humans lived along side with the dinosaurs.

As for me, this explains it all, that back in the first earth age, of the dinosaurs and these human like apes lived along side with the dinosaurs.

That now to day, scientist found these human like ape fossils, buried in rocks.

And trys to tie them to the modern man of today.
You probably have no clue or idea what I'm talking about, when I speak of the first earth age.
But now I see how the first earth age of the dinosaurs and those ape like humans, living together with the dinosaurs back in the first earth age. Those ape like humans, were not actually humans, but resemble humans in their like manner of walking on two legs.
That now I see how this fits into the bible.

I know you have no clue or idea what the heck I'm talking about.

That's because you have no understanding about the first earth age.if you did, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.

Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.
The earliest of the hominin fossil is from 7 million years ago..which is 58 million years after the dinosaurs went extinct.

Further the fossil lineage from ancestral apes to modern humans of today is a graded and continuous one. First from quadrupedal animals we have semibipedal animals to fully bipedal animals with hands more adapted to precise control than grasping branches. Fossil skeletons show that this transition occurs between 7-3 million years. At this point these hominins start making crude stone tools. Then from 3-0.5 million years the brain size of these hominins increase in graded steps from 550 cc to 1200 cc as stone tools increase in sophistication, fire is domesticated, clothes from skins are worn etc. etc. At about 0.3 million years, the fossils become almost identical to that of modern humans in skull size and teeth anatomy.

Note the number of species below and the times they lived in. It's continuous from 4 million years to today.

Next note the data of measured brain size of these fossil hominins. Note the continuous and graded upward trajectory. Each point represents a fossil skull that has been discovered, measured and dated.

Given this, how can anyone continue to argue that the prediction of gradual evolution of modern man from ancestral apes is not validated by the evidence?

 

[Audie]

Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.
The earliest of the hominin fossil is from 7 million years ago..which is 58 million years after the dinosaurs went extinct.

Further the fossil lineage from ancestral apes to modern humans of today is a graded and continuous one. First from quadrupedal animals we have semibipedal animals to fully bipedal animals with hands more adapted to precise control than grasping branches. Fossil skeletons show that this transition occurs between 7-3 million years. At this point these hominins start making crude stone tools. Then from 3-0.5 million years the brain size of these hominins increase in graded steps from 550 cc to 1200 cc as stone tools increase in sophistication, fire is domesticated, clothes from skins are worn etc. etc. At about 0.3 million years, the fossils become almost identical to that of modern humans in skull size and teeth anatomy.

Note the number of species below and the times they lived in. It's continuous from 4 million years to today.

Next note the data of measured brain size of these fossil hominins. Note the continuous and graded upward trajectory. Each point represents a fossil skull that has been discovered, measured and dated.

Given this, how can anyone continue to argue that the prediction of gradual evolution of modern man from ancestral apes is not validated by the evidence?

 

[Audie]

Faitho' appears to have fallen prey to the vice of "Gap".

 

[Polymath257]

You know after giving it some thought, and close examination.

You said "The first human like ancestors
( hominins ) after the human chimp lineage divergence at around 6-7 million of years ago.were found to walk on two legs.

Now this explains everything.
Seeing how this takes us back to the dinosaurs of million years ago.

Um. No. Dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. That was about ten times as far into the past.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.
The earliest of the hominin fossil is from 7 million years ago..which is 58 million years after the dinosaurs went extinct.

Further the fossil lineage from ancestral apes to modern humans of today is a graded and continuous one. First from quadrupedal animals we have semibipedal animals to fully bipedal animals with hands more adapted to precise control than grasping branches. Fossil skeletons show that this transition occurs between 7-3 million years. At this point these hominins start making crude stone tools. Then from 3-0.5 million years the brain size of these hominins increase in graded steps from 550 cc to 1200 cc as stone tools increase in sophistication, fire is domesticated, clothes from skins are worn etc. etc. At about 0.3 million years, the fossils become almost identical to that of modern humans in skull size and teeth anatomy.

Note the number of species below and the times they lived in. It's continuous from 4 million years to today.

Next note the data of measured brain size of these fossil hominins. Note the continuous and graded upward trajectory. Each point represents a fossil skull that has been discovered, measured and dated.

Given this, how can anyone continue to argue that the prediction of gradual evolution of modern man from ancestral apes is not validated by the evidence?

In one of your previous posts you gave the link to go to, and it said that chimps human like apes that walk on two legs lived
6-7 million of years ago. And that's what I quoted back to you.
So that would put them living at the same time as the dinosaurs 6.5 million years ago.
You gave a link to go to, and that's what I am quoting back to you.
If I am not wrong 6.5 million years ago.
Stands between 6 million years and 7 million years. So that would put them living at the same time of the dinosaurs.

So either your right or what you posted is wrong or what you posted is right and your wrong.
But now your contradicting what you posted.

 

[Polymath257]

In one of your previous posts you gave the link to go to, and it said that chimps human like apes that walk on two legs lived
6-7 million of years ago. And that's what I quoted back to you.
So that would put them living at the same time as the dinosaurs 6.5 million years ago.
You gave a link to go to, and that's what I am quoting back to you.
If I am not wrong 6.5 million years ago.
Stands between 6 million years and 7 million years. So that would put them living at the same time of the dinosaurs.

So either your right or what you posted is wrong or what you posted is right and your wrong.
But now your contradicting what you posted.

NO, dinosaurs lived *65* million years ago, not *6.5* million years ago. Yes, 6.5 is between 6 and 7, but 65 is not. If there was a post that claimed the dinosaurs to have lived 6.5 million years ago, there was a typo.

 

[Audie]

NO, dinosaurs lived *65* million years ago, not *6.5* million years ago. Yes, 6.5 is between 6 and 7, but 65 is not. If there was a post that claimed the dinosaurs to have lived 6.5 million years ago, there was a typo.

Look up "gap theory"

 

[Audie]

In one of your previous posts you gave the link to go to, and it said that chimps human like apes that walk on two legs lived
6-7 million of years ago. And that's what I quoted back to you.
So that would put them living at the same time as the dinosaurs 6.5 million years ago.
You gave a link to go to, and that's what I am quoting back to you.
If I am not wrong 6.5 million years ago.
Stands between 6 million years and 7 million years. So that would put them living at the same time of the dinosaurs.

So either your right or what you posted is wrong or what you posted is right and your wrong.
But now your contradicting what you posted.

Creationists are noted for their "either / or", blavk or white, binary thinking.

Other possibilities, nuances, not so much.

 

[sayak83]

In one of your previous posts you gave the link to go to, and it said that chimps human like apes that walk on two legs lived
6-7 million of years ago. And that's what I quoted back to you.
So that would put them living at the same time as the dinosaurs 6.5 million years ago.
You gave a link to go to, and that's what I am quoting back to you.
If I am not wrong 6.5 million years ago.
Stands between 6 million years and 7 million years. So that would put them living at the same time of the dinosaurs.

So either your right or what you posted is wrong or what you posted is right and your wrong.
But now your contradicting what you posted.

65 million years ago the dinosaurs went extinct not 6.5! Hominins started evolving 7 million years ago.

65 million vs 7 million.

 

[sayak83]

NO, dinosaurs lived *65* million years ago, not *6.5* million years ago. Yes, 6.5 is between 6 and 7, but 65 is not. If there was a post that claimed the dinosaurs to have lived 6.5 million years ago, there was a typo.

There was no such typo. He is simply seeing in the post what he wants to see. This is what I wrote,
Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.
The earliest of the hominin fossil is from 7 million years ago..which is 58 million years after the dinosaurs went extinct.

How is possible misread this.

 

[Looncall]

There was no such typo. He is simply seeing in the post what he wants to see. This is what I wrote,
Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.
The earliest of the hominin fossil is from 7 million years ago..which is 58 million years after the dinosaurs went extinct.

How is possible misread this.

Religion degrades the human intellect. We seem to be dealing with an advanced instance of this process.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Um. No. Dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. That was about ten times as far into the past.

NO, dinosaurs lived *65* million years ago, not *6.5* million years ago. Yes, 6.5 is between 6 and 7, but 65 is not. If there was a post that claimed the dinosaurs to have lived 6.5 million years ago, there was a typo.

Why is it that when someone post

Creationists are noted for their "either / or", blavk or white, binary thinking.

Other possibilities, nuances, not so much.

If ask creationist

There was no such typo. He is simply seeing in the post what he wants to see. This is what I wrote,
Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.
The earliest of the hominin fossil is from 7 million years ago..which is 58 million years after the dinosaurs went extinct.

How is possible misread this.

That's because the link that you gave, is not about dinosaurs, but about "The Science of Evolution" about human like chimp fossils being found.

So I don't know where or how dinosaurs came to be in the conversation, when it's about The Science of Evolution" about chimps like humans walking upon two legs, that were to have been back 6-7 Millions of years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is it that when someone post


If ask creationist


That's because the link that you gave, is not about dinosaurs, but about "The Science of Evolution" about human like chimp fossils being found.

So I don't know where or how dinosaurs came to be in the conversation, when it's about The Science of Evolution" about chimps like humans walking upon two legs, that were to have been back 6-7 Millions of years ago.

You don't seem to remember your own posts where you added dinosaurs to the mix. Or do you forget your claim of man and dinosaurs existing together? And you need to avoid conflating modern chimpanzees with our distant ancestors. Of course the ancestor that we share with chimpanzees was an ape, but that does not make it a chimp.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You don't seem to remember your own posts where you added dinosaurs to the mix. Or do you forget your claim of man and dinosaurs existing together? And you need to avoid conflating modern chimpanzees with our distant ancestors. Of course the ancestor that we share with chimpanzees was an ape, but that does not make it a chimp.

Man and dinosaurs did alive together.

That of course depends on which man your referring to.

There is the Celestial man and there is the Terrestrial man.

So which one are you in reference to ?