This thread is dedicated to first going over the basics of science and working up to evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

"Sin"? Does that word have any meaning to you?

It obviously has more meaning to me than it does to you.

 

[InChrist]

Metabolic pathways are not evolutionary "pathways". Thanks for reinforcing my point.

This book must need a new title then...

Evolutionary Pathways in Nature
A Phylogenetic Approach
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academi...genetic-approach?format=PB&isbn=9780521674171

or the title of this article:
Evolutionary Pathways for the Generation of New Self-Incompatibility Haplotypes in a Non-self Recognition System
http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2018/04/30/genetics.118.300748

If australopithicus brains and modern human brains have common ancestry there had better be some metobolic pathway changes revealed that took place during the mechanisms of evolution, besides just bones changes. Like the word mechanics better?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not gibberish...Reality. I think you simply have already closed your mind.

Please, pure gibberish.

Let's go back over the basics. You obviously did not learn from your errors.

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

 

[InChrist]

It obviously has more meaning to me than it does to you.

Now it sounds like you are just using double-speak or being sarcastic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now it sounds like you are just using double-speak or being sarcastic.

Not in the least.

 

[InChrist]

Not in the least.

Okay, well as I said I am busy and have a bunch of things I should be getting done rather than writing on a forum today. So have a good day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, well as I said I am busy and have a bunch of things I should be getting done rather than writing on a forum today. So have a good day.

When you are ready we can go back over the concept of evidence again.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Thanks, so far no luck.

There are *some* creationists who are capable of changing their minds, but they seem to be few and far between. I was one of them. However, I was an open-minded adolescent with an eagerness to learn. Seems harder for people to change their minds as they age. I guess that's why educating youth in science is so important.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are *some* creationists who are capable of changing their minds, but they seem to be few and far between. I was one of them. However, I was an open-minded adolescent with an eagerness to learn. Seems harder for people to change their minds as they age. I guess that's why educating youth in science is so important.

One thing to remember is that people on forums usually have a very heavily invested opinion, creationists exceptionally so. They are not what one sees in the off line world.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

One thing to remember is that people on forums usually have a very heavily invested opinion, creationists exceptionally so. They are not what one sees in the off line world.

True. I know lots of very opinionated creationists personally though. I once had a college speech professor (for no reason at all) proudly declare her disbelief in evolution with an arrogance that was quite irritating. She invited people to discuss it with her but I figured it would be a waste of time because it was quite obvious her mind was made up. But yes, there are definitely people more reasonable. I think that some of the "old-earth" creationists would be more open to evidence for evolution. After all, they presumably accept that micro-evolution can occur, and they believe that the earth is old, so all it would take is explaining that a billion tiny steps can add up to quite a large step.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True. I know lots of very opinionated creationists personally though. I once had a college speech professor (for no reason at all) proudly declare her disbelief in evolution with an arrogance that was quite irritating. She invited people to discuss it with her but I figured it would be a waste of time because it was quite obvious her mind was made up. But yes, there are definitely people more reasonable. I think that some of the "old-earth" creationists would be more open to evidence for evolution. After all, they presumably accept that micro-evolution can occur, and they believe that the earth is old, so all it would take is explaining that a billion tiny steps can add up to quite a large step.

OEC 's even accept macroevolution. They simply do not know what the term means. Micro is within a species. For example dogs are an amazing example of micro. Macro is at the species level and above. Lions and tigers, foxes and wolves, both examples of macro.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, there are many scientists who specialize in fitting bones together. Nevertheless, license can be taken with the reconstruction of the available bones and/or fragments, apart from the scientific method to fit their preconceived ideas or conclusions. Australopithicus, more realistically reveal diversity of apes, not evolution or man’s supposed ancestry,

Australopithecenes were bipedal apes. The subsequent Homo habilis and Homo ergaster fossils clearly show their descent from Australopithecenes in their skeletal characteristics coupled with increase in brain size. Further we know that Australopithecenes made stone tools. Thus we see a clear pattern of gradual evolution from early arboreal apes to bipedal stone tool using apes to increasingly intelligent and big brained apes over a time span and ultimately to the present highly intelligent human apes... us.

 

[InChrist]

Australopithecenes were bipedal apes. The subsequent Homo habilis and Homo ergaster fossils clearly show their descent from Australopithecenes in their skeletal characteristics coupled with increase in brain size. Further we know that Australopithecenes made stone tools. Thus we see a clear pattern of gradual evolution from early arboreal apes to bipedal stone tool using apes to increasingly intelligent and big brained apes over a time span and ultimately to the present highly intelligent human apes... us.

I consider this...

"Thus we see a clear pattern of gradual evolution from early arboreal apes to bipedal stone tool using apes to increasingly intelligent and big brained apes over a time span and ultimately to the present highly intelligent human apes... us."

... to be pure speculation, but it is the only conclusion that evolutionists must arrive at to fit their worldview.

But even on the part of Darwinian evolutiontists there's been plenty of controversy concerning Lucy with the anatomical findings subject to a number of interpretations. What is called “australopithecine bipedalism” is not the same bipedalism associated with humans. The reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis demands the gluteal muscles be arranged like an ape’s. While this arrangement enables an australopithecine to move its legs in unique ways is there actually no proof that it would be stable enough for truly bipedal locomotion. Some evolutionists believed that Lucy’s pelvis was well-adapted for arboreal (tree-dwelling) life and that the orientation of the iliac blade on the pelvic bone matched that of chimpanzees, not humans.
So really, the bipedal question, is not whether proposed hominid ancestors were able to walk upright since any chimp today can do that to a certain degree and for short periods, but whether bipedal locomotion was the normal and efficient way of getting around. From the evolutionary point of view, evolving hominids needed to free their hands for other uses. A hominid that spent a good deal of time knuckle-walking would therefore fail as a convincing candidate for human ancestor. Yet, some of the most convincing evidence against Lucy’s proposed bipedalism comes not from her lower extremities but from her wrists. Evolutionists Brian Richmond and David Strait compared the skeletal morphology of living knuckle-walking primates to the bones of Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis. The bones show the features used to lock the wrist for secure knuckle-walking as seen in modern knuckle-walkers.

"But their wrist bones show signs of the same knuckle-walking features seen in present-day apes -- relics of a still earlier, knuckle-walking past. This, the researchers say, is a sign that both African apes and humans descended from a knuckle-walking ancestor."
https://www.nature.com/news/2000/000323/full/news000323-7.html

The evolutionary paradigm assumes transitional hominids existed, evolutionists like Johanson, who discovered Lucy, have tried for decades to find human qualities in the fossils of extinct apes, but I see too much room for speculation in attempting to fulfill the presuppositions held by those who want to believe that humans and apes have common ancestry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I consider this...

"Thus we see a clear pattern of gradual evolution from early arboreal apes to bipedal stone tool using apes to increasingly intelligent and big brained apes over a time span and ultimately to the present highly intelligent human apes... us."

... to be pure speculation, but it is the only conclusion that evolutionists must arrive at to fit their worldview.

But even on the part of Darwinian evolutiontists there's been plenty of controversy concerning Lucy with the anatomical findings subject to a number of interpretations. What is called “australopithecine bipedalism” is not the same bipedalism associated with humans. The reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis demands the gluteal muscles be arranged like an ape’s. While this arrangement enables an australopithecine to move its legs in unique ways is there actually no proof that it would be stable enough for truly bipedal locomotion. Some evolutionists believed that Lucy’s pelvis was well-adapted for arboreal (tree-dwelling) life and that the orientation of the iliac blade on the pelvic bone matched that of chimpanzees, not humans.
So really, the bipedal question, is not whether proposed hominid ancestors were able to walk upright since any chimp today can do that to a certain degree and for short periods, but whether bipedal locomotion was the normal and efficient way of getting around. From the evolutionary point of view, evolving hominids needed to free their hands for other uses. A hominid that spent a good deal of time knuckle-walking would therefore fail as a convincing candidate for human ancestor. Yet, some of the most convincing evidence against Lucy’s proposed bipedalism comes not from her lower extremities but from her wrists. Evolutionists Brian Richmond and David Strait compared the skeletal morphology of living knuckle-walking primates to the bones of Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis. The bones show the features used to lock the wrist for secure knuckle-walking as seen in modern knuckle-walkers.

"But their wrist bones show signs of the same knuckle-walking features seen in present-day apes -- relics of a still earlier, knuckle-walking past. This, the researchers say, is a sign that both African apes and humans descended from a knuckle-walking ancestor."
https://www.nature.com/news/2000/000323/full/news000323-7.html

The evolutionary paradigm assumes transitional hominids existed, evolutionists like Johanson, who discovered Lucy, have tried for decades to find human qualities in the fossils of extinct apes, but I see too much room for speculation in attempting to fulfill the presuppositions held by those who want to believe that humans and apes have common ancestry.

All I can say is that at best you do not understand how to use the term "speculation" .

You have jumped to far ahead. Let's go over the basics again and then cover the concept of evidence.

 

[InChrist]

All I can say is that at best you do not understand how to use the term "speculation" .

You have jumped to far ahead. Let's go over the basics again and then cover the concept of evidence.

Well, I think I do understand the meaning of speculation, but anyway feel free to go ahead and explain what you believe to be the basics again and the concept of evidence. I will response when or if I can and may interrupt with questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I think I do understand the meaning of speculation, but anyway feel free to go ahead and explain what you believe to be the basics again and the concept of evidence. I will response when or if I can and may interrupt with questions.

it is clearly not speculation since those conclusions are strongly supported by evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I think I do understand the meaning of speculation, but anyway feel free to go ahead and explain what you believe to be the basics again and the concept of evidence. I will response when or if I can and may interrupt with questions.

I went back over the thread and your error began when you did not seem to realize how important a testable hypothesis is when using the scientific method.

 

[sayak83]

I consider this...

"Thus we see a clear pattern of gradual evolution from early arboreal apes to bipedal stone tool using apes to increasingly intelligent and big brained apes over a time span and ultimately to the present highly intelligent human apes... us."

... to be pure speculation, but it is the only conclusion that evolutionists must arrive at to fit their worldview.

But even on the part of Darwinian evolutiontists there's been plenty of controversy concerning Lucy with the anatomical findings subject to a number of interpretations. What is called “australopithecine bipedalism” is not the same bipedalism associated with humans. The reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis demands the gluteal muscles be arranged like an ape’s. While this arrangement enables an australopithecine to move its legs in unique ways is there actually no proof that it would be stable enough for truly bipedal locomotion. Some evolutionists believed that Lucy’s pelvis was well-adapted for arboreal (tree-dwelling) life and that the orientation of the iliac blade on the pelvic bone matched that of chimpanzees, not humans.
So really, the bipedal question, is not whether proposed hominid ancestors were able to walk upright since any chimp today can do that to a certain degree and for short periods, but whether bipedal locomotion was the normal and efficient way of getting around. From the evolutionary point of view, evolving hominids needed to free their hands for other uses. A hominid that spent a good deal of time knuckle-walking would therefore fail as a convincing candidate for human ancestor. Yet, some of the most convincing evidence against Lucy’s proposed bipedalism comes not from her lower extremities but from her wrists. Evolutionists Brian Richmond and David Strait compared the skeletal morphology of living knuckle-walking primates to the bones of Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis. The bones show the features used to lock the wrist for secure knuckle-walking as seen in modern knuckle-walkers.

"But their wrist bones show signs of the same knuckle-walking features seen in present-day apes -- relics of a still earlier, knuckle-walking past. This, the researchers say, is a sign that both African apes and humans descended from a knuckle-walking ancestor."
https://www.nature.com/news/2000/000323/full/news000323-7.html

The evolutionary paradigm assumes transitional hominids existed, evolutionists like Johanson, who discovered Lucy, have tried for decades to find human qualities in the fossils of extinct apes, but I see too much room for speculation in attempting to fulfill the presuppositions held by those who want to believe that humans and apes have common ancestry.

No. Based on its legs and hip anatomy Lucy would be unable to Knuckle walk. That is well established and not speculation. Which is why the wrist features are considered vestigial remnants of a knuckle-walking ancestral phase.

Lucy has to walk on two legs and cannot knuckle walk. That is what I am calling bipedalism. The skeletal structures noted below, all found in bipedal humans and none in knuckle walking apes, establishes beyond doubt that Australopiths like Lucy walked upright in two legs habitually.

http://efossils.org/book/fossil-evidence-bipedalism

The oldest evidence for australopith bipedalism is found in the species Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 to 3.9 Ma). Found in Kenya, Au. anamensis most likely lived in a wooded savanna. Fossil evidence for this species includes a preserved tibia that exhibits bipedal characteristics such as a right angle between the shaft and the proximal surface, and proximal articular condyles of nearly equal size. An abundance of the younger species Au. afarensis (4 to 2.8 Ma) and Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Ma) fossils also show clear signs of bipedalism, including a bicondylar angle, an anteriorly placed foramen magnum, laterally flaring iliac blades, longer femoral necks and heads, and the presence of a lumbar curve. Though Au. afarensis seems to have originated in Ethiopia and Au. africanus is found only in South Africa, both of these species lived in open habitats, possibly wooded savanna areas near a lake8-10.

See detailed evidence and explanations of the bone features of Afarensis that shows habitual upright locomotion in two legs, explained in easy steps below,

https://elucy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/lesson_step_by_step.pdf

Similarly the feet structure has human like arches that allows only upright bipedal locomotion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21311018

The transition to full-time terrestrial bipedality is a hallmark of human evolution. A key correlate of human bipedalism is the development of longitudinal and transverse arches of the foot that provide a rigid propulsive lever and critical shock absorption during striding bipedal gait. Evidence for arches in the earliest well-known Australopithecus species, A. afarensis, has long been debated. A complete fourth metatarsal of A. afarensis was recently discovered at Hadar, Ethiopia. It exhibits torsion of the head relative to the base, a direct correlate of a transverse arch in humans. The orientation of the proximal and distal ends of the bone reflects a longitudinal arch. Further, the deep, flat base and tarsal facets imply that its midfoot had no ape-like midtarsal break. These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans and support the hypothesis that this species was a committed terrestrial biped.


Given so much skeletal evidence, the conclusion that Lucy walked upright habitually is inevitable.

 

[Astrophile]

I consider this...

"Thus we see a clear pattern of gradual evolution from early arboreal apes to bipedal stone tool using apes to increasingly intelligent and big brained apes over a time span and ultimately to the present highly intelligent human apes... us."

... to be pure speculation, but it is the only conclusion that evolutionists must arrive at to fit their worldview.

But even on the part of Darwinian evolutionists there's been plenty of controversy concerning Lucy with the anatomical findings subject to a number of interpretations. What is called “australopithecine bipedalism” is not the same bipedalism associated with humans. The reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis demands the gluteal muscles be arranged like an ape’s. While this arrangement enables an australopithecine to move its legs in unique ways is there actually no proof that it would be stable enough for truly bipedal locomotion. Some evolutionists believed that Lucy’s pelvis was well-adapted for arboreal (tree-dwelling) life and that the orientation of the iliac blade on the pelvic bone matched that of chimpanzees, not humans.
So really, the bipedal question, is not whether proposed hominid ancestors were able to walk upright since any chimp today can do that to a certain degree and for short periods, but whether bipedal locomotion was the normal and efficient way of getting around. From the evolutionary point of view, evolving hominids needed to free their hands for other uses. A hominid that spent a good deal of time knuckle-walking would therefore fail as a convincing candidate for human ancestor. Yet, some of the most convincing evidence against Lucy’s proposed bipedalism comes not from her lower extremities but from her wrists. Evolutionists Brian Richmond and David Strait compared the skeletal morphology of living knuckle-walking primates to the bones of Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis. The bones show the features used to lock the wrist for secure knuckle-walking as seen in modern knuckle-walkers.

"But their wrist bones show signs of the same knuckle-walking features seen in present-day apes -- relics of a still earlier, knuckle-walking past. This, the researchers say, is a sign that both African apes and humans descended from a knuckle-walking ancestor."
https://www.nature.com/news/2000/000323/full/news000323-7.html

The evolutionary paradigm assumes transitional hominids existed, evolutionists like Johanson, who discovered Lucy, have tried for decades to find human qualities in the fossils of extinct apes, but I see too much room for speculation in attempting to fulfill the presuppositions held by those who want to believe that humans and apes have common ancestry.

I'm sorry; I'm not a biologist, and therefore I shouldn't contribute to the biological parts of the forum, but even I can see that there appears to be something wrong with your argument.

Without evolution, how do you explain the fossil record of the hominins, i.e. Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, the australopithecines, Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, and Homo erectus? First, do you accept that these animals formed a temporal sequence, with Sahelanthropus and Orrorin being the oldest and Homo ergaster and Homo erectus the youngest? Alternatively, do you think that they were unrelated animals that all lived at the same time?

Second, do you think that the australopithecines (from Australopithecus anamensis to Au. africanus and Au. sediba) were normally bipedal, although not related to humans, or do you think that they were all knuckle-walking apes that were no more bipedal than chimpanzees?

By the way, is your second paragraph, from 'But even on the part of Darwinian evolutionists' to 'as seen in modern knuckle-walkers.' your own words, based on your detailed knowledge of the anatomy of hominins, or did you copy it from a creationist book or website?

 

[InChrist]

it is clearly not speculation since those conclusions are strongly supported by evidence.

You believe those conclusions are strongly supported by evidence as do other evolutionists because you want and assume there to be evidence to support common ancestry of apes and humans.
I understand that, but my point is ...

A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence.[1] These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence. For example, the Earth's apparent lack of motion may be taken as evidence for a geocentric cosmology. However, after sufficient evidence is presented for heliocentric cosmology and the apparent lack of motion is explained, the initial observation is strongly discounted as evidence.
When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence