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

[InChrist]

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.

It is little more difficult to accurately apply the scientific method to historical events without the results being influenced by one's preconceived thoughts and ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

People may draw different conclusions from the evidence, but that is not the point. You are forgetting why there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is little more difficult to accurately apply the scientific method to historical events without the results being influenced by one's preconceived thoughts and ideas.

No, that is merely your weakness. There is a very good reason that real scientists rely upon peer review.

 

[InChrist]

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.

Everyone knows that chimps can walk upright, but the claim that Lucy's bipedalism or ability to walk upright is in any sense the same as human bipedalism or reveals common ancestry is not as definite as you have been led to believe:

"The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt?

Although most studies emphasise the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore, that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (Australopithecus africanus--"Homo habilis", "Homo africanus") was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions. Their locomotion may not have been like that of modern man, and may, though including a form or forms of bipedality, have been different enough to allow marked abilities for climbing. Bipedality may have arisen more than once, the Australopithecinae displaying one or more experiments in bipedality that failed. The genus Homo may, in fact, be so ancient as to parallel entirely the genus Australopithecus thus denying the latter a direct place in the human lineage."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1105197

And according to one of your included links there are significant, distinguishing differences between Australopithecus and humans which could very well indicate they were just apes that could sometimes walk upright.
https://elucy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/lesson_step_by_step.pdf

'However, australopiths have many unique features that differ from modern humans in significant ways. Humans do not share the long ala of the ilia, the relatively smaller femoral heads, or the curved fingers and toes seen in Australopithecus. This combination of primitive and derived features leads many researchers to support the idea that australopiths engaged in a form of locomotion that was not identical to that of modern humans, including a greater amount of time engaged in climbing and suspensory behaviors. Australopithecus may, then, represent a mosaic of evolutionary adaptations for life on the ground and in the trees. " (I consider this is an assumption based on the evolutionist's worldview and the what they desire to see or believe took place, but it is not actually based in science.)

After reading the links you included, especially STEP BY STEP:THE EVOLUTION OF BIPEDALISM Lesson Overview -Intermediate & Advanced, I can see how one is brainwashed, when taken step by step through an assumed process with all the supposed and detailed "may haves" and "maybes" supplied to fit the evolutionary narrative one is expected to accept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everyone knows that chimps can walk upright, but the claim that Lucy's bipedalism or ability to walk upright is in any sense the same as human bipedalism or reveals common ancestry is not as definite as you have been led to believe:

"The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt?

Although most studies emphasise the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore, that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (Australopithecus africanus--"Homo habilis", "Homo africanus") was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions. Their locomotion may not have been like that of modern man, and may, though including a form or forms of bipedality, have been different enough to allow marked abilities for climbing. Bipedality may have arisen more than once, the Australopithecinae displaying one or more experiments in bipedality that failed. The genus Homo may, in fact, be so ancient as to parallel entirely the genus Australopithecus thus denying the latter a direct place in the human lineage."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1105197

And according to one of your included links there are significant, distinguishing differences between Australopithecus and humans which could very well indicate they were just apes that could sometimes walk upright.
https://elucy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/lesson_step_by_step.pdf

'However, australopiths have many unique features that differ from modern humans in significant ways. Humans do not share the long ala of the ilia, the relatively smaller femoral heads, or the curved fingers and toes seen in Australopithecus. This combination of primitive and derived features leads many researchers to support the idea that australopiths engaged in a form of locomotion that was not identical to that of modern humans, including a greater amount of time engaged in climbing and suspensory behaviors. Australopithecus may, then, represent a mosaic of evolutionary adaptations for life on the ground and in the trees. " (I consider this is an assumption based on the evolutionist's worldview and the what they desire to see or believe took place, but it is not actually based in science.)

After reading the links you included, especially STEP BY STEP:THE EVOLUTION OF BIPEDALISM Lesson Overview -Intermediate & Advanced, I can see how one is brainwashed, when taken step by step through an assumed process with all the supposed and detailed "may haves" and "maybes" supplied to fit the evolutionary narrative one is expected to accept.

When you come across articles that you do not understand why don't you ask me questions instead? They do not support your beliefs.

 

[InChrist]

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?

Without evolution I would explain the fossil record as showing variation in the fossil remains of early humans along with the variation among apes. I do not see evolutionary sequence, but think for the most part human beings lived at the same time as these ape creatures.

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?

Although, Australopithecines may have been bipedal and knuckle-walkers in varying degrees, they were still apes and chimps. I do not believe they were bipelal as humans are, nor do I think they are related to humans.

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?

The paragraph you refer to is not copied. I do not claim to have detailed knowledge of the anatomy of hominins. I research and read information from a variety of sources and write my thoughts using my own words, unless I include a quote, in which case I provide the link to the article or website.

 

[InChrist]

When you come across articles that you do not understand why don't you ask me questions instead? They do not support your beliefs.

I did not post the article to support my beliefs. I know that it is supports evolution and common ancestry of apes and humans, nevertheless the article does reveal the discrepancies even among evolutionists and that the evidence is not actually as conclusive as so many people insinuate or assume.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without evolution I would explain the fossil record as showing variation in the fossil remains of early humans along with the variation among apes. I do not see evolutionary sequence, but think for the most part human beings lived at the same time as these ape creatures.

That is incorrect. Lucy predated humans by over three million years for example.

Although, Australopithecines may have been bipedal and knuckle-walkers in varying degrees, they were still apes and chimps. I do not believe they were bipelal as humans are, nor do I think they are related to humans.

No, they were not chimps. Their hips mark them as being much closer to humans than chimps. And you are an ape. Why do you deny it? Do you deny that you are a mammal?

The paragraph you refer to is not copied. I do not claim to have detailed knowledge of the anatomy of hominins. I research and read information from a variety of sources and write my thoughts using my own words, unless I include a quote, in which case I provide the link to the article or website.

At best from an article that you did not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not post the article to support my beliefs. I know that it is supports evolution and common ancestry of apes and humans, nevertheless the article does reveal the discrepancies even among evolutionists and that the evidence is not actually as conclusive as so many people insinuate or assume.

No, it merely tells us that you still don't understand that the earliest of bipeds could still have knuckle walked at times.

 

[InChrist]

No, it merely tells us that you still don't understand that the earliest of bipeds could still have knuckle walked at times.

I'm not disputing that ...the earliest of bipeds could still have knuckle walked at times. Just saying that these knuckle- walking apes that also walked upright at times are not proof of common ancestry with human beings.

 

[InChrist]

That is incorrect. Lucy predated humans by over three million years for example.

No, they were not chimps. Their hips mark them as being much closer to humans than chimps. And you are an ape. Why do you deny it? Do you deny that you are a mammal?

At best from an article that you did not understand.

I am not an ape and neither are you. We can be classified as mammals in a physical sense only because we share physical commonalities with other creatures, but humans alone were made in the image of God. The distinction between humans and other mammals is not in the physical nature of our earthly bodies but our unique human ability to think, reason, communicate through words/language, worship, and understand moral standards, unlike animals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not disputing that ...the earliest of bipeds could still have knuckle walked at times. Just saying that these knuckle- walking apes that also walked upright at times are not proof of common ancestry with human beings.

And you just demonstrated that you did not learn the lessons of this thread. They are evidence of man's evolution. You even admitted to that, though you did not realize it. Science is based on evidence. There is no such thing as absolute proof in evolution. Though the theory of evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not an ape and neither are you. We can be classified as mammals in a physical sense only because we share physical commonalities with other creatures, but humans alone were made in the image of God. The distinction between humans and other mammals is not in the physical nature of our earthly bodies but our unique human ability to think, reason, communicate through words/language, worship, and understand moral standards, unlike animals.

Wrong again, you are an ape. Why do you have trouble with that fact? There is no evidence that man was made in God's image. There is more evidence than you realize be a factor of a thousand that man is the product of evolution.

You are also an animal. Tell me, are you a plant? Are you a bacterium? An archaea? You know you are not any of those. That pretty much leaves animal.

 

[sayak83]

Everyone knows that chimps can walk upright, but the claim that Lucy's bipedalism or ability to walk upright is in any sense the same as human bipedalism or reveals common ancestry is not as definite as you have been led to believe:

"The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt?

Although most studies emphasise the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore, that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (Australopithecus africanus--"Homo habilis", "Homo africanus") was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions. Their locomotion may not have been like that of modern man, and may, though including a form or forms of bipedality, have been different enough to allow marked abilities for climbing. Bipedality may have arisen more than once, the Australopithecinae displaying one or more experiments in bipedality that failed. The genus Homo may, in fact, be so ancient as to parallel entirely the genus Australopithecus thus denying the latter a direct place in the human lineage."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1105197

And according to one of your included links there are significant, distinguishing differences between Australopithecus and humans which could very well indicate they were just apes that could sometimes walk upright.
https://elucy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/lesson_step_by_step.pdf

'However, australopiths have many unique features that differ from modern humans in significant ways. Humans do not share the long ala of the ilia, the relatively smaller femoral heads, or the curved fingers and toes seen in Australopithecus. This combination of primitive and derived features leads many researchers to support the idea that australopiths engaged in a form of locomotion that was not identical to that of modern humans, including a greater amount of time engaged in climbing and suspensory behaviors. Australopithecus may, then, represent a mosaic of evolutionary adaptations for life on the ground and in the trees. " (I consider this is an assumption based on the evolutionist's worldview and the what they desire to see or believe took place, but it is not actually based in science.)

After reading the links you included, especially STEP BY STEP:THE EVOLUTION OF BIPEDALISM Lesson Overview -Intermediate & Advanced, I can see how one is brainwashed, when taken step by step through an assumed process with all the supposed and detailed "may haves" and "maybes" supplied to fit the evolutionary narrative one is expected to accept.

Hi. You just quoted a 1975 paper. In 1975 there was considerable doubt regarding locomotion of Australopiths due to
1) Lack of sophisticated computer based anatomical softwares that are used presently both in the field of medicine, forensics and paleontology to reveal the 3D biomechanics of human and animal body based on bone structure.
2) Lack of many important bones that were found from subsequent finds.

Australopiths were far better tree climbers than us, but walked a lot of time on land upright on two legs. Thus their upper bodies and hand show bone mechanics that make them good tree climbers while their lower bodies were built for excellent upright walking. This is also well established, and confirms the evolutionary hypothesis that Lucy's kind were transitional between more ancient arboreal apes and more recent primarily terrestrial bipedal humans. Thus nothing you quote here supports the ideas that you are arguing for.

 

[The Anointed]

And you just demonstrated that you did not learn the lessons of this thread. They are evidence of man's evolution. You even admitted to that, though you did not realize it. Science is based on evidence. There is no such thing as absolute proof in evolution. Though the theory of evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But what was it that has evolved to become this universe and all herein? Everything that exists has always existed in one form or another, so where do we find the origin of all that is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But what was it that has evolved to become this universe and all herein? Everything that exists has always existed in one form or another, so where do we find the origin of all that is?

Where did you get that idea from? Early in our universe there was no matter. Also you are making the error of trying to apply local physics universally.

 

[InChrist]

Wrong again, you are an ape. Why do you have trouble with that fact? There is no evidence that man was made in God's image. There is more evidence than you realize be a factor of a thousand that man is the product of evolution.

I have trouble with it because it is ...NOT fact. There is no evidence that the mechanism of natural selection can generate the abilities that only humans possess; to think, reason, form conceptual ideas, communicate through words/language, worship, and understand moral standards. These are observable empirical evidences that humans are unique from animals and made in God's image.

You are also an animal. Tell me, are you a plant? Are you a bacterium? An archaea? You know you are not any of those. That pretty much leaves animal.

According the evolutionary paradigm humans do share common ancestry with plants, bacterium, and archea... on and on the speculative story goes.

From Bacteria to Us: What Went Right When Humans Started to Evolve?
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/...went-right-when-humans-started-to-evolve.html

Humans 'may have evolved with genes from plants' study finds
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...olved-with-genes-from-plants-study-finds.html

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have trouble with it because it is ...NOT fact. There is no evidence that the mechanism of natural selection can generate the abilities that only humans possess; to think, reason, form conceptual ideas, communicate through words/language, worship, and understand moral standards. These are observable empirical evidences that humans are unique from animals and made in God's image.

Of course it is a fact. Now you are only showing that you do not understand what a fact is. And when you have failed to be honest about evidence in the past you are in no position to comment on what evidence exists and what does not. Try to be honest here.

According the evolutionary paradigm humans do share common ancestry with plants, bacterium, and archea... on and on the speculative story goes.

Calling it speculation puts the burden of proof upon you again. You and I both know that you cannot support that ignorant claim.

From Bacteria to Us: What Went Right When Humans Started to Evolve?
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/...went-right-when-humans-started-to-evolve.html

Humans 'may have evolved with genes from plants' study finds
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...olved-with-genes-from-plants-study-finds.html

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

Do you need help understanding those articles? You tend to copy and paste random articles that you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One more clarification. Gosh Gallops are inherently dishonest. Let's cover one concept per post.

 

[The Anointed]

Where did you get that idea from? Early in our universe there was no matter. Also you are making the error of trying to apply local physics universally.

According to the Big bang theory, which appears to be the most accepted theory as to the creation of this universe, at the moment of that event electromagnetic energy in the trillions and trillions of degrees was spewed out from which energy all that exists has been created.

You are correct in stating that there was no matter in the beginning of this particular universe, but there is no such thing as matter at all. According to our Quantum physicists, all is energy, and matter is no more than an illusion.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nothing-solid-everything-energy-scientists-explain-world-djurisic

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end.

Most atheist appear to believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? But as you accept that all that exists was created from the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, you must now accept that it is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, that has become this seemingly material universe and has developed a mind that is the compilation of all the information gathered by all the diverse life-forms that it [The Eternal Energy] has become.

The collective consciousness of all that it has become, in which consciousness A supreme personality, the MOST HIGH in the creation, has developed