So then you realize that there is no quote mining by evolutionists here?
Stop saying “atheist scientists”. You are on the borderline of strawmanning evolution as being atheistic once again.
The original hip fossil was crushed and thus was not an accurate representation of its original shape. The reshaping was not done to the fossil but rather a copy made of it in an attempt to understand its real shape. There are only so many ways that bone fragments could be put back together. But what’s more compelling is that we have multiple fossils of Australopithecus. Lucy is not the only one with a hip joint present. See these fossils of Australopithecus sediba:
In the bottom-most picture, the center fossil is Lucy and the other two are A. sediba. The brown pieces represent the actual fossil remains. As you can see, the right hip joint and upper right femur are preserved in one specimen, and are definitely more similar to that of humans (which are broad and short) than to chimps (which are elongated). Below is a fossil of the pelvis of A. africanus
With all of these hips and knees there is plenty of evidence supporting the idea of Australopithecines walking upright at least part of the time. The location of the foramen magnum in the Taung child suggested bipedal location as well. A metatarsal revealed arched feet, another feature found in humans that is an adaptation for bipedal walking.
The majority of the left femur and the upper part of the right tibia of Lucy’s skeleton were found. These taken together make it easy to know what Lucy’s knee joint looked like. This would have allowed direct comparison with the 1973 knee, allowing scientists to know that it also belonged to an Australopithecus. It’s also interesting to note that a knee joint is present in one of the A. sediba fossils that I posted above. So we are hardly ignorant about the knees of the Australopithecines.
You are correct. So far as I can tell, Neanderthals were once thought to be much more primitive than we now know them to be. Today we know that they were very similar to other ancient humans.
It most certainly is a mutation. I’ve found the scientific paper describing it. Here is a link if you want to
see it for yourself. The mutation is a single nucleotide replacement; a guanine to thymine change. This results in an amino acid change from glycine to valine in the produced LRP5 protein. The total number of nucleotides is not changed nor is the total number of amino acids, so the total information content of the genome is the same.
This is, again, unevidenced. Please demonstrate that human bones were once unbreakable.
I know that our bones were more dense in the past, but they weren’t unbreakable. There’s an important difference there. This mutation doesn’t make bones unbreakable either, just very hard.
It already is mutated. That’s why the bone density became higher to begin with.
Provide evidence that this mutation caused genetic information to be lost, preferably from some paper describing the mutation itself.
Correct.
Correct.
Correct.
Incorrect. Pseudomonas and E.coli have both gain new metabolic functions in the lab from mutations (nylon degradation and aerobic citrate respiration).
Every life form is a “new” life form, so I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.
I’m not sure where you got that idea. God is a spirit.
I don’t know what the relevance of this is. God has struck people dead in an instant before. Remember Ananias and Sapphira? King Herod? The man who touched the Ark of the Covenant? If He could strike them dead in an instant, then He could have done the same to all the sinners of Noah’s day and thus saved a lot of time, effort and suffering with that great flood.
What makes you say that? Because I don’t believe the six days mentioned in Genesis were literal days? You’ll find that many Christians don’t think of it as literal. My belief or non-belief is also irrelevant to your ability to answer my questions or refute my claims.
No they don’t. If they did, then they wouldn’t be atheists. They don’t believe there is a God to cause pain and suffering. Usually, atheists who say that are trying to argue that,
if the God of the Bible did exist, He is not good. That’s a different argument.
I do read the Bible regularly. I’m in the process of reading it the whole way through (I’m currently in 2 Kings). I’m well aware of the creationist side of things because I was a young Earth creationist for the majority of my life (over 2 decades). I’ve only been an evolutionist for about 3 years.
It's interesting that you mention that website, as that very same website defines evolution
here. The definition given is strictly biological, with no reference to the Big Bang, stellar evolution or abiogenesis.
