What does the fossil record say?

[newhope101]

When you're done arguing about english grammar, maybe you could give us a reference to recent attempts to hybridize humans and chimps.

There aren't any. What you do have are many researchers wishing we could interbreed, still, despite evidence to the contrary. This is truly a concern. All you have are the old experiments that were good enough to show the sperm penetrate the outer layer but would not adhere to the soma. Hence, we must be too diverged...OR..we are not related at all.

 

[camanintx]

All you have are the old experiments that were good enough to show the sperm penetrate the outer layer but would not adhere to the soma. Hence, we must be too diverged...OR..we are not related at all.

If you're refering to the experiments of Ilya Ivanov in the 1920's, scientists weren't able to successfully inseminate a human with human sperm until the 1950's, so how is this evidence that humans and apes cannot be hybridized?

 

[newhope101]

Like I said Camanintx..the experiments were good enough to show the sperm entered the egg. There should be no need for any other intervention, new or old, after this. My activity has dropped as I am tired of would be scientists unable to accept the implications of their own research. It is truly boring and fruitless. I have put this up at least a dozen times in various threads and here I am with yet another person unable to listen to the facts at hand. What a waste of time.

If this research was set up adequately that penetration was sucessful the rest should have followed. What is it with some of you that you continue to persist with this sick fetish despite the evidence at hand? I don't know, but it has sure turned me off RF.

Wiki Humanzee
In 1977, researcher J. Michael Bedford[6] discovered that human sperm could penetrate the protective outer membranes of a gibbon egg. Bedford's paper also stated that human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of non-hominoid primates (baboon, rhesus monkey, and squirrel monkey), concluding that although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea.
In 2006, research suggested that after the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzeesdiverged into two distinct lineages, inter-lineage sex was still sufficiently common that it produced fertile hybrids for around 1.2 million years after the initial split.[7]
However, despite speculation, no case of a human-chimpanzee cross has ever been confirmed to exist


And BTW..below is what I think of the genomic evidence that purportedly supports ancestry and the fossil record.


Most Recent Common Ancestor:
Ways to find the MRCA
There are a number of ways to estimate the MRCA such as genetics, archaeology, mathematical models, computer simulations and History. DNA studies have a problem in telling us about the MRCA. As Chang notes, the MRCA will be much more recent than any MRCA that could ever be found in DNA studies, even if one were to study the ancestry of every single gene. The reason being that we are considering people who are simply ancestors, through any route, whether or not any of their genes actually survived the journey. As the human genome consists of roughly 232 base pairs, the genetic contribution of a single ancestor may be flushed out of an individual's genome completely after 32 generations, or roughly 1,000 years.[4]


Considering the information above..it's Incredible!

 

[outhouse]

same old cut and paste with no substance

 

[David M]

Now - maybe you can tell me why in Secondary School, every one of our GCE and City Guild of London tests had to be sent off to England for grading.

Because exams are marked by the exam board the school pays for the exam papers.

And there is the small matter that the City & Guilds Institute tests and GCE (O and A levels) exams were tests for students of age 16 and over, barring the odd exception where a student could take an exam earlier (as I did when I took my maths O level at 15), they are not tied to a specific class/year/form.

So no, neither the City & Guilds vocational qualifications nor the GCE exams provide any support for your contention of the British education system having classes called Standard 2 etc with a end of year exam which you had to pass to move to the next class.

And why you keep ignoring the information here:
STANDARD:
7. Chiefly British A grade level in elementary schools.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/standard

I have already answered that. That dictionary definition provides no support that the British education system had "Standards" in the way that you defined them, that being classes with an final exam that needed to be passed before the student could move to the next "Standard".

and here:

Then you should be able to justify it by "Parsing and Analysing" it. Show us WHY it is correct.

Eh?

"And you are still wrong about there being a contradiction in my statement."
"And you are still wrong about there being any contradiction in my statement."

From dictionary.com

an·y

   [en-ee] Show IPA
–adjective 1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification: If you have any witnesses, produce them. Pick out any six you like.

Any can also mean one and is synonymous with "a".

So both sentences have an identical meaning, there is no contradiction in my statement. For the sentence to have the meaning ""Any" gives the impression that was more than one and that you had a choice when you really don't." as you wrongly asserted it would have needed to be written as """And you are still wrong about there being any contradictions in my statement."

 

[camanintx]

Like I said Camanintx..the experiments were good enough to show the sperm entered the egg. There should be no need for any other intervention, new or old, after this.

So, is it your opinion that if two similar organisms are incapable of interbreeding now then there is no posibility that they may have been able to in the past?

 

[Autodidact]

So, wilsoncole, I gather you are not interested in learning what evolution actually is?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There aren't any. What you do have are many researchers wishing we could interbreed, still, despite evidence to the contrary. This is truly a concern. All you have are the old experiments that were good enough to show the sperm penetrate the outer layer but would not adhere to the soma. Hence, we must be too diverged...OR..we are not related at all.

We may be too diverged and yet still we are most definitely related. Not only are we morphologically similar but are related genetically. A great portion of human and primate research you've been presenting says as much.

 

[wilsoncole]

Because exams are marked by the exam board the school pays for the exam papers.

You are trying to play dense.
Why ENGLAND? Why were they not shipped off to Oslo?
Where did England get the authority to grade the papers of pupils whose education they had nothing to do with?
Have you ever heard of any nation sending their students exam papers to be graded by another nation with no authority to do so and with whom they had no educational affiliations?
If you have, I'd like to hear of it.

And there is the small matter ..... they are not tied to a specific class/year/form.

Totally irrelevant!

So no, neither the City & Guilds vocational qualifications nor the GCE exams provide any support for your contention of the British education system having classes called Standard 2 etc with a end of year exam which you had to pass to move to the next class.

You twist better than Chubby Checker! I said nothing of their having classes called "Standards" and final exams. Did I?
My mentioning of the GCE and G&G tests was to show that the British educational system was employed in the Commonwealth and that they did have authority over those tests - which they did. I have supplied sufficient evidence that proves it.

I have already answered that. That dictionary definition provides no support that the British education system had "Standards" in the way that you defined them, that being classes with an final exam that needed to be passed before the student could move to the next "Standard".

You are twisting and distorting again. That was no definition of mine. The dictionary definition proved it - unless you want to deny that it called them "Standards" with no qualifications. Do you?
I tried to point out to you that, instead of Grades, the classes were referred to as "Standards." I proved it by the many links from different countries in the
British Commonwealth that operated under the British educational system.
You have not proved that they were never referred to as 'Standards," even though you tried, vainly, to tie them in with the final exams that were required each year before promotion. Those were separate issues which you tried to use to compound the issue, making it seem like those were the criteria.

I proved that the British had authority over the educational systems of their colonies and commonwealth members who inherited it from their colonial masters.
You have not proved that final yearly exams did not take place. All we have is your denial. On the other hand, I proved that in several countries in the Commonwealth, such tests were a requirement for promotion. You do not know which one of those systems I attended - India, Malaya, Lesotho, etc, so you are incapable of proving that it did not happen.
I wonder if you will deny that The British ever had colonies! You seem to be so good at denial. You might even deny that your mother gave birth to you - you are that capable.

"And you are still wrong about there being a contradiction in my statement."
"And you are still wrong about there being any contradiction in my statement."
From dictionary.com
Any can also mean one and is synonymous with "a".

So both sentences have an identical meaning, there is no contradiction in my statement. For the sentence to have the meaning ""Any" gives the impression that was more than one and that you had a choice when you really don't." as you wrongly asserted it would have needed to be written as """And you are still wrong about there being any contradictions in my statement."

Seeing that there was only ONE contradiction in your statement, this last sentence is still does not make it accurate.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[LuisDantas]

Like I said Camanintx..the experiments were good enough to show the sperm entered the egg. There should be no need for any other intervention, new or old, after this.

How would you know that, even if it turned out to be the truth?

 

[newhope101]

Penguin again I say all evolutionary modelling is scaffolded somehow against the presumption of ancestry. The results are preordained. Besides no amount of theoretical evidence will overturn common sense. Your genetics say humans are genetically closer to a chimp than a chimp is to other non human primates. I'm not talking about divergence times, I am talking about genetic similarity. If the human genome does not stand apart from non human primates, given the closer similarity of abhoreal, bent over, unreasoning, illiterate, and 3ft tall, primates, then I believe it to be flawed and biased reporting, evolution or no evolution. I have been down this road before.


Camanintx

It is evolutionists that suggest humans were anything else but human. Hence I, nor any creationist, do not need to explain how apes or half humans or anything else in the middle can or cannot interbreed. Why chromo Y is so diverged, why there is a recent x chromo etc.....Evolutionists do. I know why they are all so very different and yet so similar.

I have explained what I think the fossil evidence says many times and just who your fossils may be the ancestors of..not humans. Perhaps Lluc a falt faced non human primate facially similar to other homonids 14 million yers ago, orangas that share many morphological features etc. Why debate further? The days of traits arising once is also long gone. You aren't going to believe any different than you do right now and neither am I.

I'll let Wilconsole keep the floor.

 

[David M]

You are trying to play dense.
Why ENGLAND? Why were they not shipped off to Oslo?

Because they chose to offer City & Guilds and GCE. If they had decided to offer the International Baccalaureate instead then the papers would have been sent to whichever country housed the relevant markers.

Where did England get the authority to grade the papers of pupils whose education they had nothing to do with?

Its not England its the exam board. They got the authority when the school decided to offer their exams. And if the school was going to use their exams they would teach an appropriate syllabus.

Have you ever heard of any nation sending their students exam papers to be graded by another nation with no authority to do so and with whom they had no educational affiliations?
If you have, I'd like to hear of it.

Happens all the time with the International Baccalaureate. Offered by 3,141 schools in 140 countries according to the IBI.
The International Baccalaureate offers high quality programmes of international education to a worldwide community of schools

How about the British International School in Turkey, it offers both the International Baccalaureate and the English National Curriculum.
British International School Istanbul - Turkey Schools - Directory of International and English Schools in Turkey

I know about this school as we considered sending our son there.

You twist better than Chubby Checker! I said nothing of their having classes called "Standards" and final exams. Did I?
My mentioning of the GCE and G&G tests was to show that the British educational system was employed in the Commonwealth and that they did have authority over those tests - which they did. I have supplied sufficient evidence that proves it.

Wrong, all you did was make an unsubstantiated claim that a single specific school decided to use a specific exam board for its exams at ages 16 and 18.

You can still find schools all around the world that do this.
Look, schools in Poland some of which offer the British GSCE and GCE exams.
International Schools in Poland

And a school in Malaysia.
The International School of Penang (Uplands) - International Schools in Malaysia- Spain Schools

The schooling incorporates the normal UK curriculum and offers a wide range of subjects for the Cambridge IGCSE. German, French, Japanese, Mandarin and Malay are offered as second languages and there is a strong ESL programme for pupils for whom English is not their first language.

And the Cambridge IGCSE is (drumroll please)...an English exam board, just like City & Guilds.

Your ignorance of education matches your ignorance of biology.

I tried to point out to you that, instead of Grades, the classes were referred to as "Standards." I proved it by the many links from different countries in the
British Commonwealth that operated under the British educational system.

And unfortunately for you the British educational system does not regularly refer to its classes as Grades.

You have not proved that they were never referred to as 'Standards,"

Yeah, just like I can't prove that they were never referred to as "Fire engines". I do not have to, you have to provide evidence that they were referred to as standards in Britain, which you hve repeatedly failed to do.

even though you tried, vainly, to tie them in with the final exams that were required each year before promotion. Those were separate issues which you tried to use to compound the issue, making it seem like those were the criteria.

You tied them in with final exams required each year before promotion. That was your claim and you have provided zero evidence that this happened in the British education system.

I proved that the British had authority over the educational systems of their colonies and commonwealth members who inherited it from their colonial masters.

No you didn't, not in any of those links. What you showed was that most commonwealth countries have an education system based on the british system.

You have not proved that final yearly exams did not take place.

Your claim, you have to prove they did in Britain.

All we have is your denial. On the other hand, I proved that in several countries in the Commonwealth, such tests were a requirement for promotion. You do not know which one of those systems I attended - India, Malaya, Lesotho, etc, so you are incapable of proving that it did not happen.

So you admit that your claim to be educated under the British educational system is false, instead you were educated under an education system based on the british one.

I wonder if you will deny that The British ever had colonies! You seem to be so good at denial. You might even deny that your mother gave birth to you - you are that capable.

You're a funny guy, oh wait... you're not.

Seeing that there was only ONE contradiction in your statement, this last sentence is still does not make it accurate.

The last statement shows that for "any" to mean there was more than one contradiction the word contradiction would have need to be plural. As it was singular that means that the singular meaning of "any" applied.

The statement was grammatically correct in refering to a singular contradiction.

You fail yet again.

So sure, so righteous and yet so very, very wrong.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Penguin again I say all evolutionary modelling is scaffolded somehow against the presumption of ancestry.

This is incorrect. Just because you disfavor the evidence that supports the ToE in no way invalidates it. You support the evidence for (Y Adam) and that in itself is based on Modeling. It's most certainly "evolutionary modeling".

The results are preordained.

No they're not. You've presented plenty of articles where the scientist said they were expecting to see or find X but didn't so your statement is false.

Besides no amount of theoretical evidence will overturn common sense.

As you can see, "common sense" appears in my profile but "common sense" has its limits. Those who rely on their ego for knowledge has a fool for a teacher.

Your genetics say humans are genetically closer to a chimp than a chimp is to other non human primates.

Your point? The fact is...we're all related which is something you keep saying we're not. You say one is closer than the other then go on to assert humans aren't related at all. Which is it?

I'm not talking about divergence times, I am talking about genetic similarity.

Which has already been show that humans and primates are related.

 

[camanintx]

Penguin again I say all evolutionary modelling is scaffolded somehow against the presumption of ancestry. The results are preordained. Besides no amount of theoretical evidence will overturn common sense. Your genetics say humans are genetically closer to a chimp than a chimp is to other non human primates. I'm not talking about divergence times, I am talking about genetic similarity. If the human genome does not stand apart from non human primates, given the closer similarity of abhoreal, bent over, unreasoning, illiterate, and 3ft tall, primates, then I believe it to be flawed and biased reporting, evolution or no evolution. I have been down this road before.

That is exactly how the scientific method works. You look at the evidence you have and develop a hypothesis that explains it. Then you look for new evidence and see if it fits the hypothesis. If it doesn't fit, then you change the hypothesis. If it does, you keep looking for more evidence.

Darwin's Theory of Common Descent explained what he saw in the Finches he studied. For the last 150 years, scientists all over the world have uncovered new evidence for common descent and fit it against the scaffolding Darwin errected. So far, none of it has failed to fit.

It is evolutionists that suggest humans were anything else but human. Hence I, nor any creationist, do not need to explain how apes or half humans or anything else in the middle can or cannot interbreed. Why chromo Y is so diverged, why there is a recent x chromo etc.....Evolutionists do. I know why they are all so very different and yet so similar.

If you and other creationists are going to claim that one type of organism cannot evolve into another, then you will have to produce a mechanism which explains why. You cannot just say so and expect no one to question it. It's called the burden of proof.

I have explained what I think the fossil evidence says many times and just who your fossils may be the ancestors of..not humans. Perhaps Lluc a falt faced non human primate facially similar to other homonids 14 million yers ago, orangas that share many morphological features etc. Why debate further? The days of traits arising once is also long gone. You aren't going to believe any different than you do right now and neither am I.

So what do you consider the earliest human fossil? Is Homo neanderthalensis considered human? Is Homo rhodesiensis a human? How about Homo erectus? Where do you draw the line between human and not-human?

When one looks at a rainbow, it is easy to say that you are only seeing the colors red, yellow, green, blue and violet when in fact you are seeing a continuous spectrum of colors. Likewise with the fossil record, just because some are labeled human and other are labeled ape, they represent a continuous transition from a common ancestor to the humans and apes we see today.

 

[painted wolf]

I know that some researchers thing the K2 was more of a Kfluff, with many more mammals surviving than previously expected. I think major catastrophies are required in toe to explain genetic bottle necks. Creationists do not require such events. All creation was perfect until mankind chose to sin. Hence mankind was sentenced to death in this life. This concept is somewhat supported by what are termed 'deleterious mutaions' that resulted in mankind. You say these evolved. I say this is Gods recompence that will stay with us untill the new world. At that time it will be be reversed,,,somehow,

What does the worlds second tallest mountain have to do with this?

And can you demonstrate sin causing mutations? If not you are trying to peddle lies/assertions as facts.

I think the trail of evidence is more of a concern to evolutionists as they try to show ancestry. The churches threw their towel in behind evolution way to early based on misleading and biased evidence. Priests are not scientists..it's all about keeping parishioners happy. The churches probably jumped ship on that irrefuteable and convincing evidence that we evolved from knuckle walkers, now antiquated.

Of course others have creative powers. Toe is an example of creativity. Evolutionary theory remains a theory undergoing evolution itself.The greatest work Satan has ever accomplished is to lead the world into disbelief in God. This is prophesied and has most certainly come to fruition.

And yet the only ones who think evolution is satanic is the small group of creationists... and they are happily squabbling and condemning each other to hell for reading the book differently. Your friends at AIG for example think old Earth creationists like yourself are more Satan addled than even Atheists are.

Why should anyone trust a group that can't even agree who's in the club?

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

Because they chose to offer City & Guilds and GCE. If they had decided to offer the International Baccalaureate instead then the papers would have been sent to whichever country housed the relevant markers.
Its not England its the exam board. They got the authority when the school decided to offer their exams. And if the school was going to use their exams they would teach an appropriate syllabus.

Not true!

Happens all the time with the International Baccalaureate. Offered by 3,141 schools in 140 countries according to the IBI.
The International Baccalaureate offers high quality programmes of international education to a worldwide community of schools
How about the British International School in Turkey, it offers both the International Baccalaureate and the English National Curriculum.
British International School Istanbul - Turkey Schools - Directory of International and English Schools in Turkey
I know about this school as we considered sending our son there.
Wrong, all you did was make an unsubstantiated claim that a single specific school decided to use a specific exam board for its exams at ages 16 and 18.
You can still find schools all around the world that do this.
Look, schools in Poland some of which offer the British GSCE and GCE exams.
International Schools in Poland
And a school in Malaysia.
The International School of Penang (Uplands) - International Schools in Malaysia- Spain Schools
And the Cambridge IGCSE is (drumroll please)...an English exam board, just like City & Guilds.
Your ignorance of education matches your ignorance of biology..

ALL OF THAT IS IRRELEVANT!
And you&#8217;re wrong! I think you had better learn something about the British empire.
The countries were colonies of England. The schools were not independent entities. Their activities were mandated by England and the British Government had full authority over them. The curriculum they taught came straight from Britain. All the textbooks came from England, including &#8220;The Royal Reader.&#8221;

The schools had no choice over what they taught. They had no authority to enter into any deals with other countries to grade their papers, so all of that is bulloney!

I studied about Lord Nelson and Shakespeare and memorized so many of the English poets like Robert Louis Stevenson, William Thackery, Charles Kingsley, Cecil Alexander, etc, etc, etc. Whether or not they were all English-born, I don't know.

They taught me how to do calculations mentally, no writing allowed. We had to do that during some tests.
It was they who instilled in me a love for poetry, a skill I practice until this day.
The school songs were all about Britain - &#8220;There&#8217;ll Always Be an England,&#8221; &#8220;Land of Hope And Glory,&#8221; "Rule Britannia," and the Nationa Anthem, &#8220;God Save The Queen.&#8221;

It was the BBC that supplied us with all the international information we ever got.
You don&#8217;t seem to know anything about your own country.
What was that you said about my &#8220;ignorance of education?&#8221;
I wasn&#8217;t even talking about education - I was talking about the schools system.

Since semantics seem to be the name of your game, let me ask you this:
If I had written: &#8220;I was raised under the system of British education,&#8221; instead of:
&#8220;I was raised under the British system of education,&#8221; you would have said&#8230;..what?
Would your objection have been the same?

Since I am unable to see how it matters to you whether I did or not, I can only view this as a personal attack.

You are extremely presumptuous to tell me that I did not sit on any of the year-end exams, that grades were not called &#8220;Standards,&#8220; that no promotion to higher &#8220;Standards&#8221; took place upon failure of those exams, that no boys were kept back in the lower grades, that &#8220;there are no final exams in any subject between age 5 and 15.&#8221;
That addition of &#8220;in any subject&#8221; comes from a deceptive mind, is nothing but your own imagination, because I did not write that. I was there - you weren&#8217;t.
So why lie? It IS a lie, as you can see. When a person is caught in a lie, what happens to his credibility? People can no longer trust anything that they say.

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[David M]

ALL OF THAT IS IRRELEVANT!

Completely relevant. Another example of you refusing to admit you lack knowledge.

Your claim was:

Have you ever heard of any nation sending their students exam papers to be graded by another nation with no authority to do so and with whom they had no educational affiliations?
If you have, I'd like to hear of it.

I provided you with multiple examples of just such a practice. You'd like to hear of it but when you do its irrelevant?

<snip>

More goalpost shifting and obfustication.

You claimed you were educated under the British Education system and gave examples of practices never, ever carried out in Britain and thus not part of the British system by something added to the British system.

Therefore that education system, no matter the colonial or post-colonial period, was not the British education system but the education system of another country based on the British system but with local differences.

Stop crying personal attack and just admit that your original claim was not correct and what you meant was "based on the british educational system".

 

[wilsoncole]

Completely relevant. Another example of you refusing to admit you lack knowledge.

Your claim was:
I provided you with multiple examples of just such a practice. You'd like to hear of it but when you do its irrelevant?
More goalpost shifting and obfustication.

You claimed you were educated under the British Education system and gave examples of practices never, ever carried out in Britain and thus not part of the British system by something added to the British system.
Therefore that education system, no matter the colonial or post-colonial period, was not the British education system but the education system of another country based on the British system but with local differences.

Stop crying personal attack and just admit that your original claim was not correct and what you meant was "based on the british educational system".

Dodge! Try again:
"Since semantics seem to be the name of your game, let me ask you this:
If I had written: “I was raised under the system of British education,” instead of:
“I was raised under the British system of education,” you would have said…..what?
Would your objection have been the same?"

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[outhouse]

atleast we are all agreed that the fossil record shows a clear path of evolutuion


Im glad we all came together now.

 

[wilsoncole]

atleast we are all agreed that the fossil record shows a clear path of evolutuion


Im glad we all came together now.

Not so!

"A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. ​

The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and fins eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. ​

The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. ​

No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory. As expressed by the apostle Paul, birds are of a distinct “flesh” from others of earth’s creatures.—1Co 15:39."
(Insight vol. 1 p.316)​

Thd DNA makes the difference.​

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson