What Have Darwinists Said That's True?

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Modern Apes...seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday no fossil record ( meaning no pre-ape / no transitional pseudo ape species etcetera ... NB* Lyall Watson is NOT suggesting that ' true apes' have never left fossils ! He's saying their pseudo ape/ transitional fore-runners /ancestors /predecessors NEVER HAVE ! ) . And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making big-brained humans - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter - Lyall Watson

Camanintx :

Any simple Google search proves this statement to be wrong.

Researchers find prehistoric ape fossils | Science & Health | Reuters

What pure unadulterated nonsense ! You’ve PROVEN NOTHING here... except that there were prehistoric APES...So what ? It’s been estimated that ninety percent of ape species that ever lived... have gone extinct ( and that estimate may be conservative )

BUT from Who?/What?/ Where? did these prehistoric ape’s first come ? Who? / what? was the first proto- half ape/ half something else ? Where’s the transitional species leading up to apes ? That what Lyall Watson is driving at !

These researchers claim that their prehistoric ape is related to modern gorillas. BUT that’s pure speculation on their part. . BUT even if true... this tells us NOTHING ABOUT HOW APES FIRST APPEARED ( since this creature is already an ape ! ) and similarly we still KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HUMAN ANCESTRY as even the writer of the article you cite admits ! . Here are excerpts from the article you cite :

The Ethiopian and Japanese team named the species Chororapithecus abyssinicus and said it represents the earliest recognised primate directly related to modern-day gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos.

"The human fossil record goes back six to seven million years, But WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HOW THE HUMAN LINE ACTUALLY EMERGED FROM APES," the researchers said in a statement on Wednesday that accompanied publication of their study in Nature magazine.

So we ‘ KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HOW THE HUMAN LINE ACTUALLY EMERGED FROM APES" eh?

So How then....pray tell...do we even know that it did ?

 

[camanintx]

Camanintx :

If by Hominid you mean a ‘ transitional species’ somewhere between apes and humans , there are no such creatures / fossil evidence / bones ....there are only ‘ pretenders’ which do NOT withstand close scrutiny .

Do you have anything to back up this assertion? When you say they don't withstand close scrutiny, are you talking about the opinion of people who have actually studied them or your opinion from looking at pictures on the internet?

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact:

Am I quite familiar with the total dearth of evidence to support ' Darwinian ' evolution. Completely spurious phylogenetic family trees ( masquerading as evidence ) only amounts to an academic ‘ sleight of hand’

I see, so it's not ignorance, it's dishonesty. Thanks.

Because, as I say, none of what you cite is the actual evidence in support of the Theory of Evoluton (ToE.) If you are familiar with it, I wonder why you don't discuss it? Would you like me to present it? I have done it here before, but interest tends to decrease as the thread lengthens, and lengthens, and lengthens, while I slog through the extensive evidence from so many different fields and areas. I'll do it again, though, if you really want to discuss the actual evidence, which has nothing to do with Miller-Urey or Peppered Moths.

No they are not . H. B. Kettlewell’s much cited ‘ Peppered Moth’ Study, was merely another illustration of Evolutionary biologist’s academic dishonesty/ fraud masquerading as science

No it's not.
wiki:

The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.[1]
Since then, with improved environmental standards, light-coloured peppered moths have again become common, but the dramatic change in the peppered moth's population has remained a subject of much interest and study, and has led to the coining of the term industrial melanism to refer to the genetic darkening of species in response to pollutants. As a result of the relatively simple and easy-to-understand circumstances of the adaptation, the peppered moth has become a common example used in explaining or demonstrating natural selection to laypeople and classroom students.

Please cite the study where the work of Kettlewell and others was discredited, or withdraw this libelous slur.

H. B. KETTLEWELL’S ‘ PEPPERED MOTH’ MALARKEY

H. B. Kettlewell’s much cited ‘Peppered moth study’ provided more malarkey, masquerading as fact. Kettlewell claimed to have found evidence of both ' Darwinian' evolution and natural selection in contemporary moth populations, affected by coal pollution, which had darkened the bark on Great Britain’s trees.

Reportedly, darker bark meant that darker moths , in heavily industrialized regions, would be better camouflaged, and therefore more likely to escape predation by birds. Conversely, lighter coloured moths, of the same species, were said to have a comparative advantage in relatively unpolluted areas. Kettlewell failed to mention that Peppered moths don’t normally light on tree trunks, but instead hide under tree branches by day, venturing forth at night.

All of Kettlewell’s statistics were carefully doctored, and photographed insects - misrepresented as living specimens - were actually dead ones , pinned or glued to trees ! Even Kettlewell’s original premise was flawed. Both dark and light versions of Peppered moths predate coal pollution, so this was not an example of an adaptive mutation at all.

The material in red is a flat out lie. Support, withdraw, or admit.

Yes, the photos were staged. You know what, when I visited Virginia last summer, the so called "soldiers" were really actors in costumes! The Civil War never happened! The photos are illustrations, not evidence. Again, do you not understand the distinction, or are you deliberately ignoring it?

btw, the use of bold as a default font is rude, akin to all caps. Does that bother you?

 

[camanintx]

NOT perfect eh ? Talk about your GROS UNDERSTATEMENTS... According to Richard Lewontin... Kettlewell admitted ( after the fact ) to purposely doctoring his data and ‘ staging’ his photos ( He tried to claim that this academic dishonesty didn't matter/ didn't adversely effect his conclusions...)

Add to this the fact that this was NOT ( I repeat NOT ) an example of an ' ADAPTIVE MUTATION' ....Since the two colorations of Peppered Moths pre-existed / pre-dated coal pollution...

Kettlewell’s ‘ fraudulent’ study has PROVEN NOTHING ! At least nothing in support of ‘ Darwinian’ evolution ...Natural selection is not exclusive to Darwinism, it remains a puissant force in theories of ' Intelligent ' Evolution too

What sets Darwinism apart is that it maintains that simple ' Natural Selection ' alone' ( when underpinned by purely random mutations ) would be sufficient to give rise to completely novel species/ fleshly design features...

There is still NO EVIDENCE that this is true...and That fraud Kettlewell certainly does nothing to lend credence to ' Darwinian' evolution either

You are good at making assertions but continually fail to back them up. I linked to a paper by a geneticist stating that despite the flaws in Kettlewell's work, his conclusions were correct. Why should I accept your word over his?

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact :

Well first and foremost , most experts now concede ( and even Miller agrees ) that the conditions set up in the Miller experiment, in all probability, did NOT come close to representing atmospheric conditions in the pre-biotic earth. Secondly, Miller cheated by employing a ‘ Cold Trap’

So, as I said, why are you dragging in irrelevant criticisms about an irrelevant (but fascinating) early experiment that has absoluting nothing, that's right, nothing, to do with evolution. If you want to start a thread to discuss abiogenesis, please do so, but why drag the subject in here where it is unrelated, unless to demonstrate just how dishonest creationists are?

Renown scientist Fred Hoyle ( a well known proponent of supernatural explanations for genesis ) famously quipped that :

Sir Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist. Why would you quote an astronomer regarding biology, unless another attempt to deceive? btw, he was also wrong.

Please stop quote-mining. It's tedious to have to spend the time to discredit each one. If you have some biological evidence, present it, but do try not to twist other people's words like this--it isn't seemly.

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Camanintx :

No one ever said you had to prove a negative. Every paleontologist that has studied Tiktaalik agrees that it is a transitional species exhibiting the characteristics of fish and tetrapods

They're JUST SPECULATING...they don't know this for a fact...and the fact that so many agree is hardly suprising...' Evolutionary biology' is a pretty small niche, and you wouldn't get far ' career wise' by ' rocking the boat' when it comes to established wisdom/ orthodoxy....We were once assured by ' all n sundry' that ' Lucy' was a human ancestory too/ a transitional species somewhere between ape and man...Now many are convinced that Lucy's clan, was simply another extinct ape species...which DID NOT walk upright and bears no relation whatsoever to humans !

And less we forget, the ' so called ' experts all agreed at one time that Eohippus was a distant relation to modern horses. Now they've pretty much ALL admitted that this isn't so...

Today's Wisdom/ primitive ' transitional species' etc...may be tommorrow's ' Coelacanth '

 

[Autodidact]

Camanintx :

What pure unadulterated nonsense ! You’ve PROVEN NOTHING here... except that there were prehistoric APES...So what ? It’s been estimated that ninety percent of ape species have gone extinct ( and that estimate may be conservative )

BUT from Who/What/ Where did these prehistoric ape’s first come from ? Who / what was the first proto- half ape/ half something else ? Where’s the transitional species leading up to apes ? That what Lyall Watson is driving at !

These researchers claim that their prehistoric ape is related to modern gorillas. BUT that’s pure speculation on their part. . BUT even if true... this tells us NOTHING ABOUT HOW APES FIRST APPEARED ( since this creature is already an ape ! ) and similarly we still KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HUMAN ANCESTRY as even the writer of the article you cite admits ! . Here are excerpts from the article you cite :

So we ‘ KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HOW THE HUMAN LINE ACTUALLY EMERGED FROM APES" eh?

So How then....pray tell...do we even know that it did ?

So if I understand your virtually incoherent rant correctly, which is questionable, you're questioning not the evolution of human from apes, but the evolution of apes from their primate ancestors? You're claiming that the fossil record contains no precursors to apes???

 

[camanintx]

Modern Apes...seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday no fossil record

What pure unadulterated nonsense ! You’ve PROVEN NOTHING here... except that there were prehistoric APES...So what ?

I have proven that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Autodidact]

Camanintx :

They're JUST SPECULATING...they don't know this for a fact...

Well, of course, to the extent that all science is speculation, they're speculating, after ten years of study, first-hand examination of the fossils discovered, and so on. I mean, scientists who say that Saturn has rings are really just speculating, aren't they? They don't know it for a fact, do they? But they know it well enough to teach it to astronomy students. It's like that.

and the fact that so many agree is hardly suprising...' Evolutionary biology' is a pretty small niche, and you wouldn't get far ' career wise' by ' rocking the boat' when it comes to established wisdom/ orthodoxy....

False. That's exactly how you would get very far. If you rocked the boat with good science, and overturned accepted understanding, you would be published, renowned, and possibly end up with a Nobel prize.

We were once assured by ' all n sundry' that ' Lucy' was a human ancestory too/ a transitional species somewhere between ape and man...Now many are convinced that Lucy's clan, was simply another extinct ape species...which DID NOT walk upright and bears no relation whatsoever to humans !

Yup, that darned science, constantly improving our understanding like that. Do you see how you contradicted yourself? If scientists changed their mind about Lucy, then someone rocked the boat with a new theory about her, didn't they? Happens every day in the real world of science. If scientists agree about something, it's because that's where the evidence seems to point, not because they are all secretly members of the International Scientific Conspiracy.

And less we forget the ' so called ' experts all agreed at one time that Eohippus was a distant relation to modern horses. Now they've pretty much ALL admitted that this isn't so...

No they haven't. Cite, please?

Today's Wisdom/ primitive ' transitional species' etc...may be tommorrow's ' Coelacanth '

Isnt it cool that we found a living example of such an ancient type of animal?

 

[camanintx]

Camanintx :

They're JUST SPECULATING...they don't know this for a fact...and the fact that so many agree is hardly suprising...' Evolutionary biology' is a pretty small niche, and you wouldn't get far ' career wise' by ' rocking the boat' when it comes to established wisdom/ orthodoxy....We were once assured by ' all n sundry' that ' Lucy' was a human ancestory too/ a transitional species somewhere between ape and man...Now many are convinced that Lucy's clan, was simply another extinct ape species...which DID NOT walk upright and bears no relation whatsoever to humans !

The only way to make a name for yourself in any scientific field is by challenging the established wisdom and orthodoxy. Nobody gets remembered for supporting what other people have already discovered. That doesn't mean you can make unsupported assertions, something you're a expert at, without providing the data to back it up.

And less we forget, the ' so called ' experts all agreed at one time that Eohippus was a distant relation to modern horses. Now they've pretty much ALL admitted that this isn't so...

Today's Wisdom/ primitive ' transitional species' etc...may be tommorrow's ' Coelacanth '

Maybe you would care to link to one of these "experts" that say modern horses are not related to Eohippus.

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence ( for man’s evolutionary origins ) ... he'd surely say, forget it; there isn't enough to go on. -Harvard professor David Pilbeam

Midnight Blue :

The DELIBERATE LIE here is the parenthetical comment "(for man's evolutionary origins).

I wrote that paenthetical comment...so you're calling me a ' Liar' here eh ?

there’s no lie, deliberate or otherwise... and frankly I RESENT the crass/cowardly insinuation...although I should have said ( for man’s ‘ Darwinian ‘ evolutionary origins from ape.) ..BUT really that’s nitpicking !

Midnight Blue :

That's not what Pilbeam was talking about at all. Pilbeam not only acknowledges the fact of evolution, but has written several books on the subject.

I believe in evolution too, remember...Intelligent/ Purposeful evolution...BUT not ' Darwinian' evolution...THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE... the meagre fossil evidence ( for man’s ‘ Darwinian ‘ evolutionary origins from ape.) Is INDEED precisely what Pilbean is talking about here

Midnight Blue :

When he ( Pilbean ) was speaking, in 1981, about "meager evidence," he was talking about the meager evidence available for reconstructing the precise evolutionary tree of hominids and the other great apes. Of course, we have considerably more evidence now than we had in 1981, but Pilbeam wasn't saying anything even remotely resembling what Creationists claim.

Funny, but an article that Camanintx recently cited here admitted that : ‘ WE ( STILL ) KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HOW THE HUMAN LINE ACTUALLY EMERGED FROM APES," Ergo....THERE'S STILL NO EVIDENCE vis a vis man's Darwinian/ evolutionary origins from ape... How then do we ( cough cough ) KNOW that this even happened ? .... Again here’s the pertinent quote ( dont wanna be unfairly accussed of taking anything outa contect by some smug Darwinist )

THE ETHIOPIAN AND JAPANESE TEAM NAMED THE SPECIES CHORORAPITHECUS ABYSSINICUS AND SAID IT REPRESENTS THE EARLIEST RECOGNISED PRIMATE DIRECTLY RELATED TO MODERN-DAY GORILLAS, CHIMPANZEES AND BONOBOS.

"THE HUMAN FOSSIL RECORD GOES BACK SIX TO SEVEN MILLION YEARS, BUT WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HOW THE HUMAN LINE ACTUALLY EMERGED FROM APES," ( See ' Researchers find prehistoric ape fossils ' by Michael Kahn )

Midnight Blue :

The first thing you notice about Creationists is that in their defense of "truth" they are not at all ashamed to lie.

Onstensibly taking something out of contect...( and that's a matter of opinion ) Most assuredly is NOT the same as ' deliberately lying' ...Indeed all quotes from any book ( for example ) are taken out of contect...BECAUSE WE CAN'T REPRODUCE THE WHOLE BLOODY BOOK etc., simply to make a single pertinent point...

In any case... its " Darwinian’ evolutionary biology’ that’s full of lies/ half truths/ a history of academic fraud my friend...remember Piltdown Man ?

Better yet...remember Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent embryos/ ' theory of embryonic recapitulation.?

This theory of ' embryonic recapitulation' was still being cited in textbooks by staunch Darwinists as verified 'FACT'...throughout the 20th century despite the fact that Haeckel admitted ( way back in the 1880's ) that he had FAKED / PURPOSEFULLY EXAGGERATED his drawings of embryos...His defense was basically well ( I'm paraphrasing here ) " everybody/ every evolutionary biologist , does it' . I seem to recall that H.B. Kettlewell used a similar defense

***

BTW ( and for the record Midnight Blue ) I really resent your propensity for condescending / crass commentary / accusations ( coupled with your hypocritical claims that I'm the one whose not being ' civil' )

Strangely enough... ...went push comes to shove...YOU NEVER SEEM TO BACK ANYTHING UP !?!

Still waiting for your evidence that Darwin was an agnostic btw

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Camanintx :

If the oldest example of ' modern' horses (Equus stenonis) dates back only 3 million years and the youngest fossil of Eohippus is 20 million years old, where exactly do you see any overlap?

What's your definition of ' modern' horses...If there are creatures which are recognizably ' Horses' ( modern or not ) in the fossil record, in/ on the same strata as Eohippus ...then Eohippus is clearly not a ' transitional species' which gave rise to horses...

Btw do you have a link to what your saying here ?

Camanintx:

I suggest you bone up on your knowledge of fossilization and why we don't find the remains of every creature which ever lived.

I didn't say that we/ paleontoligists/ fossil hunters did....In fact, I said quite the opposite...Maybe you should read my posts MORE CAREFULLY

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Autodidact:

The material in red is a flat out lie. Support, withdraw, or admit.

Kettlewell himself admtted that he doctored his photos and that the moths in the pictures were actually pinned or glued to the bark of trees...this is discussed in Richard Lewontin's ( a renown biologist and a staunch Darwinist btw ) book ' It ain't necessarily so ' . I read that book and know of whence I speak...

Btw I could get all pretentious and say something equally absurd by similarly saying that repeated claims made here vis a vis ' Darwin being an agnostic are a ' flat out lie. Support, withdraw, or admit. ( blah blah blah...) '

Of course I'm making NO such class claims, I was merely asking to see evidence of this...

You're erroneously claiming that ' I'm lying' chump

SO PROVE IT...OR YOU SHUT UP !

Autodidact:

Yes, the photos were staged. You know what, when I visited Virginia last summer, the so called "soldiers" were really actors in costumes! The Civil War never happened! The photos are illustrations, not evidence. Again, do you not understand the distinction, or are you deliberately ignoring it?

Nobody ever debated that all civil war re-enactment were/are ' staged'...So the analogy DOES NOT apply...

Kettlewell ( much like Ernst Haeckel ) did NOT admit his photos were staged until long after the fact...Misrepresenting them as ' Natural'

That's academic dishonesty/ fraud ...No matter how you slice it ! Reportedly, his data was fudged too...

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Of course scientists add, subtract and shuffle species as new discoveries are made. That is what science is and does, how it works, and what makes it science. It is continually revised, refined and updated with each new discovery. What matters is that there has never been a single discovery ever that called into question the common ancestry of the horse or of all creatures on earth. It's not where each individual creature fits, which we're constantly learning more and more about, it's the overall question of whether they are all related by common descent, as Darwin first discovered.

Scientists cannot find a single transitional species which links any distinct/ recognized ' phylum'
They can't ' irrefutably ' find the mysterious ' missing links' between fish and four footed vertebrates either, nor between amphibians and reptiles, nor between reptiles and birds, nor between reptiles and mammals....nor even between apes and man...

It's equally true that all of ' evolutionary biology's ' phylogenetic family trees, are spurious / have no basis in scientific fact ! That's quite a problem since Darwinism is supposed to be science !


In the words of Henry Gee, former editor of the prestigious journal ‘ Nature':

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.

Gee is no less critical of conventional anthropological models said to portray Homo Sapiens' evolution, calling these:

a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.

Here's a quote from Niles Eldredge which I've used before ( you may say its somehow out of context...But evolutionary biologist make some pretty bold comments , when they seem to think that only their colleagues are privy to them...then they mysteriously seem to back track / circle the wagon...when those outside their narrow clique get wind of it...

Small matter, because Niles Eldrege's comments CANNOT be misconstrued ....its perfectly clear what he's saying here ... he might as well be saying that all of ' evolutionary biology/ Darwinism's on shakey grounds . He hopes that precepts of ' punctuated equibrium ' can salvage it, but that seems to be a FORLORN hope IMO

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yield zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change-over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.


[ Niles Eldredge - Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History. "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," (1995), phoenix: London, 1996, p. 95...Also as cited by Michael J. Behe, see ‘ Darwin’s Black Box’ page 27

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Autodidact:

What matters is that there has never been a single discovery ever that called into question the common ancestry of the horse or of all creatures on earth.

Nor has there ever been a single discovery that confirms this ' common' ancestry. But even if all life on earth can be traced to a common ancestor ( which again is in serious doubt ) ...So What ? This still does not prove that this fleshly evolution was ' Darwinian' ...In other words, it does NOT prove that it was ( or could have been ) underpinned by ' RANDOM MUTATIONS' ( even if honed by Natural Selection )

Autodidact :

What devastates the creationist position, and the reason why they are trying to exploit any areas of confusion, is that the fact that we have extinct fossils of horse ancestors at all completely destroys their argument.

What extinct horse ancestors? We have NO IDEA, if ' Eohippus to Horses' has any basis in fact...Or indeed if a single phylogenetic family tree ' ever drawn by evolutionary biologists' has any basis in fact !?! We do not know who the Horses ' evolutionary' ancestors really were !

For that matter we have still not found a single ‘ credible’ ‘ transitional’ creature between ape and man


Camanintx :

Do you have anything to back up this assertion? When you say they ( alleged transitional ' ape to man' species ) don't withstand close scrutiny, are you talking about the opinion of people who have actually studied them or your opinion from looking at pictures on the internet?

The FORMER

' Lucy was NO Lady ! ’

Darwinists insist that Homo Sapiens evolved naturally and gradually, from an ape-like ancestor , over millions of years. For nearly 150 years , they've searched the globe for part- man, part- simian , ‘ missing link' fossils. Thus far, they've have found nothing of consequence, yet this hasn't stopped researchers from repeatedly claiming success.

A who's who of Anthropologists have written whole volumes, based solely on the fragmentary fossils of ‘ extinct Australopithecines' ( a genus living between 1 and 4.5 million years ago ). Some varieties of Australopithecines ( which in Latin means ‘ southern ape') were very robust, other types were more delicate and smaller. Although apish, Australopithecines were said to be intermediate species, somewhere between simian and man. To date, the most famous Australopithecine fossil is Lucy. Discovered in 1974 , in Ethiopia, by Don Johanson and Tim White , Lucy is the less than half complete skeleton, of a 3 ½ foot adult female, believed to have lived roughly 3.2 million years ago
.
Often described as an ‘ ape-woman' , Lucy and her clan are usually pictured standing upright and nearly naked , holding primitive stone tools, and scanning a nearly tree-less African savannah, with eyes that glint with a burgeoning intelligence. To critics, the above interpretations are just an academic slight of hand. For one thing ( and this is typical of palaeontology specimens ) Lucy is a composite of separate bone deposits, some found 1,000 feet away, others obtained from as far away as Tanzania. For another, there is absolutely no physiological evidence, linking Lucy with humans.

According to expert anatomists Solly Zuckerman and Charles Oxnard, ‘ Australopithecines most closely resembled either orangutans , or chimpanzees. ‘ The brain capacity of Lucy's clan was actually slightly smaller ( on average ) than today's chimps. Also characteristic of contemporary apes, Australopithecines had close set eyes, powerful jaws, and pointed molar teeth. The knuckles on their hands showed signs of being used to assist in walking. Their feet were prehensile, ( i.e. capable of grasping ). Both their hands and feet had protective ridges , useful for swinging from branches. Their arms were long, and their legs comparatively short.

In addition, their inner ear canals ( which help to coordinate balance ) were small and decidedly simian in structure, rather than being large and semi-circular, like those of Homo Sapiens.

By objectively comparing all available anatomical data, it soon becomes clear that Australopithecines were just extinct, tree dwelling apes, incapable of walking upright for more than a few steps. The well known French science magazine ‘ La Vie' ( long a strong advocate of the theory of evolution ) went even further . In a May 1999 article, tellingly entitled ‘ Adieu Lucy', author Isabelle Bourdial flatly admits that :

Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same ( evolutionary ) branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.

BTW: The finding of extinct ape varieties in the fossil record is not the least bit surprising; some researchers suspect these may outnumber still surviving ape species, by more than 100 to 1 !

 

[camanintx]

Camanintx :

What's your definition of ' modern' horses...If there are creatures which are recognizably ' Horses' ( modern or not ) in the fossil record, in/ on the same strata as Eohippus ...then Eohippus is clearly not a ' transitional species' which gave rise to horses...

Btw do you have a link to what your saying here ?

Maybe you should look up the term 'Equus stenonis' I included in parenthesis right after 'modern horse' as this is the definition of 'modern horse' used predominately by biologists. Here is a simple explanation of horse evolution (from here). If you are going to claim that horse fossils have been found in the same strata as Eohippus, the least you could do is provide a reference.

 

[camanintx]

Scientists cannot find a single transitional species which links any distinct/ recognized ' phylum'
They can't ' irrefutably ' find the mysterious ' missing links' between fish and four footed vertebrates either, nor between amphibians and reptiles, nor between reptiles and birds, nor between reptiles and mammals....nor even between apes and man...

So when are you going to provide those references that dispute the transitional nature of Tiktaalik?

 

[camanintx]

By objectively comparing all available anatomical data, it soon becomes clear that Australopithecines were just extinct, tree dwelling apes, incapable of walking upright for more than a few steps.

Did you come up with this yourself or are you cutting and pasting from somewhere?

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Camanintx :

You are good at making assertions but continually fail to back them up. I linked to a paper by a geneticist stating that despite the flaws in Kettlewell's work, his conclusions were correct. Why should I accept your word over his?

What conclusions ? That Kettlewell's study showed ' Darwinian' evolution in action ? It DIDN"T. For the third time ... This was NOT an example of an ' ADAPTIVE MUTATION' Both dark and light versions of peppered moths predate coal pollution. The genes for both already existed. Again there was NO ADAPTATION . There was ' Natural Selection' of a pre-existing coloration genes...BUT theories of ' intelligent' Evolution don't deny the puissant power of Natural Selection. They simply assert that this CANNOT suffice to give rise to novel species , underpinned exclusively by ' RANDOM' repeat RANDOM MUTATIONS

The mystery is NOT the ' survival ' BUT rather the ' arrival' of the fittest ( sorry I dont know the originator of this quote )

What else is there to say ????

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Autodidact :

So if I understand your virtually incoherent rant correctly, which is questionable, you're questioning not the evolution of human from apes, but the evolution of apes from their primate ancestors? You're claiming that the fossil record contains no precursors to apes???

I'm saying we can't find any ' transitional' part-ape/ part something else...in the fossil record...and I believe this is what Lyall Watson is saying too...