Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[Guest kingdombrat]

On 4/1/2021 at 7:37 PM, The Barbarian said:

This is a serious problem, and causes people to doubt God.

 

That post you quote is not from my viewpoint.   Can you tell me which Post # so I can go back and see this post for myself? 

[BeyondET]

It is possible man morphed from other prime mates, the process of metamorphosis is part of creation from the beginning.

As I mentioned before metamorphosis is the only process of development in the whole insect world, there could of been a time long ago where other living things morphed.

metamorphosis is an amazing God creation the development of one animal into another, butterfly’s do a complete transformation, breaks down every part of the old body then rebuilds a whole new body into a new creature.

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by BeyondET

[teddyv]

On 3/26/2021 at 9:06 AM, The Barbarian said:

You've obviously confused me with someone else.  I'm just pointing out that other afarensis fossils were found with feet:

"Lucy is the poster girl for her group of ancient hominins. The study of her other bones showed she was able to stand upright. But no foot bones were found with her skeleton, so researchers have puzzled over whether she walked like modern people or was a blend of ground- and tree-dweller.

The new discovery shows these relatives "were fully humanlike and committed to life on the ground," Ward said in a telephone interview from Africa. "It lays to rest the idea that they were a compromise."

The new bone, discovered with other A. afarensis bones at Hadar, Ethiopia, is a metatarsal, one of the long bones connecting the toes to the base of the foot.

It shows that Lucy's kin had arches stiffening their feet like modern people, as opposed to apes whose feet are more flexible for grasping tree branches."

I don't know why you thought I replied to you because my post indicates I replied to kingdombrat.

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

I think not just 1 single cell but millions of microbes are in the dust God scooped up and Spat into.   I agree no evolving Species into new Species!

Even most YE creationists now admit the evolution of new species...

From Answers in Genesis:

To his credit, Darwin corrected a popular misunderstanding. Species do change. Since Darwin’s day, many observations have confirmed this. In fact, new species have even been shown to arise within a single hu-man lifetime.

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/species-change.pdf

[The Barbarian]

Conclusions/Significance

This study finds that the rearfoot arch was present in the genus Australopithecus. However, the female Australopithecus afarensis “Lucy” has an ankle morphology consistent with non-pathological flat-footedness. This study suggests that, as in humans today, there was variation in arch development in Plio-Pleistocene hominins.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3010983/

And now you know why researchers knew.

4 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

I believe the bone placement [plus lack of feet] could be clues to maybe she died from lower trauma which would leave the bone they found in the position they claim.   

Belief doesn't matter.   Physicians who are familiar with this pathology have found the same morphology in Lucy's ankle.    And no, "they're just lying" is not an adequate response.

 

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, Sparks said:

There is no direct observation.  Sorry.  You have personally seen none of it.

The notion that we can't know anything we weren't there to personally observe, is so logically absurd, I'm surprised anyone still tries using it.

Forensics, Fire investigation, and geology, among many, many others, debunks that idea.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

The studies and educated responses that I presented earlier were from majority [atheist] Scientists who make the claim [all] discovered were more "ape like." 

No, that's wrong.   First, no bones from Lucy's feet were found.   But the many other fossils of A. afarensis did include foot bones and they are remarkably human-like...

The ancestors of humans were walking upright more than 3m years ago, according to an analysis of a fossilised foot bone found in Ethiopia. The fossil, the fourth metatarsal bone from the species Australopithecus afarensis, shows that this forerunner of early humans had a permanently arched foot like modern humans, a key requirement for an upright gait.

Arches in human feet put a spring in our step: they are stiff enough to propel us forward but flexible enough to absorb the shock at the end of each stride.

Scientists already knew that A. afarensis could walk on two feet but were unsure whether the creatures climbed and grasped tree branches as well, much like their own ancestor species and modern nonhuman apes. The fourth metatarsal, described on Thursday in Science, shows that A. afarensis moved around more like modern humans.

 

"Now that we know Lucy and her relatives had arches in their feet, this affects much of what we know about them, from where they lived to what they ate and how they avoided predators," said Carol Ward, a professor of integrative anatomy at the University of Missouri-Columbia who led the analysis of the fossil.

 

Keep in mind, these are very primitive Australopithecines.    More recent species are different:

The foot elements of A. africanus are largely known from remains from Sterkfontein Member 4. The foot is humanlike with a stiff midfoot and lack of a midtarsal break (which allows non-human apes to lift the heel independently from the rest of the foot). Though A. africanus had an adducted big toe (it was not dextrous) like humans, A. africanus likely did not push off with the big toe, using the side of the foot instead. StW 573 is the oldest hominin specimen with an adducted big toe.

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

[BeyondET]

Huh even rocks can morph, metaphoric rock is an actual thing.

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, teddyv said:

On 3/26/2021 at 11:06 AM, The Barbarian said:

Expand  

I don't know why you thought I replied to you because my post indicates I replied to kingdombrat.

Sorry.   Not sure why I did that.

 

[Sparks]

17 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The notion that we can't know anything we weren't there to personally observe, is so logically absurd, I'm surprised anyone still tries using it.

Forensics, Fire investigation, and geology, among many, many others, debunks that idea.

No one has ever witnessed evolution, except in the case of microevolution.  Darwinian Evolution, therefore, is not even a science. 

Let's stop calling evolution science.  It's just one more faith based belief since no one has even seen it.