New transitional fossil from late Jurassic of Chile sheds light on the origin of modern crocodiles

[The Barbarian]

16 hours ago, Sparks said:

Nebraska Man (what an embarrassment to evolution fans) was in 1922. 

Nebraska man was the invention of a London magazine, embellishing an error.    A dinosaur specialist found a tooth oddly worn down to look like a primate tooth.    And he concluded that it was from an ape(not a man).   When a mammal specialist got a look at it, he identified it as that of a javelina, albeit oddly shaped somewhat like a primate tooth..    The rest was creative invention by a news reporter.   

 

[Sparks]

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

To put a fine point on it, Dr. Wise fully admits there is evidence for numerous transitional fossils. That much is undeniable.

The deniable part is that transitional fossils exist. The dumb theory of evolution has not got much going for it, except great marketing.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Nebraska man was the invention of a London magazine, embellishing an error.    A dinosaur specialist found a tooth oddly worn down to look like a primate tooth.    And he concluded that it was from an ape(not a man).   When a mammal specialist got a look at it, he identified it as that of a javelina, albeit oddly shaped somewhat like a primate tooth..    The rest was creative invention by a news reporter.  

Yes, how embarrassing.  You will find all them have an odd story like that.  Piltdown man was fabricated, and sold.  Lucy came from highly disconnected parts, and a smashed face.  The London Archaeopteryx they found a lot of chemicals like silicon, plaster and chlorine, and when they pulled it out of storage the slab and counter slab didn't match.  It was an artist rendering.

With literally millions of fossils out there, why are there no real transitional fossils?  Oh, yeah, the theory has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

This is the real Lucy.  You probably have never seen this little monkey, with a different hip bone found about 1/4 mile away.  No foot or hand bones were found, so they gave her exhibit human looking ones.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Yes, how embarrassing.  You will find all them have an odd story like that.  Piltdown man was fabricated, and sold.

That was more interesting.    "Nebraska man" was, as you now realize, never claimed to be a human.   We don't know who faked Piltdown man, but we do know that Darwinists exposed the hoax.    You see, it was just the opposite of what evolutionary theory predicted.   Early man was predicted to have a human-like body and an ape-like cranium.   Yet this hoax had a large cranium and an ape-like jaw.   Very embarrassing.   So it's not surprising that scientists kept on it until they could prove it was a fraud.  

BTW, when we did start finding transitional forms, they were as predicted; human like post-cranial skeletons, apelike skulls.   And so another point of evolutionary theory was confirmed.

 

Lucy came from highly disconnected parts, and a smashed face.

You were fooled about that, too.   The bones were all found on the site.  Most of the face was never found, although we have lots of Austrolopithecine fossils now, including faces. 

The London Archaeopteryx they found a lot of chemicals like silicon, plaster and chlorine, and when they pulled it out of storage the slab and counter slab didn't match.  It was an artist rendering.

Nope.  That's another faked story.    In fact, Archeopteryx was first thought to be a dinosaur until one with feathers was found.  There have been many other examples since. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263745846_New_specimen_of_Archaeopteryx_provides_insights_into_the_evolution_of_pennaceous_feathers

With literally millions of fossils out there, why are there no real transitional fossils?

Let's see what a knowledgeable YE creationist has to say about that...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and
the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptilegroups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

This is the real Lucy.  You probably have never seen this little monkey, with a different hip bone found about 1/4 mile away.

That story is a hoax, too.   Never happened.   A creationist pasted together two different statements from a scientist to fake it.   Doesn't matter anyway; there are a lot of Australopithecine fossils now to check on things.   And yes, we have hand and foot bones.   Would you like me to show you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sparks]

49 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

That was more interesting.    "Nebraska man" was, as you now realize, never claimed to be a human.  

No, it was thought to be Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, based on a single tooth.  Based on this tooth, artists rendered two ape-like creatures and it hit the papers, only it turned out to be the tooth of a extinct species of peccary known as Prosthennops serus.

How embarrassing to the evolution community.  I bet they wished they had not published all that stuff about it before someone walked up and said "Pig's tooth."

49 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

BTW, when we did start finding transitional forms, they were as predicted; human like post-cranial skeletons, apelike skulls.   And so another point of evolutionary theory was confirmed.

The transitional fossils turn out to be fakes.

49 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You were fooled about that, too.   The bones were all found on the site.  Most of the face was never found, although we have lots of Austrolopithecine fossils now, including faces.

Yes, so where are the pictures of these Austrolopithecine, including hands and feet and that hip bone?  And no, that bone was not found with her, it was found under much deeper strata 1/4 mile away.  Donald Johanson just needed his grant money.  Why are the photos not in the Wikipedia article for them?

49 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

That story is a hoax, too.   Never happened.   A creationist pasted together two different statements from a scientist to fake it.   Doesn't matter anyway; there are a lot of Australopithecine fossils now to check on things.   And yes, we have hand and foot bones.   Would you like me to show you?

I would like to see them.  Keep in mind, you can easily include a fake fossil set just as Johanson did.  I would like to see them being dug, not out on a table.  As you must know, the Brontosaurus had the wrong head on it for decades, but no one said a word.

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

Yes, so where are the pictures of these Austrolopithecine, including hands and feet and that hip bone?  And no, that bone was not found with her, it was found under much deeper strata 1/4 mile away.  Donald Johanson just needed his grant money.  Why are the photos not in the Wikipedia article for them?

Nope.   They lied to you about that.   And it was a knee, not a hip bone in the creationist confusion:

Creationists have been making the claim that Donald Johanson found the knee joint of "Lucy," a 40%-complete skeleton of the species Australopithecus afarensis, in a location "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away" (Willis 1987). They have sometimes gone on to add the claim that "Only under questioning did [Johanson] admit that the knee was found over a mile from Lucy. To the best of our knowledge this admission has not appeared in print!" (Willis 1987; emphasis in original; Also see Brown 1989a, p. 44) The claim is used by creationists to show that (a) evolutionists are dishonest and (b) "Lucy" did not walk upright. It successfully shows neither of these things, because it is false. (Even if it were true, it would not demonstrate (b), for reasons given in Lippard (1989-90)--the knee joint is not the only evidence of bipedality in A. afarensis.)

The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981, ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it is false. Despite this, none of the major proponents of the claim has publicly retracted it. One major proponent has privately agreed that it is false, and a few creationists have agreed to stop repeating it. One minor proponent made a public retraction.

The claim originated with Tom Willis, head of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America, in an article he wrote for the Bible-Science Newsletter (1987). In his article, Willis reported on a lecture by Johanson at the University of Missouri on November 20, 1986. Willis reported that the following exchange occurred during the question-and-answer session which followed Johanson's lecture:

Q. How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?
A. Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away.

This question was perhaps intended by the questioner to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find Lucy's knee?", but was clearly interpreted by Johanson to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find the 1973 knee joint?" Willis does not recognize the confusion in his article, even though the discoveries of both the original knee joint (1973) and Lucy (1974) are described in detail--including the locations of the finds--in Donald C. Johanson and Maitland E. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981) and in the articles in the April 1982 issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. The creationist misunderstanding would never have occurred had either of these sources been consulted. Johanson's writings have always been clear about the fact that his 1973 knee joint was a separate find from Lucy. All of the bones shown in photographs of Lucy were found at a single location.

...

To summarize: At least eighteen creationists have made this bogus claim. Three have never responded in any way to questions about it (Girouard, Menton, Willis). Another two have not responded to further inquiries (Brown, McAllister). Only five have shown a willingness to discuss the matter (Chittick, the Nuttings, Sharp, Taylor), but one (Chittick) cut off correspondence. Four have agreed that the claim was in error and agreed to stop making it (Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, Taylor), and two agreed to stop making it if further investigation showed that the claim was bogus (the Nuttings) but have continued to repeat it. One (Arndts) has indicated a willingness to believe that the claim is in error but no interest in researching further or offering a correction because the article in which he made the claim just used it as an example of a type of error in reasoning. One (LaHaye) has insisted that the claim is not in error, but agreed to stop making it at the request of the Institute for Creation Research. Three (Baugh, Huse, Mehlert) have not yet been contacted for comment. One (Brown) now denies having made the claim at all. Only three (Menton, Morris, Sharp) have issued public corrections or clarifications.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

The bone Johannson was speaking of, was from a different place, at a different time.   BTW, subsequent Australopithecine knee joints have been found, and they all indicate a bipedal posture.

https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-1732-title-title-carousel-1614729455.jpg

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsimg.bbc.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F42111000%2Fjpg%2F_42111028_bones_mpi_203.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.peb1l3eeOLuJaa8CT_nlfAAAAA%26pid%3DApi&f=1

Australopithecine hands:

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-mbmEphBoI34%2FTmj4vgAYrYI%2FAAAAAAAAsDo%2FvktUbou_AGs%2Fs1600%2FHuman%2BEvolution%2BHFR%2B%25281%2529.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Australopithecus feet and ankles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2jo719D3Zw

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

No, it was thought to be Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, based on a single tooth.  Based on this tooth, artists rendered two ape-like creatures and it hit the papers,

A British magazine heard about a supposed ape (not a human or a human ancestor) and filled in the rest with imagination.   As you learned, a review of the tooth by a mammal specialist cleared up the confusion.   

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

Keep in mind, you can easily include a fake fossil set just as Johanson did.

As you now realize, you've been deceived about that.   I know it's hard to accept that guys who claim to be Christians are lying to you, but that's what they do.   Not all of them.  Notice a number of creationists who repeated the false story, retracted it when they  found out that it was a lie.

 

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, Sparks said:

The deniable part is that transitional fossils exist. The dumb theory of evolution has not got much going for it, except great marketing.

Yes, there is abundant evidence - even according to YEC scientists - but there are still many that discard the theory, not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of their own personal preference. There isn't much else to convince people that remain immune to evidence.

[Sparks]

16 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.   They lied to you about that.   And it was a knee, not a hip bone in the creationist confusion.

They lied alright, but it was not to me.   Lucy's find was fiction, doctored, like all of the transitional fossils. 

16 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Australopithecine hands:

Australopithecus feet and ankles:

I appreciate the bombardment of links, but remember what I said about them having to be uncovered from the ground being the qualifier?  I don't want to see something an artist can make in a workshop, like that Piltdown Man jaw was made or the London Archaeopteryx specimen, which were forged .  I want to see them in the ground, where they found it, being uncovered. 

These alleged scientists go to some lengths to create things, so I would like to see the photos of the scene.

16 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

A British magazine heard about a supposed ape (not a human or a human ancestor) and filled in the rest with imagination.   As you learned, a review of the tooth by a mammal specialist cleared up the confusion.

Yes, but not before everyone claimed it was a transitional fossil.  They cleared up the confusion, but the point is they went to the press, convinced, first.

16 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

As you now realize, you've been deceived about that.   I know it's hard to accept that guys who claim to be Christians are lying to you, but that's what they do.   Not all of them.  Notice a number of creationists who repeated the false story, retracted it when they  found out that it was a lie.

Creationists are the ones pointing out the lies.  Satan has lied to you about evolution.  He thought it up.  Nothing is so completely opposite of the Creation story. 

[Sparks]

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, there is abundant evidence - even according to YEC scientists - but there are still many that discard the theory, not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of their own personal preference. There isn't much else to convince people that remain immune to evidence.

I would love to see the evidence of transitional fossils.  So far, it's fiction. 

[one.opinion]

42 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I would love to see the evidence of transitional fossils.  So far, it's fiction. 

It would be really easy to follow up on the evidence @The Barbarian presented to you in Dr. Wise's quote.