Bread_of_Life Posted August 29, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Author Share Posted August 29, 2004 Truseek et al. Here is the new link for the Afarenis fossil find - to prove that transitional finds (especially in the human lineage) really are substantial: http://nikolai.faithweb.com/afarenis.htm Nik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truseek Posted August 29, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 344 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1982 Share Posted August 29, 2004 Truseek et al. Here is the new link for the Afarenis fossil find - to prove that transitional finds (especially in the human lineage) really are substantial: http://nikolai.faithweb.com/afarenis.htm Nik But what definitive proof is there that these are not humans themselves? Or proof that if they were not human, that they did indeed evolve? In Christ Truseek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted August 30, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Author Share Posted August 30, 2004 truseek Well, there's quite a simple proof that they were not human - you simply have to compare human remains with those of the fossil, in this case australopithecus afarensis. Actually, in the case of Afarensis, the difference is quite marked, especially in the sense that it was a facultative biped, not an obligate biped - it walked in a different way to that in which we walk today. We know this because of the angle that the spine joined the cranium, and also because of how the hips and legs were arranged. Also, as you may be able to see from the pictures, Afarensis retains an ape-like brow-ridge and cheek bone structure - one thing you wont be able to see is it's teeth - which again are markedly different from ours. But without going into too much further detail - we know it wasn't human because we can compare the finds with modern humans - it's really as simple as that. Or proof that if they were not human, that they did indeed evolve? Other than the fact that they appear in chronological order in the fossil record with other transitionals, getting more and more human-like as time goes on, there is no evidence that they evolved. However, Darwin's theory of evolution predicted that we would find fossils like these, and predicted that they would be in chronological order. Literal biblical creationism does not predict this - and indeed is forced to create increasingly unlikely ad hoc explanations of these finds in order to avoid disproof. Also, you may be interested in "atavism" - where modern creatures, through some sort of embryological abnormality, "re-discover" genes and hence features made redundant in their DNA through the course of evolution. For example, human babies have been born with tails - and I mean actual muscley boney tails - not just flaps of flesh. I have some X-rays and papers on that if you'd like. What this proves is that human beings do contain the genetic information to make a tail, joining on to our (vestigial) coccyx (tail bone). Similarly, Whales have been found with atavistic legs (and again, I'm happy to share the photos with you). Now, this is no great shakes for an evolutionist - after all, we've found Whale transitionals with legs. However, for creationists, who claim that these transitionals, (despite appearing and disappearing in chronological order), were actually just seperately created species, and not related or lineal to modern whales - these atavisms do cause a great problem. Why if whales are not related to earlier legged transitionals do they retain the genetic information to grow hind legs? Indeed, why do they retain a vestigial pelvis, adapted for the articulation of hind legs, when they do not have any? This may not be evidence that Australopithecus Afarensis in particular was an ancestor of ours, or evolved into us - but it is evidence that we do have ape-like ancestors, or at least ancestors with tails, somewhere in our close lineage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truseek Posted September 4, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 344 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1982 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Well, there's quite a simple proof that they were not human - you simply have to compare human remains with those of the fossil, in this case australopithecus afarensis. Actually, in the case of Afarensis, the difference is quite marked, especially in the sense that it was a facultative biped, not an obligate biped - it walked in a different way to that in which we walk today. We know this because of the angle that the spine joined the cranium, and also because of how the hips and legs were arranged. Also, as you may be able to see from the pictures, Afarensis retains an ape-like brow-ridge and cheek bone structure - one thing you wont be able to see is it's teeth - which again are markedly different from ours. But without going into too much further detail - we know it wasn't human because we can compare the finds with modern humans - it's really as simple as that. I was thinking somethingm ore along the lines of the gentleman who discovered that the Le Moustier fossil was merely out of sucket, thus pushing the jaw forward. Is it possible that similar mistakes have been made in identifying other fossil finds? and once again, I must do some more research on the whole geological record thing. I hate geology.... Also, you may be interested in "atavism" - where modern creatures, through some sort of embryological abnormality, "re-discover" genes and hence features made redundant in their DNA through the course of evolution. For example, human babies have been born with tails - and I mean actual muscley boney tails - not just flaps of flesh. I have some X-rays and papers on that if you'd like. What this proves is that human beings do contain the genetic information to make a tail, joining on to our (vestigial) coccyx (tail bone). Is it an actual tail, or is the coccyx merely protruding? I also do not know how much credence this lends to evolution, though it definitely does not disprove it. How does one differentiate between atavism and mutation without bias? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C. Posted September 8, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 172 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/07/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/13/1982 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Ok I have read most of these post, and I have come to the conclusion that everyone is getting stuck in the Creation part of the Bible. The Creation is basically the 1st Chapter of the 1st book of the Bible, 31 verses. The Creation is very vague on the details, that is because it is not the point of the Bible. It is just a prologue to the down fall of mankind. Then how we reconnect to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. The Creation is not for our comprehension. It is beyond use, and I know everyone knows this, I just do not want anyone to get side tracked with trying to explain how everything came into being. Do not get side tracked. The main goal is to glorify The Lord Jesus, and bring those who are lost to him, He is more concerned about that rather than anyone trying to comprehend The Creation of the universe. Ok But know I am going to get on topic here. As far as Evolution is concerned, How did it start here on Earth? I would really like to know the official theory of life evolving here on Earth, because I have heard several different ways. So please, as simply as possible. I do not need a several paragraphs of text, just a simple answer. That is all I ask. Oh and I read this some where way back in the pages. Some one said, "that Jesus taught to love your neighbor, but that could be taken for any religion." Well it when something like that, but anyway. What other religion, mind you believing in Christ as your Lord and Savior is not a religion, it is a relationship. Anyway, what other religion says to Love your Enemies? Jesus Christ not only wanted you to love your neighbor but also love your enemies. Matthew 5:44 says, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts