Is this true?
Interpretation of "Fossil Man"
Mason Hall
Other urls found in this thread:
Kayden Ross
Yes.
Robert Russell
...
Jaxon Gonzalez
>guys, you know what would make way more sense than life stemming from a natural process, governed by physical laws?
>if it were just spontaneously created by magic instead!
Aiden Scott
>evolution is linear
Lucas James
so in the creation forrest, humans still had the same ancestors as (whatever those two skulls are), and they split up under the same laws that govern evolution? but we just don't have any connection to apes? do i read that correctly?
Andrew Ward
>knuckle walker
i really don't know how they came to that conclusion
Oliver Ramirez
It also has to work on a 6,000 year timescale, as well as account for the genetic difference (via post-flood variation).
Noah Martinez
this linear and arbocentric view of evolution is really dangerously misleading
Evolution clearly follows a spiral, loops itself one time, has short intermissions, gets a super boost once and finally returns to the start.
Wyatt Jones
>homo rudolfensis on the left
>neanderthal on the right
>claims both are "homo erectus"
Is this stupidity or dishonesty?
Christopher Gomez
I at least admire creationists to come up with some sort of backwards ass explanation in "the werst"
Here in a mostly muslim country, they just flat out reject evolution and beat you up if you speak your mind about it, not even bothering with explaining how bacteria gain resistance to whatever they are exposed in a matter of few generations
Jaxson Myers
To know the posture an animal walked in, you need only look at its skull's shape. This will tell you how it connects to its spine, and thus whether its posture was upright or not. We know that Australopithecus definitely stood upright.
Jordan Rivera
While they aren't violent, they certainly are an annoying bunch.
>go to christian school
>science teacher is a YE
>did an experiment with several profile shots of fossil skulls, in which the creationist dichotomy of man/ape was tested
>4 out of the 20-24 iirc were labelled as ape or man, mainly at opposite ends of the spectrum (afarensis as an ape, neanderthal and human as man)
>some couldn't even decide between the two, putting them as either/both
>went on a tangent discussing how this demonstrate that there's no line between the two, and how we need to reassess our place in nature a la Linnaeus, Darwin and Huxley
>shut down for "spreading my evolutionary bias"
Elijah Edwards
A more accurate of their "orchard" now (sediba still pending).
Andrew Torres
bro, that is actually a cool story and I mean that sincerely.
Dominic Lewis
They have, they just claim that "biases" came into play with a distorted specimen, like AL 822-1 (pic related) or AL 444-2, though they rarely ever talk about Sts 5, which is actually complete.
Zachary Green
...
Josiah Watson
No.
Landon Butler
I think they'd argue that the earlier skulls are just varieties of Homo sapiens. For some reason, they did not want to move the skulls to different positions to create a straight line.
More interestingly, they seem to show pretty clearly Chimps and Gorillas branching fro a common ancestor. They do not regard them as both the same species, so they should each be on their own "tree" in the Creation Forest.
I wonder where this image came from. It seems to have been intended for use by Creationists, but is poorly designed to illustrate their beliefs.
Dylan Cooper
Or black flagging?
Mason Collins
No. The statistics gathered on the genetic makeup of each support a tree model.
Easton Clark