Is this correct?
Human Evolution
Leo Long
Other urls found in this thread:
pnas.org
telegraph.co.uk
creation.com
creation.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Caleb Harris
oh look, the buttmad Creationist is back. you kinda disappeared for a while after you got caught posting hilariously bad photoshops of cave paintings. you okay bro?
but no, the eye-searing bottom part of the image is not correct. what the top part is saying is that we have more fossils, and more complete fossils, of early humans than we do of T. rex. this shouldn't be surprising, seeing as Tyrannosaurus lived ~70 Mya and the earliest humans lived only ~2 Mya.
and while fossils may only be individual dots, their distribution (figuratively speaking) makes connecting them pretty straightforward, especially when also considering molecular evidence. when you have a steady series of apes that gradually become more and more human-like as you get into more and more recent strata, it doesn't take a genius to see what's going on. pic sorta related.
(also, when you're connecting BETWEEN multiple dots rather than extending out away from them, it's an INTERPOLATION rather than an EXTRAPOLATION. I don't expect a Creationist to understand the difference, but those of us with actual intelligence should.)
Andrew Myers
Any thoughts on the fact that the Taung "child" is merely an infant chimpanzee of some sort?
Dylan Lewis
Also, a comparison of sorts.
>left: pygmy chimp
>right: supposed "Ape-man" child
Notice how the one on the left has a more upright posture, despite being less "related" to us in evolutionary terms.
John Phillips
Yeah, more or less. Actually it reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS
Leo Rodriguez
oh, so you've got nothing, so you're just going to try and change the subject? typical behavior, you sniveling wretch. nothing more characteristic of a Creationist than their tendency to run away from their arguments at the slightest sign of a rebuttal.
>larger than the skull of an adult chimpanzee
>foramen magnum at bottom of skull, not back, indicating bipedalism
>no browridge
>smaller jaw, less prognathous than a chimp
>but its brain doesn't seem to have developed like that of a modern human!
so it's got a bunch of human-like traits...but because there's one trait it's missing, it MUST actually be a chimpanzee? only a brainlet would draw such a ludicrous conclusion. you see "not a modern human" and immediately leap to "must be a chimpanzee" because your pathetic little mind is incapable of conceiving of something that's neither entirely human nor entirely chimp, but rather somewhere in between.
source on the right-hand drawing? contrary to what you morons may believe, a sketch made by some yahoo isn't actually the same thing as a proper reconstruction.
Luis Hughes
you are a literal retard
Christian Rogers
>>larger than the skull of an adult chimpanzee
>Chimpanzees have a cranial capacity of 320-480 cubic centimetres
>Taung had a cranial capacity of 400–500 cc
Seems within the realm of variation for a chimp.
>>foramen magnum at bottom of skull, not back, indicating bipedalism
The Taung specimen is an infant, it cannot be judged as an adult.
>>no browridge
>>smaller jaw, less prognathous than a chimp
Are these features outside of Paninan diversity?
>>but its brain doesn't seem to have developed like that of a modern human!
Exactly, paired with everything else I listed, it's a weird-looking chimp baby. Could even be the result of down syndrome, which has occurred in chimps.
>source on the right-hand drawing?
Illustrated London News. I think it's one of the first illustrations done professionally (as the first were Dart and Broom's doodles).
Jacob Cruz
no and for various reasons without even going into the monkey man bullshit.
Charles Kelly
We know how this happened and giving them Caucasian features is disingenuous.
Mason Cox
>Is this correct?
Uhh...No. There are relatively few T-Rex fossils, compared to many more hominin fossils,
and no one (except for the occasional lunatic) disputes the "quality" of those specimens
as "direct evidence" for existence. Dimissing "inference" as a legitimate scientific process
is an even-worse departure from sanity, and indicates a severe lack of knowledge.
Connor Kelly
>Red text on blue background
GTFO
Caleb Barnes
>>>foramen magnum at bottom of skull, not back, indicating bipedalismThe Taung specimen is an infant, it cannot be judged as an adult.
Chimps are bipedal as infants but grow out of it?
Jason Bennett
Going off of it seems to be so.
Easton Brown
Creationists probably do not want to place all their eggs in this particular basket.
Luke Jackson
From the abstract (link below):
>>a possible remnant of the metopic suture is observed
...so the "persistent metopic suture" hypothesis (Falk, 2012) is largely unsupported
by this specimen. Since the metopic suture fuses in humans at age six months
(± three months) we would not expect to see it in this three year-old specimen anyway.
pnas.org
Jose Taylor
Similar designer m8.
Nathan Martinez
>omitting spife between knife and spoon
L0Lno fgt pls
Jason Thomas
>bunch of human features
>one chimp-like feature
>must be a chimp!
you are literally retarded. that's like saying a Golden Delicious apple is actually a deformed banana based solely on the color.
wrong. even as infants, chimpanzees have a skull with a foramen magnum towards the back, pic related. a picture of a chimp on two legs isn't disproof of this; chimpanzees are FACULTATIVE bipeds only.
you would know this if you'd done the most basic background reading.
Nicholas Peterson
What do you conclude, faggot?
WHAT DO YOU CONCLUDE?!
Michael Evans
Incorrect, while the chimp may be a factulative biped, the FM rests underneath the skull, unlike the adults, but very much like the Taung child.
Juan Reyes
>I'm gonna tilt the skull backwards to make it look like the foramen magnum is further backward than it is
holy hell, you Creationists have absolutely no compunction against blatantly altering evidence.
in the pic you rotated, the foramen magnum is clearly behind the ear opening, towards the back of the skull. the only way you make it seem like the c-spine is underneath the skull is by orienting the skeleton so that the chimp is LEANING BACK AND LOOKING AT THE SKY.
could you be any more facile?
Caleb Evans
>further forward
excuse me, was laughing too hard to type properly
David Barnes
Where is CreationFag?
Run off again?
Lincoln Taylor
...
Ian Taylor
>Uhh...no
I don't know, I refuse to read garbage.
Liam Allen
...
Logan Rodriguez
>speech ability is limited by spinal cord width
>le 10% of brain meme
we have reached peak retardation
Jackson White
...
Grayson Reed
creationfags can kindly gtf
Michael Hall
Not falling for this bait.
Isaac Long
No
telegraph.co.uk
Blah blah blah oldest fossil of closest to missing link 7mya grecopethicus found in Europe.
Maybe now people can stop spouting this out of Africa bullshit. Absolutely no evidence but conjecture. Evolution is a lie. Please tell my why you still believe in out of Africa and I'll tell you why its silly to put faith in such a belief
Alexander Thomas
Same lazy argument
'you weren't there so you can't know' just done with more fancy words.
Ethan Fisher
The chimpanzee on the left is actually dead in that picture. The guy that took it, posed the creature in that position. It isn't natural.
Alexander Butler
"The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other."
Dr. Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex–New perspective on Human Evolution(University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987), p. 227.
Also, Lucy wasn't bipedal.
"How can the knee and jaws be considered as part of the afarensis group when they are separated not only by several kilometres distance and over 60 metres in depth, but also by up to a half-million years in (alleged evolutionary) time, as the discoverers openly admit?"-"Australopithecus and Homo habilis -- Pre-Human Ancestors?", A. W. MEHLERT, (1996), pg 229
Logan Morris
...
Asher Ross
you posted the same fuckstupid bullshit in the last thread your anencephalic self started.
commit kakuro
Jack Evans
Why is every fucking post on a science board about flat earth and creationism?
Logan Torres
>things look different when photographed from different angles on different backgrounds under different lighting conditions
>therefore it's all fake!
this from the guy who posted a hilariously bad photoshop of cave paintings a few threads ago, and then tried to claim it was real and there was a conspiracy to cover it up. (pic related)
Mason Reyes
Why not refute , tough guy?
Or how about these?
creation.com
creation.com
Michael Morgan
>HOW ABOUT REFUTE CREATION.COM
made me chuckle heartily
Benjamin Sullivan
Appeal to ridicule. Typical evolutionist.
Adam Gutierrez
>let's talk about anything and everything except how I got caught telling a stupid lie!
>let's not talk about this thing you refuted, let's talk about this other thing instead!
>let's not talk about all these things I posted which have been demonstrated to be misleading/fallacious/false, let's talk about this new thing I just posted!
>Why not refute , tough guy?
easily.
>one guy says australopithecines are different from both apes and humans
first off, you haven't posted any of his reasoning for WHY he says they are different. everywhere this quote pops up (universally on creationist pages, I might add) it's naked of any context or explanation. your whole argument is "this one guy says he doesn't like it" and doesn't include ANY sort of evidence.
secondly, how do you square this claim (that australopithecines are vastly different from African apes) with your own assertion that australopithecines are just a kind of chimpanzee? you have no logical consistency; you're willing to simultaneously believe that Lucy was a chimp and that Lucy was not a chimp, because all you care about is your preconceived notion that Lucy wasn't any sort of apelike early human.
>Lucy wasn't bipedal
a claim you have made over and over again despite all the evidence against it. and indeed, you have supplied no evidence here to support it.
>how can these fossils all be from the same species if there's hundreds of thousands of years separating them?
easily! it is INCREDIBLY common in the fossil record for a single species to persist for MILLIONS of years. the trilobite Phacops rana (aka Eldredgeops rana) lasted SIXTEEN MILLION YEARS, essentially unchanged. Tyrannosaurus rex is known to have existed for a whole two million years itself. Chronospecies do not exist at single points in time, but rather occupy ranges of significant extent. The complaint Mehlert raises is equivalent to saying "how can these photos be of the same person? they were taken sixty years apart!"
Leo Adams
I don't come to Veeky Forums often but I recognize this entire post.
Landon Rodriguez
>look it up!!!
Maybe if you'd cite a source.
Dominic Campbell
Pointing out fallacies is a fallacy in itself, user.
Bentley Reed
>le monke
le monke
Adam Cox
Evolution is a bottom-tier theory but you're not doing your position any favors.