What's the next step in human evolution? Pic related

Not true

Australopithecus was bipedal.
Lucy walked upright, despite having a braincase that was not much larger than a chimp's

Was that before or after Lovejoy broke the pelvis?

Explain walkways then

Humans, not apes. The people of that area fall well within the size range of the footprints (Males avg: 4'10")

What about the age?
Several million year old footprints aren't human

>believing the dating methods are more reliable than first-hand observation

they are reliable enough to find oil and minerals.

Either way, in the last 1000 years we went from throwing rocks to laser weaponry.

It took homo-erectus almost 1 million years with hard-core evolutionary pressures to diverge into homo sapiens.

We are going to be well in full control of our genetics to the point of radical changes probably in the next 1000 years for sure. (by radical changes I mean singularity level, planet-wide organic hivemind type sci fi shit).

You're never going to see the 'ape' line of evolve much further than us naturally.

I don't know the area, but I would imagine that that could be a question about the tolerance of the error. For example if you only cared about millions of years ago + or - a couple thousand years or whatever. Also wtf is up with that nose?

> Question: Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years. ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. How do you reply?

Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C-14. The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however.

ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

I predict more corner cases being cited from the creationist poster.

>adults are 6 feet tall

Damn I never learned this, I'm still 5'7 !

When will they learn

>ncse
>The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is an anticreationist and secular humanist organisation dedicated to promoting the teaching of evolution in public schools. The executive director is Ann Reid who succeeded Eugenie Scott in November 2013.

>According to Jonathan Sarfati: “One of the most vociferous anti-creationist organizations is the pretentiously named National Center for Science Education. This is a humanist-founded organization, and its chief spokesperson, Eugenie Scott, is the winner of humanist awards and was also a consultant for the PBS series. It's significant that the only ‘science education’ NCSE seems interested in is evolution—not chemistry, physics, astronomy, or even experimental biology (or rocket science for that matter).”
Biased source.

Although I'd agree it's not a good idea to trust big claims from biased sources, I don't see the harm here at all as it's only addressing one corner case (mussels). Also, I'm not sure you're one to talk about biased sources, as all of this anti-evolution stuff is exclusively from creationists and oftentimes biblical literalists.

probably very little without selective pressure, there will be mutations (we have already observed as such) but no complex traits.

lol why is darwin with all those people

this still doesn't answer the real question, what is up with that nose?

antidarwinism.com/socialdarwinism_darwinismcommunism.html
He's with the rest of his kind. Without Darwin, there would be no Marx, no Hitler, and no Stalin.

These last four weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book on natural selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis on natural history for our view.
—Marx; December 19, 1860.[7][8]

Wow I never realized that he influenced them. That's pretty interesting actually.

This.

>rounded, low-crested pelvis that differs harshly from a chimp's but looks kinda like a modern human's
>HURR THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR BIPEDALISM
>LOVEJOY TINKERED WITH A CAST OF THE PELVIS, THEREFORE THE ORIGINAL IS FAKE
eyes that will not see, ears that will not hear...
the only way Creationists can explain the evidence is by outright ignoring 95% of it.

>Biased source.
this from the guy who literally cites antidarwinism.com
I guess when the evidence is against you, your only recourse is to cry bitterly about the people showing it to you. ad hom a little harder, you drip.

remember when you got caught posting blatantly photoshopped pictures of cave paintings a few threads ago? and when I called you on it, you claimed that the pics were real and that there was a massive conspiracy to keep them secret?
you delusional Creationist twit.

We do not ignore, we merely correct. I'm not sure who you're talking about, but certainly seems incompetent.

>believing a third world country's studies
NOPE

These are the same people that believe that eating an albino will cure AIDS

>But australopithecus shows no features indicative of advanced bipedalism
Creationists disagree

angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/Journal_20_2__pp104_112.pdf

you're literally ignoring every feature of the pelvis of Australopithecus. the low-crested, bowl-shaped pelvis that it had is characteristic of humans, as contrasted with the high-crested pelvis seen in chimps and gorillas where the ilia go way up along the lumbar spine and the ischia and pubes go way down.
you're repeating over and over something which is so untrue that even an untrained eye can tell it by just looking at the skeleton for a few moments, and you seem genuinely unable to recognize this. seek help.

as for the Taung Child:
>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.

Creationists can't even stick to a consistent narrative. it's hard to keep your story straight when you're just making it up on the fly rather than basing it on evidence.

the cool part is science as a whole is a joke, and soft sciences like biology and economics are completely worthless and only lead to human suffering

>Many textbooks will show a picture of the pelvis of a chimpanzee, a human and of an australopithecine (see figure 8). They will then ask the student which of the two are related. It’s a trick question. There are similarities between the pelvis of australopithecines and humans because they are both bipedal. They will stress the similarity between the australopithecine pelvis and the human pelvis, and use this to try to prove a relationship between the two. Does similarity in a dog pelvis and a horse pelvis mean they are related? No, it merely means they are both mammals that walk on all fours.
Still not an ape-man

The majority of its traits (small brain, robust teeth, etc) seem to allign it with the pongids as opposed to man. More importantly, it's an infant's skull, not an adult. Baby chimps have a similar foramen magnum position in their infant stage.

>evolutionists can't even stick to a consistent narrative. it's hard to keep your story straight when you're just making it up on the fly rather than basing it on evidence.

reminder: the Creationist in this thread got caught posting obviously photoshopped pictures a few threads ago, and tried to claim that they were real and that there was a conspiracy to cover them up. this demonstrates that Creationists are so delusional that they will lie about the pettiest of things.

>similarity in a dog pelvis and a horse pelvis
they look almost nothing alike, you massive faggot. pic related. certainly nothing like the similarity of Australopithecus to Homo.
your only """"argument"""" consists of ignoring everything presented to you and loudly proclaiming that there's no such thing as an ape-man. here's the kicker: what WOULD convince you that humans are descended from other apes? are your beliefs falsifiable?

>scientists used to think that humans were descended from things that were kinda like humans and kinda like apes
>they still think so
>but the Piltdown Man was proven a hoax seventy years ago, therefore...um...lemme just repeat what he said back at him! maybe nobody will notice!

>what WOULD convince you that humans are descended from other apes? are your beliefs falsifiable?
Give me a fossil that unequivocally between ape and man (not a microcephalic human, or a weird-looking ape).

>thought man developed a big brain, and eoanthropus was the poster-child
>turned out to be a forgery after 41 years of parading it around as a true ancestor
>played the old switcheroo, and placed australopithecus (labelled as an extinct South African chimp for quite some time) as the new star attraction
>acted as though it never happened
Wow, no change at all! Gee willikers!

you can just dismiss any evidence as being a microcephalic human or weird-looking ape.

>Evolution has stopped
As long as certain kinds of people get more offspring than other kinds of people, evolution will continue

Probably fixing genetic disorders, then enhanching intelligence.

I think it will turn out to be more difficult than thought if genes are like a network
Especially intelligence

I think assortive mating also plays its role but perhaps I am wrong

Devolution.

Every one can breed and pass on their genes, and the best among us tend not to do that anymore -- as they care more about their career..

youtube.com/watch?v=k3Z5Ag9AGgY
Left bone structure vs Right

This stuff is always fun.
Often you see the concern for 'devolution', I am unsure if that's what really happens nor am I concerned about it
What does concern me is how the genetic make-up of the population acts upon the larger complex system that is society

Wish I was smart enough and had the credentials to make models to test this stuff out

Pretty sure that left picture is doctored. I've seen baby chimps and they do not look like that. Their jaw is far more protruding.

>Somebody went to the time and effort to make that image.

Tell me again that miracles are not real.

>Laughter intensifies.

This. We still survive and breed and raise children successfully according to how well we survive and thrive in or environment. The nature of the environment has changed, and includes social and technological components more than it used to, that's all.

You both seem to think that evidence given by somebody who has drawn conclusions from it, and formed a position, is somehow tainted.

Nobody who studies evolution (for example) has no opinion on whether the Theory is correct and what the details of how it works might be.

ALL data on this will come from somebody with a point of view.

The quality of the data, and what it shows, is what is important.

People with facial hair from an earlier time?

>You both seem to think that evidence given by somebody who has drawn conclusions from it, and formed a position, is somehow tainted.
If only that were the process by which creationists operate... They start with the conclusion that their interpretation of the Bible is infallible, and draw their "evidence" from that conclusion. It's ass backwards.

>Does similarity in a dog pelvis and a horse pelvis mean they are related? No, it merely means they are both mammals that walk on all fours.

They look only slightly alike -- that actually fits well with the concept that they are only distantly related.

>Give me a fossil that unequivocally between ape and man (not a microcephalic human, or a weird-looking ape).

What about a series of fossils that, over time, become more and more similar to modern humans? Would that do it for you?

ONE fossil cannot be unequivocally anything, there is always some chance that it is aberrant. But you collect enouigh of them, and show what happens over time, it starts to get compelling.

As a Christian who is comfortable in the realm of science, I would concur.

It is a mistake to take a spiritual guide intended to address morals, ethics, theology and upper-case "T" Truths, and try to use it as a science text.

Then why not show a series of fossils rather than imaginative pictures of what they (((could have))) looked like?

In a cartoon show?

But such fossils exist. A place to start would be here:
ncse.com/creationism/analysis/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare

You won't be spoon fed images of all the thousands and thousands of fossil remains at the site, or by me, but this should get you started, if you are interested. Another possibility would be to visit a good-sized museum, if there is one near you.

From the sute where you got the pic.
>Review: Placing skull fossils in philosophical order to suit one’s own preconceived ideology, without knowing the gender, age of the decedent, the strata the skull was found, and the percentage of artistic liberty taken by the artist is reckless. When an evolutionist shows you skull fossils placed in philosophical order to preach evolution, now you know why to question the age of the decedent, the gender, the strata depth, and the percentage of artist’s putty.”

Superintelligent AI, as much as I hate to admit it

the fuck you're on about, 1000 years ago we already had steel and bow/arrow