Racial Evolution 101.1

Rather than trying to pick quotes out that you can use to slander Darwin instead of arguing on the facts, why do you not just sit down and read the chapter you keep quoting from. Or have you already read it? Probably not. There is a fair amount of evidence, though quite old and dated, that support the evolution of man. Even without any of those pesky fossils for which you still will not give me a citation for your assertion that scientists have quit using the fossil record to demonstrate the evolution of man. Where is my citation? Does it exist?

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-01.html

If you get interested, the whole book is at
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/

 

Show us the links that establish that man was a "this" but do to a specific change, he is now a "that".

Satisfy our minds that such an evolutionary change has actually occured....even once!

With as many learned people trying to find such a link or such an evolutionary change, as there are, it seems highly unlikely that even the smallest shred of evidence could elude the hunt. Yet, no convincing evidence is presented. WHY IS THAT?

 

"Satisfy our minds that such an evolutionary change has actually occured....even once!"

Sure, I'll start with two. Let me know what you think of them and I can offer more later.

For transitions at the level of the species, I offer you
Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
This paper will tell you about a transition at the species level. This gives you your one time that it occurred.

Now, lest someone argue that it is just variation within a "kind" (what exactly is a "kind" anyway. Do you have a definition so that we can look around and tell which creatures are the same "kind" and which are comeletely unrelated?) I will give you a higher transitional. This is the evolution of mammals from reptiles. No one can argue that this is variation within a "kind." I will post a link to a different thread on this board because I have some formatting that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. This will give you a second. Actually, it will be quite a few more than a second because there is a large series of transitionals. This is the kind of evidence the evolution predicts will be found, and has. Anyone want to offer some specific objections?

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html?

If this is satisfactory, I can start digging out other transitional series and examples of speciation. I can also start delving into human specific things if you like.

 

"If Human fossil specimens like KNM-ER 1470, the Laetoli Footprints and the Kanopoi (KP 271) arm fragment look "fully Human""

This should be good. Convince me that Homo rudolfensis (KNM-ER 1470) looks fully human.

Here is a good webpage giving you the characteristics of Homo rudolfensis for you to begin your comparison.

http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/rudolfensis.html

And this one will give you some general characteristics of several different hominids.

http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Hrudolfensis.html

As for your list.

Neandertal Man - Almost like modern man but enough differences to tell us they were not the same as modern humans. Why did you list this?

Piltdown Man - A hoax, never that widely believed that was finally overturned by scientists themselves. I have never offered Piltdown Man as evidence, so why do you bring it up?

Java Man - a Homo erectus find. Why do you bring it up? I don't see the point.

Peking Man - A Sinanthropus fossil. Why do you have a problem with this?

Rhodesian Man - A possible transistional between Homo erectus and modern man. Thanks for bringing it up. But why did you mention it?

Taung - An Australopithecus fossil. Why did you bring this one up?

I do not see how an of the hominids or fossils you mentioned help your case but I am looking forward to hearing how Homo rudolfensis is "fully Human."

 

Now a few days ago someone, I thought it was you, made the same post claiming there was a problem because the modern looking human footprints. What exactly does this mean? It means that the footprints showed a bipedal gait well enough evolved to be indistinguishable from a modern footprint. Now in response, I gave a long list of skeletal characteristics that showed that Australiopithicus had a modern, bipedal gait. This included the shape of the leg bones, the construction of the knee, the construction of the pelvis, the curvature of the spine, and the location of the hole through which the spinal cord attaches. I may have had others. But you seem to have forgotten or ignored that since you have again posted the footprints as a problem. They are not.

 

Let's be clear. Tuttle thinks that another Australiopithicus than A. afarensis or an early Homo genus creature made the print. You'll have to do better than that to make this a problem.

Gee, we got the wrong species of Australiopithicus in his view. Wow? He still thinks we evolved from apes.

 

Amazing how you, with no training whatsoever in evolutionary/biological sciences or archaology, are nonetheless better able to interpret fossil finds than qualified scientists! Truly impressive.

This sentences illustrates how your side must literally fabricate problems with fossils in order to prove your feel-good notion than we did not evolve. I implore you to show me ANY evidence that any fossils determined by scientists to be a human ancestor are actually human bones mixed with ape bones.

 

So what did Tuttle say they were in this book? I'd bet a steak dinnr it was not Homo sapiens. Please tell us. Otherwise I'll stand by the statement that he thinks it was a species of Australiopithicus other than A. afarensis.

I also do not think that you can prove your assertion that all these were mixtures of human and ape fossils. In fact, I do not think you can show that for any of them.

"If KNM-1470 isn't fully human then it must be fully ape."

No, I want you to tell me and why. Quit avoiding the question. I know that humans are apes so I can answer both and be right. You have to choose one or the other. So choose and justify your choice with facts.

 

Humanity is different. Our morphology makes us apes. If we are not apes, what are we?

Please document for us this widespread mixing of ape and human fossils. Or any of the other things I keep asking you to document. Like a citation showing scientist have abandoned the fossil record.

 

I must have missed it. Why don't you give me a link.

 

Why you are an ape.

I'll just list some of the easy to see characteristics.

You have five well developed fingers and toes per limb. You toes are prehensile. You have very dexterous hands. You have only two nipples for lactation and they are on your chest rather than your abdomen. You have similar dentation including five pointed molars. You have thin hair across your body. You claws have been flattened into fingernails while your fingers have fingerprints. You can get AIDS. The toxin of the male funnel spider will kill you. You cannot make vitamin C for yourself. You tail has been reduced to a stub of bones underneath your skin. You have a disposition towards some form of bipedalism. You have a relatively large brain for your body size.

Mot of these traits are unique to primates and apes or apes individually. Only an ape would share them all. So you are, after all, an ape.