477 replies to this topic

[Harsh86_Patel]

Clobhair-cean, on 08 November 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

Wow, something that isn't actually complete nonsense, just a little bit. We can reconstruct most animals just from skeletons with reasonable accuracy. We can't be sure, but we won't be too far-off either.

No, Piltdown Man was accepted by some scientists (not all, as I've said before, many saw through the hoax almost instantly) because they wanted it to be real and did not do their work properly. Had they examined it, they would have instantly recognised that it was a bad fake.



Then why aren't you using that knowledge?




No. I wouldn't, and someone who's actually trained in these things sure wouldn't. If you have a bone that's confirmed to be from an animal, and you compare it from another one, and the two are the same, then you can infer that they belong to the same, or at least extremely similar animals.




What? Two foramen magnums? How do you come up with such nonsense? What, you expect ancestral hominids to have two spinal columns?

The difference is in skull shape, proportions and dentition. Hell, the only difference between a human and a dolphin skull is the shape. What else would be different??

We also have both juvenile and adult skulls alongside various skeletons from different individuals. That makes a distinct species.





Lions and tigers are so closely related that they can produce non-viable offspring, like horses and donkeys. It's a completely different thing. There





These are all anatomically modern humans, anyone with a cursory understanding of anatomy or anthropology would tell you that. Australopithecines have comparatively much smaller neurocraniums when compared to other parts of the skull. And they have different teeth. And bones. And everything.


And please answer my question:

"please tell me what known medical condition results in exactly the same deformities (that affect practically every bone in the body) and how could multiple individuals (adults and children) with the exact same deformities proliferate in such high numbers in Africa at that time, while there were no healthy individual anywhere nearby?

I just made it clear that reconstructing animals that are not extinct and trying to reconstruct a new species of which there is no living sample are two entirely different things but i feel it didn't get through to you.
Things get very difficult especially when the bones are extremely similar to human or ape bones and more then 50% of the skeleton is missing and there is no living precendant of the new species in question.
Deformities do not need to be due to medical conditions only.


The above is a chimp skull.Compare the upper half of the chimp skull and the Lucy reconstruction you posted.

[Harte]

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

Lucy is the only one that is 40 % complete Rest are all random bones.

This is all we have of Lucy.Look at it and tell me if you can really call this any sort of credible evidence.There have been many cases where mainstream anthropologists have found ape bones and human bones and fused them to give rise to figments of their imaginations for eg-the pilt down man.

Somebody else's fraud is not evidence of any widespread misdeeds.

Or would you like to accept the prison term given to "Dr. Dino" (Kent Hovind) for his income tax fraud?  I mean, after all, he's a fellow believer in man and dinosaur existing together, exactly like you.

If one fraud can indict an entire school of thought, then you should be prepared for the slammer yourself.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

This is the lucy they reconstructed..........lol.It's a muscular monkey lol.Though i am still wondering how they reconstructed the soft tissue,body hair feet and hands with absolutely no sort of evidence.

http://en.wikipedia....stralopithecus)

Apparently, then, you also have a problem with forensic evidence.  Your position, I take it then, would be that John Wayne Gacyshould have been found innocent on most charges?

My point being that your own personal ignorance concerning fossil reconstruction and reconstruction of musculature accomplished by scrutiny of fossilized bones is not an indication that the entire world population is as ignorant as yourself.

Harte

[Harte]

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Surprisingly i do have a working knowledge of anatomy,that is the reason i am completely baffled by how they imagined the hands and feet,number of carpels,metacarpels,tarsals,metatarsals without any sort of evidence? there is no way to even determine the shape or size of the hands and feet.There is no way to determine whether the bones belong to a hominid/ape or human,all they can do is a physical visual examination and rest is all imagination.

Again, this is due entirely to your own ignorance. The fact that you are "baffled" indicates an utter lack of knowledge on the topic, though your own ignorance appears to not even cause you a moments hesitation concerning giving us your baseless and vapid opinions.

Quote

The ancestors of humans were walking upright more than 3m years ago, according to an analysis of a fossilised foot bone found in Ethiopia. The fossil, the fourth metatarsal bone from the species Australopithecus afarensis, shows that this forerunner of early humans had a permanently arched foot like modern humans, a key requirement for an upright gait.

Source

If you bother to read the above, perhaps you will no longer be "baffled," considering that your belief that no metatarsal bones have ever been found for Australopithecines is simply an artifact of, again, your own personal ignorance.

Harte

[Clobhair-cean]

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

I just made it clear that reconstructing animals that are not extinct and trying to reconstruct a new species of which there is no living sample are two entirely different things but i feel it didn't get through to you.

We can reconstruct animals with great accuracy. I don't see anyone railing against reconstructed Anomalocaridids...

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

Things get very difficult especially when the bones are extremely similar to human or ape bones and more then 50% of the skeleton is missing and there is no living precendant of the new species in question.

The thing is that Lucy's bones are not extremely similar to human or ape bones. They are markedly different from both human and ape bones, while sharing characteristics of both.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

Deformities do not need to be due to medical conditions only.

Then OK. Give me anything that could result in the deformities witnessed in a number of juvenile and adult Australopithecine specimens. And not something that fits one trait, give me something that matches all the deformities of all the bones.

Harsh86_Patel, on 08 November 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

The above is a chimp skull.Compare the upper half of the chimp skull and the Lucy reconstruction you posted.

OK. Just by looking at it with an untrained eye, I notice that the teeth, the nasal cavity, the jaws, the brow, the zygomatic arch and the size of the neurocranium are vastly different. Then I look at this hand diagram and lo and behold, it is clear that chimp and Australopithecine skulls are indeed vastly different.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Clobhair-cean, on 08 November 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

We can reconstruct animals with great accuracy. I don't see anyone railing against reconstructed Anomalocaridids...



The thing is that Lucy's bones are not extremely similar to human or ape bones. They are markedly different from both human and ape bones, while sharing characteristics of both.



Then OK. Give me anything that could result in the deformities witnessed in a number of juvenile and adult Australopithecine specimens. And not something that fits one trait, give me something that matches all the deformities of all the bones.



OK. Just by looking at it with an untrained eye, I notice that the teeth, the nasal cavity, the jaws, the brow, the zygomatic arch and the size of the neurocranium are vastly different. Then I look at this hand diagram and lo and behold, it is clear that chimp and Australopithecine skulls are indeed vastly different.

No they are not very different, the reconstruction of Australopithicus skull that you posted can be flawed.Anyways the similarities are abundant when you compare it with the complete reconstruction of Lucy.
I just posted a picture of the human dwarf skeletons,they show a marked difference from normal Human skeletons,would you dub them a new species?.
There is no complete Australopithicus skeleton,so in all probabilities all the bones found might not be belonging to Australopithicus.Hence there is no need to show deformities in all body parts but only the ones that are beyond doubt belonging to the same individual.i.e a deformed pelvis or deformed legs or deformed skull etc.
You forgot to point the similarities that are also visible with the untrained eye,like the brow the eye sockets the shape of the skull arch,and even the dentition and shape of the teeth are not very different.(if you remove the lower jaw then the similarity is really spooky.

The only real difference between the two is the broadness of the front part or the face in case of ausrtalopithicus when compared to the chimp skull,which we can attribute to an error in the the reconstruction.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 12 November 2012 - 05:49 AM.

[Clobhair-cean]

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

No they are not very different, the reconstruction of Australopithicus skull that you posted can be flawed.

We have a number of complete and near-complete Australopithecine skulls. What I posted was not a reconstruction, but a copy. We know exactly how theirs skull looked like.

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

I just posted a picture of the human dwarf skeletons,they show a marked difference from normal Human skeletons,would you dub them a new species?.

No, because they are clearly belong to anatomically modern humans with pathological/artificial deformities.

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

There is no complete Australopithicus skeleton,so in all probabilities all the bones found might not be belonging to Australopithicus.Hence there is no need to show deformities in all body parts but only the ones that are beyond doubt belonging to the same individual.i.e a deformed pelvis or deformed legs or deformed skull etc.

OK. Name the medical conditions that would cause all the deformities in Lucy at the same time and stop shifting the bloody goalpost.

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

You forgot to point the similarities that are also visible with the untrained eye,like the brow the eye sockets the shape of the skull arch,and even the dentition and shape of the teeth are not very different.(if you remove the lower jaw then the similarity is really spooky.

The only real difference between the two is the broadness of the front part or the face in case of ausrtalopithicus when compared to the chimp skull,which we can attribute to an error in the the reconstruction.

Only real difference? Look at the zygomatic arch, the curvature of the neurocranium, the position of the eyes, the height of the brow, the angle of the back of the skull, the size of the skull, the size of the brain, the whole lower jaw, the dentition, the size and shape of the viscerocranium and so on.

And now you are just spouting crazytalk. You can't just remove the jaw and say "Look, now it's similar!" Look at the whole bloody skull from different angles. And no, the reconstructions are not flawed, we have complete skulls.

One more image, with the skulls and the pelvises. If you still claim after this that a chimp and an Australopithecine is basically the same, then you are either delusional or a troll.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Harte, on 08 November 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Somebody else's fraud is not evidence of any widespread misdeeds.

Or would you like to accept the prison term given to "Dr. Dino" (Kent Hovind) for his income tax fraud?  I mean, after all, he's a fellow believer in man and dinosaur existing together, exactly like you.

If one fraud can indict an entire school of thought, then you should be prepared for the slammer yourself.


Apparently, then, you also have a problem with forensic evidence.  Your position, I take it then, would be that John Wayne Gacyshould have been found innocent on most charges?

My point being that your own personal ignorance concerning fossil reconstruction and reconstruction of musculature accomplished by scrutiny of fossilized bones is not an indication that the entire world population is as ignorant as yourself.

Harte

Question is not about the fraud,the question raised is about the fraud being accepted as authentic by mainstrean for so many years just because it was leading credence to their evolutionary ideas.

Kent Hovind being imprisoned would definitely have been used by evolutionist against him.Either ways i do not follow his ideologies so it doesn't make me any difference.

I am not against forensic evidence where it is backed by a good amount of statistical data from living specimens,i have a problem accepting anthropological reconstruction that are based on no statistical data from living specimens and are pure figments of imaginations.

When you talk about the bones indicating the muscle structure,the index is mapped by taking measurements from a series of living specimens and dead specimens regarding the bone shape and muscle structure in case of humans and animals that are not extinct and have been widely studied.
When you try to apply the same index to supposedly extinct and distinct species then the accuracy of such reconstruction is very doubtful.

I might be ignorant or otherwise but the evolutionist deluded mainstream definitely proved itself to be ignorant and in lay terms a 'sucker' when it heralded the piltdown man to be the missing link for approximately 40 years.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Harte, on 08 November 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Again, this is due entirely to your own ignorance. The fact that you are "baffled" indicates an utter lack of knowledge on the topic, though your own ignorance appears to not even cause you a moments hesitation concerning giving us your baseless and vapid opinions.

Source

If you bother to read the above, perhaps you will no longer be "baffled," considering that your belief that no metatarsal bones have ever been found for Australopithecines is simply an artifact of, again, your own personal ignorance.

Harte

If a arched foot footprint was found to be 3 million years old,that is circumstantial evidence that Homo Sapien could have been existing 3 million years ago,no need to attribute it to a new species of hominids that walked upright.
Finding a single metatarsal bone can in noway be enough evidence to accurately map the shape of the whole foot,attributing the find to an entire species as a uniform trait is a way bigger gamble.

Now i will show you how a real skeptic would analyse the info you have so candidly put up:
1.What evidence is there to attribute the metatarsal bone fossil to austrlopithicus and not to a Human or a Chimp etc?
2.Can a single metatarsal bone accurately depict the shape of the whole foot especially when it is claimed to be from a completely distinct species of which there is no living precedant witnessed by us?
3.Could a human/ape bone be attributed to an entirely new fictional species because it was thought to be older then Humans and Chimps?(for eg-3 million years old)
4.When someone says that Lucy (apparently the most complete Australopithicaus find) lacks any metatarsal or foot bones, can you refute this fact by pointing out a single fossilised metatarsal that could have in all probablilities been  a chimp metatarsal?
5.Has an event where 'a combination of a chimp/orangutan/ape bone and human bones being heralded as a new species' ever happened in the mainstream? (spoilers-pilt down man)

I have heard 'extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence'............

[Harsh86_Patel]

Clobhair-cean, on 12 November 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

We have a number of complete and near-complete Australopithecine skulls. What I posted was not a reconstruction, but a copy. We know exactly how theirs skull looked like.




No, because they are clearly belong to anatomically modern humans with pathological/artificial deformities.



OK. Name the medical conditions that would cause all the deformities in Lucy at the same time and stop shifting the bloody goalpost.




Only real difference? Look at the zygomatic arch, the curvature of the neurocranium, the position of the eyes, the height of the brow, the angle of the back of the skull, the size of the skull, the size of the brain, the whole lower jaw, the dentition, the size and shape of the viscerocranium and so on.

And now you are just spouting crazytalk. You can't just remove the jaw and say "Look, now it's similar!" Look at the whole bloody skull from different angles. And no, the reconstructions are not flawed, we have complete skulls.

One more image, with the skulls and the pelvises. If you still claim after this that a chimp and an Australopithecine is basically the same, then you are either delusional or a troll.

Different reconstructions of Australopithicus available on google image search:



This looks very similar to chimp skull



This is a reconstruction and not a replica


A interesting read regarding Lucy's pelvis:

Lucy’s Pelvis

But if Lucy’s feet don’t show evidence of upright walking, what about her pelvis?
Lucy’s left innominate [hip-joint socket] had been bent out of shape and broken into about forty pieces while it was embedded in the ground. Owen X-rayed the fossil and discovered that the back of Lucy’s pelvis, where the sacrum connects with the innominate, had smashed against a rock or another bone during burial, shattering and twisting the ilium. He then spent six months carefully outlining and numbering each fragment of ilium, casting each piece of the fossil in plaster, smoothing out the edges, and then reassembling them in a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. Every fragment had to line up with adjoining pieces from both the front and the back side of the bone to convince Owen that he had overcome any distortion that occurred after the bone was damaged. Once Owen had restored the left side of the pelvis, he sculpted a mirror image of the right side in plaster and placed Lucy’s sacrum in between to complete his masterpiece.
…
When Owen brings a human pelvis, a chimp pelvis, and a cast of Lucy’s pelvis into an elementary-school classroom, the children have no trouble deciding which two look alike. Lucy’s pelvis has a bowl shape like a human pelvis, but it is not as deep. ¹¹

So, Lucy's left-half pelvis you saw above isn’t one piece. It is about forty pieces that have been carefully shaped to remove the “distortion” they experienced during burial. Distortion is, by definition, a deviation from the normal shape. But since this is the only pelvis (actually, it is just a half-pelvis) they have for this species, how do they know what it is supposed to look like? All they have is a pre-conceived notion of what it should look like. Since it didn’t look like that when it came out of the ground, they had to reshape it to look the way Owen Lovejoy thought it should look.


What Did Johanson Really Find?

As far as we can tell, the bones that Johanson actually found indicate that Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct ape. It is the bones that he didn’t find (feet bones and an ”undistorted” pelvis) that have human characteristics.
Furthermore, by his own reckoning, he found bones that span more than one million years with very little variation in them. He found positive evidence that Australopithecus afarensis shows virtually no sign of evolution in a million years.


http://www.darwinism..._of_man_02.html

Also Australopithicus if indeed a different species was probably a sort of a chimpanzee,could be variant of a chimpanzee.


Also the human skull can also so a lot of variation as demonstrated by the bound skull i posted and also skulls of human dwarfs i.e so the shape of the skull doesn't necessarily indicate a different species:

[Clobhair-cean]

OK, you are either delusional or a troll. I am done discussing this matter with you.

And darwinismrefuted.com is not a source, it's the internet equivalent of a crazy person on a soap box. Try peer-reviewed papers. Oh, you can't, because there aren't any that support your claim. Oops.

[Harte]

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

If a arched foot footprint was found to be 3 million years old,that is circumstantial evidence that Homo Sapien could have been existing 3 million years ago,no need to attribute it to a new species of hominids that walked upright.
Finding a single metatarsal bone can in noway be enough evidence to accurately map the shape of the whole foot,attributing the find to an entire species as a uniform trait is a way bigger gamble.

It can "in no way be enough evidence" for people who haven't troubled themselves with studying what is known about Hominid anatomy.  That would include yourself.

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Now i will show you how a real skeptic would analyse the info you have so candidly put up:

Necessary only to maintain your personal fantasy that no "real skeptic" has analyzed any of the hundreds of fossil bones of Australopithicines,

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

1.What evidence is there to attribute the metatarsal bone fossil to austrlopithicus and not to a Human or a Chimp etc?

Like other fossils of Australopithicines, the bone is intermediary between Chimp and Human.

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

2.Can a single metatarsal bone accurately depict the shape of the whole foot especially when it is claimed to be from a completely distinct species of which there is no living precedant witnessed by us?

"The whole foot" is not part of the claim.  The claim involves an arched foot.  In that aspect, yes, with certainty, if the Family (in this case, Hominidae,) can be determined.

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

3.Could a human/ape bone be attributed to an entirely new fictional species because it was thought to be older then Humans and Chimps?(for eg-3 million years old)

Why are you stuck on chimps? I thought you were hung up on an orangutan jaw.
The bones of Australopiticines are dissimilar enough from chimp and human for assigning them to a different species. Age is not part of this.

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

4.When someone says that Lucy (apparently the most complete Australapithicaus find) lacks any metatarsal or foot bones, can you refute this fact by pointing out a single fossilised metatarsal that could have in all probablilities been  a chimp metatarsal?

Can you?
The "D" fossils are Dmanisi hominims.  Note two Australopithicine at right


Source

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

5.Has an event where 'a combination of a chimp/orangutan/ape bone and human bones being heralded as a new species' ever happened in the mainstream? (spoilers-pilt down man)

Has a nonbeliever ever relied on the claims of an infant science in order to pretend that modern science doesn't represent an advancement over older views?

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 November 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

I have heard 'extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence'............

The "extraordinary claim" here is that Hominid Paleontologists are all wrong, and Harsh86_Patel is right.

Harte

[Harsh86_Patel]

Harte, on 12 November 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

It can "in no way be enough evidence" for people who haven't troubled themselves with studying what is known about Hominid anatomy.  That would include yourself.

Necessary only to maintain your personal fantasy that no "real skeptic" has analyzed any of the hundreds of fossil bones of Australopithicines,

Like other fossils of Australopithicines, the bone is intermediary between Chimp and Human.

"The whole foot" is not part of the claim.  The claim involves an arched foot.  In that aspect, yes, with certainty, if the Family (in this case, Hominidae,) can be determined.

Why are you stuck on chimps? I thought you were hung up on an orangutan jaw.
The bones of Australopiticines are dissimilar enough from chimp and human for assigning them to a different species. Age is not part of this.

Can you?
The "D" fossils are Dmanisi hominims.  Note two Australopithicine at right


Source

Has a nonbeliever ever relied on the claims of an infant science in order to pretend that modern science doesn't represent an advancement over older views?

The "extraordinary claim" here is that Hominid Paleontologists are all wrong, and Harsh86_Patel is right.

Harte

The so called difference in the bones of so called hominids is only in Degrees from Chimps etc.
LIke i said before that the wide variety of variations that you can observe in Human bones due to binding/deformities/disease etc should be a clue to how maleable Human skeletons can be.Same amount of maleability can be expected from Chimp skeletons.
There is a very big chance of an extinct monkey/chimp/primate being taken to be a Hominid if we rely on only fossil reconstructions and no actual statistical data from living representatives.




http://antidarwinism...riginofman.html

The link below highlights variations in Metatarsals in Humans

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2649659/

The link below gives a series of errors made by evolutionists and anthropologists:

http://harunyahya.co...in/chapter/5109 (this demonstrates that how many times we have been mistaken regarding human ancestors,maybe this sort of science is still infant or plainly just wrong)

Australopithicine being able to walk upright (and hence being a Hominid i.e showing chimp and human features) is entirely based on the curvature of a single fosilised metatarsal bone (4 th metatarsal bone) which cannot be effectively dated radiometrically or even be attributed to australopithicus beyond doubt.So effectively the evolutionists are stating that a single slightly curved fossilised isolated metatarsal bone is the only real evidence to attribute bipedalism to australopithicines.(i don't know about you but to me this sounds ridiculous)

http://researchmatte...n-two-feet-1815

The upper body bones of Australopithicine indicate a semi Arboreal lifestyle very much comparable to Chimps.

I am seriously doubting your skeptical abilities now.Or probably you are selectively skeptical.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Clobhair-cean, on 12 November 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

OK, you are either delusional or a troll. I am done discussing this matter with you. And darwinismrefuted.com is not a source, it's the internet equivalent of a crazy person on a soap box. Try peer-reviewed papers. Oh, you can't, because there aren't any that support your claim. Oops.

Please highlight the errors in the relevant information provided.(Difference of opinion only does not count,if you have something solid or empirical against the information then it would be preferred)

[Clobhair-cean]

Harsh86_Patel, on 16 November 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Please highlight the errors in the relevant information provided.(Difference of opinion only does not count,if you have something solid or empirical against the information then it would be preferred)

It's funny that you ask for empirical evidence and repeatedly ignore all empirical evidence at the same time. We've given you all the evidence in the world, and you have replied with "I don't think so", because you obviously know better than the scientists who, you know, studied these things for decades.

Also, lol at harunyahya.com. Is that the best you can do? The lunatic ramblings of a deranged Islamic fundamentalist? Wow, and I thought you couldn't get any lower.

[Swede]

Harsh86_Patel, on 16 November 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Please highlight the errors in the relevant information provided.(Difference of opinion only does not count,if you have something solid or empirical against the information then it would be preferred)

At your request. First, it would appear that you are working from a limited knowledge of the extent of current forensic/bio-anth research. As a primer to the osteological aspects of this topic, Burns 2007 would be recommended.

The following is an educationally based reference that may illuminate you in regards to some of the structural details that are evaluated (and in what manner they are evaluated). Kindly study.

https://www.nabt.org...ebABTonline.pdf

For a somewhat broader view that incorporates technological research in combination with bio-anth research, the following may be of interest. A bit dated, but essentially sound:

http://volgagermanbr...s/klein2000.pdf

For more intensive detail:

http://www.colorado....horp2003CBP.pdf

Once again, these are but a small minority of the white papers/articles available on the general topic. The key point to bear in mind is that there are quite a multiplicity of studies, conducted from a number of perspectives, that all document evolutionary theory. In the above references, this would refer more specifically to hominid/hominin evolution.

And a question - Would you now be proposing that every paleoanthropological recovery represents a "deformed individual"? Have you actually considered the statistical/survival probability of such?

.

.