Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Harsh86_Patel

Did man and dinosaur co-exist?

478 posts in this topic

Turbidation of an extreme nature can be the cause of rapid laying of sedimentary layers as show cased by many young earth geologist.

But the strata would still be visibly turbidised. They forget they these are ongoing processes and we have real-world examples with which to make comparisons. Again too there's that matter of fossils. If the existing sedimentary layers are being chewed up and spit out, how then are we finding often complete skeletons in homogeneous rock layers, and organized stratigraphically by type to boot? To paraphrase Kevin Costner, that is one magic tsunami.

Virtually all the geological features of the earth's surface can be better explained by the one-flood global model involving progradation, liquifaction and turbidation than by modern geology with its millions of years. Two prime pieces of evidence for a global flood with similtaneous deposition of the strata are: A) The Persistence of Facies. Cretaceous chalk is identified by the index fossil micraster and nodules of flint stone. There is no argument that it is a sedimentary rock and has thus been deposited as a sediment in water. This stratum persists as a continuous layer from Northern Ireland, is seen as the White Cliffs of Dover, then continues through Europe, Russia, India, Malaysia and finishes in Australia. It is also found from Pittsburgh to Alaska. This means that this entire area – more than half the globe -- was under water at the same time. B)

Yes, sea water. As in a sea. They've managed to completely side-step the fact that chalk "sediment" is composed entirely of plankton.

Liquifaction BTW does not occur readily in all sediment types.

I

Interbedding. This is the slight overlapping or blending of one stratum with the next. Textbooks are always reluctant to mention this and show examples of strata with nice clean lines of demarkation.

What textbooks are these I wonder because I've seen plenty of examples in living color on the geology sites I visit so somebody must be teaching it.

However, it is common to find neatly stratified layers occasionally blending meaning that the lower stratum did not rise from the flood waters, dry out and turn to rock before sinking to receive sediments for the second stratum. Quite clearly, these strata were deposited at the same time.

http://www.creationm...t/genesis-flood

...Which ignores the time difference between deposition and lithification. Look at any deep soil column. You'll have a layer of turf or humus on top followed by the primary soil type and often ending in a layer of clay. Each individual stratum was laid down at a different time with plenty of opportunity for admixture at the boundaries during transition events without the need for everything to happen all at once.

Edited by Oniomancer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said i was talking of a rapid event not a slow gradual one.And not my thoughts it's just something i read but found the idea thought provoking.

If you're going to quote other people's ideas, it's helpful if you know what those ideas actually are.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said Hapgood's model gives a good explaination how the Earth's core wouldn't need to melt and the balance can be brought back again by rapid continental drift of the upper two layers.Also like i said maybe the orbit of the moon has been modified before but we can't tell.

And Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation gives a good explanation of the "sudden appearance" of insects. Unfortunately, even though it's a good explanation, it is completely wrong.

One Aristotle beats 50 Hapgoods. If Aristotle can be in error, Hapgood can be a drooling idiot.

In fairness, though, the idea of the crust slipping and sliding wasn't that uncommon, just like the idea of spontaneous generation was common - even before Aristotle, until plate tectonics was finally accepted, and eventually proven.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nature.com/news/molecular-analysis-supports-controversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637

Soft tissue on Dino bones confirmed.Another kick in the nuts for evolutionists.

Look at their delusion,in the article they couldn't still resist calling the bones 67 million years old,and highlighted that the antibodies for bird osteocytes were used to determine the authenticity of Dino osteocytes atleast four time (just to imply an evolutionary link as suggested by most evolutionist nutjobs) but in the end they accepted that the antibodies are not specific to only bird osteocytes but would react to osteocytes from other animals also.

This article not only serves the purpose of clearly establishing that Dinos were not extinct since last 65 million years but also is a good specimen of how mainstream empirical biology has to carefully edit their findings to avoid displeasing the evolutionist world view regime.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This does nothing to disprove evolution. The bones and the Hell Creek formation where they were found were both dated to be 68 million years old. The fact that a researcher found some traces of soft tissue inside fossilised bone after said fossils were stripped of their mineral contents by being submerged in acid that ate away everything but the stone itself is surprising, but not impossible. We may have to reconsider what we know about the process of fossilisation, that's all. This is not a fossilised rabbit from the Cambrian.

Consider this (you won't):

The age of the Schweitzer rex isn’t based upon just one radiometric test, but many independent radiometric tests using various methods as well as paleontologists climbing all over the Hell Creek Formation for a century; if there was some big controversy about how old the formation was (or if it really was 10,000 years old or less) why has no one but the creationists mentioned it? I find it hard to believe that so many scientists over so long a time would all be “in” on a cross-disciplinary conspiracy to keep evolution firmly established in society, and if we are to dismiss the work of hundreds (if not thousands) of chemists, physicists, geologists, paleontologists, and biologists who know the Hell Creek Formation well, why not throw science as a whole out the window as well? No, creationists know such a move would be suicide, so they will continue to try and be backseat drivers to the rest of the scientific community, but I doubt anyone is going to stop and listen to their directions.

http://laelaps.wordp...ale-of-a-t-rex/

Edited by Clobhair-cean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This does nothing to disprove evolution. The bones and the Hell Creek formation where they were found were both dated to be 68 million years old. The fact that a researcher found some traces of soft tissue inside fossilised bone after said fossils were stripped of their mineral contents by being submerged in acid that ate away everything but the stone itself is surprising, but not impossible. We may have to reconsider what we know about the process of fossilisation, that's all. This is not a fossilised rabbit from the Cambrian.

Consider this (you won't):

http://laelaps.wordp...ale-of-a-t-rex/

"Surprising but not impossible"......that says it all.

But then again is anything impossible for evolutionist and crack pot anthropologists......................NO

They find dinosaur soft tissue and they still think it is 65 million years old lol..........empirical evidence suggests that soft tissue completely decays in a matter of few years but we would happily ignore it and call it a one time case lol.

One time absurdities could explain so many single skeletons around which we have weaved entire hominid species for eg-LUCY.........could have very well been a deformed human/nenaderthals.But no,just to satisfy our deluded evolutionist bretheren we have to claim that they were entirely different hominid species combining ape like and human features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One time absurdities could explain so many single skeletons around which we have weaved entire hominid species for eg-LUCY.........could have very well been a deformed human/nenaderthals.But no,just to satisfy our deluded evolutionist bretheren we have to claim that they were entirely different hominid species combining ape like and human features.

One-time absurdities?

That better explains your position, not A. Afarensis (Lucy.)

Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals! Found between 3.85 and 2.95 million years ago in Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania), this species survived for more than 900,000 years, which is over four times as long as our own species has been around. It is best known from the sites of Hadar, Ethiopia (‘Lucy’, AL 288-1 and the 'First Family', AL 333); Dikika, Ethiopia (Dikika ‘child’ skeleton); and Laetoli (fossils of this species plus the oldest documented bipedal footprint trails).

Source

So, 300 examples of deformed human-Neanderthals? Neanderthals were human, by the way.

I see where the absudity fits in here, and it's not in the field of Paleoanthropology.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Surprising but not impossible"......that says it all.

But then again is anything impossible for evolutionist and crack pot anthropologists......................NO

You are wrong. Just what I mentioned earlier, evolutionists say that finding fossilised rabbits in Cambrian layers would be impossible.

They find dinosaur soft tissue and they still think it is 65 million years old lol..........empirical evidence suggests that soft tissue completely decays in a matter of few years but we would happily ignore it and call it a one time case lol.

This wasn't a Tyrannosaurus steak. This was small, partially fossilised tissue fragments encased in solid rock. Without moisture, without air, without nothing. Decay needs air, moisture and bacteria, none of which was present in the rock, which was dated to be 68 million years old.

One time absurdities could explain so many single skeletons around which we have weaved entire hominid species for eg-LUCY.........could have very well been a deformed human/nenaderthals.But no,just to satisfy our deluded evolutionist bretheren we have to claim that they were entirely different hominid species combining ape like and human features.

Have you ever seen even a picture of Lucy? She could not have been a deformed human or Neanderthal. She is too small and her anatomy is way different than anything any known deformity could produce. And how would you explain the Laetoli footprints? Were there so many deformed humans running around in the middle of Africa that they formed family groups? Don't be ridiculous.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One-time absurdities?

That better explains your position, not A. Afarensis (Lucy.)

Source

So, 300 examples of deformed human-Neanderthals? Neanderthals were human, by the way.

I see where the absudity fits in here, and it's not in the field of Paleoanthropology.

Harte

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

342px-Lucy_Mexico.jpg

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.

448px-LucySmithsonian.JPG

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)

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wrong. Just what I mentioned earlier, evolutionists say that finding fossilised rabbits in Cambrian layers would be impossible.

This wasn't a Tyrannosaurus steak. This was small, partially fossilised tissue fragments encased in solid rock. Without moisture, without air, without nothing. Decay needs air, moisture and bacteria, none of which was present in the rock, which was dated to be 68 million years old.

Have you ever seen even a picture of Lucy? She could not have been a deformed human or Neanderthal. She is too small and her anatomy is way different than anything any known deformity could produce. And how would you explain the Laetoli footprints? Were there so many deformed humans running around in the middle of Africa that they formed family groups? Don't be ridiculous.

JBS Haldane said that a pre cambrian rabbit would convince him that evolution is false.Sadly,complex eyes in trilobites right after the cambrian explosion didn't convince him,he was adamant asking only for a rabbit.

All fossils are encased in solid rocks,why don't they have soft tissue remanents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

342px-Lucy_Mexico.jpg

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.

448px-LucySmithsonian.JPG

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)

Wow. Just wow. Your comprehension of the techniques used in reconstruction from bones is really, really deplorable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JBS Haldane said that a pre cambrian rabbit would convince him that evolution is false.Sadly,complex eyes in trilobites right after the cambrian explosion didn't convince him,he was adamant asking only for a rabbit.

All fossils are encased in solid rocks,why don't they have soft tissue remanents?

Complex eyes in trilobites? What the hell are you on about now? Trilobite eyes are well understood, and occur in exactly the place in the fossil record where we expect to find them. That's the point of the rabbit test: the evolution of rabbits didn't occur for many millions of years after the Cambrian, ergo, if we were to find a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian, there would be need to revise the theory of evolution. However, unfortunately for the anti-evolution crowd, that hasn't happened; and don't any of you hold your breath, because it isn't going to happen, either.

And most fossils were already bare skeletons, eaten away by scavengers, ravaged by insects and water, etc., before they were finally buried and fossilized. You have a nasty habit of declaring things you don't understand to be false; just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it wrong. It means that first and foremost, you should educate yourself about it; a measure which you clearly haven't bothered to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, piltdown man was not a hoax by an anthropologist, but an untrained fraudster and it was highly controversial from the get-go. There is no controversy about Lucy or other Australopithecines.

And while to your untrained eye, a partial skeleton means little, if you actually knew about anatomy, you could read a lot from it. We have more than half of the pelvis, which shows both ape and human-like features, just like the femur and the arms. And we can reconstruct the skeleton based on our knowledge of anatomy (for instance, we can infer the size of muscles based on the bones with pretty good accuracy) and the other Australopithecus africanus remains that were found, which include at least two complete skulls (From both adults and juveniles. How do you explain that?). Based on this information, pretty accurate, albeit admittedly fanciful reconstructions are made for museums. But you have to keep in mind also that reconstructions are not really factors in science, they are only there to help the public who don't see as much into mere bones.

JBS Haldane said that a pre cambrian rabbit would convince him that evolution is false.Sadly,complex eyes in trilobites right after the cambrian explosion didn't convince him,he was adamant asking only for a rabbit.

Because the two are not nearly the same. Trilobite eyes are not out of place in any way. They are preceded by almost a hundred million years of complex life (remember, it took 65 million years for mammals to diversify to their contemporary state), of which we know little because most animals at that time were small and did not have hard or hard enough shells to fossilise in great numbers. A fossilised rabbit would completely break evolutionary theory and our knowledge of geological history. Compound eyes are just something that evolved in animals that didn't fossilise.

All fossils are encased in solid rocks,why don't they have soft tissue remanents?

Not all fossilisation is the same, it depends on many circumstances. Also, this was the first time a researcher broke up a massive bone and dissolved it in acid, people tend not to do that with precious finds. Probably if more people start doing it, more will be found.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, piltdown man was not a hoax by an anthropologist, but an untrained fraudster and it was highly controversial from the get-go. There is no controversy about Lucy or other Australopithecines.

And while to your untrained eye, a partial skeleton means little, if you actually knew about anatomy, you could read a lot from it. We have more than half of the pelvis, which shows both ape and human-like features, just like the femur and the arms. And we can reconstruct the skeleton based on our knowledge of anatomy (for instance, we can infer the size of muscles based on the bones with pretty good accuracy) and the other Australopithecus africanus remains that were found, which include at least two complete skulls (From both adults and juveniles. How do you explain that?). Based on this information, pretty accurate, albeit admittedly fanciful reconstructions are made for museums. But you have to keep in mind also that reconstructions are not really factors in science, they are only there to help the public who don't see as much into mere bones.

Because the two are not nearly the same. Trilobite eyes are not out of place in any way. They are preceded by almost a hundred million years of complex life (remember, it took 65 million years for mammals to diversify to their contemporary state), of which we know little because most animals at that time were small and did not have hard or hard enough shells to fossilise in great numbers. A fossilised rabbit would completely break evolutionary theory and our knowledge of geological history. Compound eyes are just something that evolved in animals that didn't fossilise.

Not all fossilisation is the same, it depends on many circumstances. Also, this was the first time a researcher broke up a massive bone and dissolved it in acid, people tend not to do that with precious finds. Probably if more people start doing it, more will be found.

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.

Pilt down man was accepted and heralded by 'Stupid' anthropologists and evolutionist irrespective of the discoverer for quite some time,if i remember correctly it was for approx 40 years.

When you say complete skulls were found,there is still no clue of whether they belonged to an entirely different species.There is no way to determine that the two skulls and Lucy belong to the same distinct species.Either ways skull binding giving rise to oddly shaped skulls is common knowledge now,so oddly shaped skulls are not necessarily representing a seperate species.

The pelvis is where the deformity could have taken place in the case of Lucy.Or in all probabilities Lucy was a deformed monkey/ape.

Forget about the trilobyte eyes,the whole cambrian explosion is inexplicable by the slow gradual process of darwinian evolution.

Reconstructions like these should not be entertained by science or museums,only the bones should be displayed and let the observers use their own imagination.Though i guess that very few rational people will attribute these bones to a distinctly seperate Hominid species.If the myth of evolution was not so commonplace,you would hardly find a person who would interpret these bones as a seperate species of hominids.

Nothing would break down evolutionists,even a precambrian rabbit wouldn't.Even if a rabbit fossil is found in the Pre cambrian level,it would be interpreted as a intrusive burial or a hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Yeah, you don't understand reconstructive methods; and for the nth time, kindly cease in ignoring every ******* thing I say.

Pilt down man was accepted and heralded by 'Stupid' anthropologists and evolutionist irrespective of the discoverer for quite some time,if i remember correctly it was for approx 40 years.

You do realize the time in which that happened, right? The same time when they still thought that T. rex dragged its tail on the ground; in other words, they didn't know ****.

When you say complete skulls were found,there is still no clue of whether they belonged to an entirely different species.There is no way to determine that the two skulls and Lucy belong to the same distinct species.Either ways skull binding giving rise to oddly shaped skulls is common knowledge now,so oddly shaped skulls are not necessarily representing a seperate species.

The pelvis is where the deformity could have taken place in the case of Lucy.Or in all probabilities Lucy was a deformed monkey/ape.

Wow, you don't know a thing about science; and I thought the things you said in the other thread were stupid... "Lucy", incidentally, was an ape; so are humans. And no, you don't need a full skull in order to match it with another skull; there are a number of australopithecine fossils, and their features are far too uniform to be "deformities".

Forget about the trilobyte eyes,the whole cambrian explosion is inexplicable by the slow gradual process of darwinian evolution.

No it isn't. You've been lied to son, and the fact that you so adamantly and willingly spout those lies as if they were true is just unscrupulous on your part, frankly.

Reconstructions like these should not be entertained by science or museums,only the bones should be displayed and let the observers use their own imagination.Though i guess that very few rational people will attribute these bones to a distinctly seperate Hominid species.If the myth of evolution was not so commonplace,you would hardly find a person who would interpret these bones as a seperate species of hominids.

Wow. Just... wow. I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between a lion skeleton and a tiger skeleton. Now try to tell the difference between a human skeleton and an australopithecine skeleton. VERY, VERY EASY.

Nothing would break down evolutionists,even a precambrian rabbit wouldn't.Even if a rabbit fossil is found in the Pre cambrian level,it would be interpreted as a intrusive burial or a hoax.

First off, a Precambrian rabbit fossil would, very likely, be a hoax or an intrusive burial.

Second, if somehow it was proved that it wasn't either of those things, then evolutionary theory would require revision. Plain and simple. Again, don't hold your breath...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

No you don't. If you did have any knowledge of anatomy, you would know that if you look at a femur, you can tell if its human or not, especially if you can compare it with other bones. Lucy's femur (which is complete) is the the wrong length compared to the humerus (also complete) and its anatomy shows both human and ape-like traits. That's only one.

And yes, some bits are imagined in reconstructions, because they are illustrations, nothing else. We don't have Australopithecine hands for example. But it doesn't matter, because we have enough bones to put things into context

Pilt down man was accepted and heralded by 'Stupid' anthropologists and evolutionist irrespective of the discoverer for quite some time,if i remember correctly it was for approx 40 years.

The first paper questioning Piltdown Man came out months after it was introduced to the scientific community and the controversy continued until the whole thing was completely demolished in 1953. Many scientists believed the hoax, that is true, but that can be explained by the biased attitudes of early 20th century British anthropologists, who placed their nation above science and their lack of knowledge of early human evolution, which isn't true today. But no-one of any academic standing ever questioned Lucy.

When you say complete skulls were found,there is still no clue of whether they belonged to an entirely different species.There is no way to determine that the two skulls and Lucy belong to the same distinct species.Either ways skull binding giving rise to oddly shaped skulls is common knowledge now,so oddly shaped skulls are not necessarily representing a seperate species.

And here, you show that you know nothing of anatomy. Let me demonstrate. You don't need complete skulls to match two species. We have the near-complete lower jaw of Lucy and some bones from her neurocranium. We can compare these to the other skulls and if they match, then the species match.

This is a reconstruction of an Australopithecine skull:

615px-Australopithecusafarensis_reconstruction.jpg

Please explain how binding can cause the vast differences in dentition, the size of the neurocranium, the shape of the viscerocranium, and the tiny size of even adult specimens. Or, if you say that these are congenital deformities, please tell me what known medical condition results in exactly the same deformities 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.

The pelvis is where the deformity could have taken place in the case of Lucy.Or in all probabilities Lucy was a deformed monkey/ape.

What is more likely, an ape with deformities to all of its body parts (suspiciously human-like, but not quite human deformities), or something that is not quite an ape?

Forget about the trilobyte eyes,the whole cambrian explosion is inexplicable by the slow gradual process of darwinian evolution.

Nope. The cambrian explosion is not inexplicable. It was not a sudden appearance of complex animals. It is the sudden appearance of complex animals in the fossil record, there is a difference there (and also, sudden is meant in a geological sense, so over millions, if not tens of millions of years). Fossilisation is rare in itself, and animals without a hard shell or skeleton rarely fossilise. By the time of the Cambrian Explosion, enough animals had hard shells, while their evolutionary precursors had softer bodies. As I said before (which you ignored, like you do with anything that destroys your arguments), we are know of at least 100 million years of complex life before the Cambrian, with plenty of time for eyes to develop.

Reconstructions like these should not be entertained by science or museums,only the bones should be displayed and let the observers use their own imagination.Though i guess that very few rational people will attribute these bones to a distinctly seperate Hominid species.If the myth of evolution was not so commonplace,you would hardly find a person who would interpret these bones as a seperate species of hominids.

Why not? The reconstructions are, to our knowledge, mostly correct. Why not help people like yourself, who are without any concept of biology and anatomy visualise extinct life forms?

Would you please stop stating what people would do or think? It is not an argument for anything.

Nothing would break down evolutionists,even a precambrian rabbit wouldn't.Even if a rabbit fossil is found in the Pre cambrian level,it would be interpreted as a intrusive burial or a hoax.

Nope. This is why this example is so good. You can't explain a Cambrian rabbit as intrusive, since those layers are way too deep for that to have happened, and rabbits are too rare. This is not a hadrosaur bone that ended up slightly on the wrong side of the K-T boundary, this would be a 500 million year discrepancy. And it wouldn't be interpreted as a hoax if it clearly wasn't one.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you don't understand reconstructive methods; and for the nth time, kindly cease in ignoring every ******* thing I say.

You do realize the time in which that happened, right? The same time when they still thought that T. rex dragged its tail on the ground; in other words, they didn't know ****.

Wow, you don't know a thing about science; and I thought the things you said in the other thread were stupid... "Lucy", incidentally, was an ape; so are humans. And no, you don't need a full skull in order to match it with another skull; there are a number of australopithecine fossils, and their features are far too uniform to be "deformities".

No it isn't. You've been lied to son, and the fact that you so adamantly and willingly spout those lies as if they were true is just unscrupulous on your part, frankly.

Wow. Just... wow. I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between a lion skeleton and a tiger skeleton. Now try to tell the difference between a human skeleton and an australopithecine skeleton. VERY, VERY EASY.

First off, a Precambrian rabbit fossil would, very likely, be a hoax or an intrusive burial.

Second, if somehow it was proved that it wasn't either of those things, then evolutionary theory would require revision. Plain and simple. Again, don't hold your breath...

I understand reconstructive procedures but their accuracy is only based on statistical data collected from various living specimens of those species.When you try to reconstruct entirely new species without ever seeing a living representative then you are pretty much in Alice's Wonderland.That is the reason why Pilt Down man was accepted for such a long period of time,since it was a part of the race to find the missing link in the myth of Human evolution and there was no precedant to compare the find to.

BTW had taken up forensics as a side course during my graduation and am very aware of how reconstruction including muscle and facial feature reconstruction is done to identify victims from skulls but the reconstruction is done employing a lot of stastical data that already exists from Living and dead Specimens.

Far too similar?I can pretty much give you fragments of Human skulls/Monkey skulls and tell you it is Australopithicus,and you would probably design a species around it.The skull of so called Australopithicus has almost the same features as that of a Monkey/Human,it doesn't have two foramen magnums to make it distinct.The only difference in skulls is in the shape which as i pointed out cannot be taken as evidence for an entirely distinct species.

If not me,many zoologists will be able to tell you all the difference between Tiger and Lion skulls since they have seen and studied living members of the species.

peruvian_male_(skull_binding_&_trephination_7000bc)-www.boneclones.com.JPG

Tell me which species the above skull belongs to tran.Maybe it's the missing link of Human evolution.

paracusskulls.jpg

See a new species of hominids..called Elongatus Americana.

dwarfism%20skeleton.jpg

Human Dwarf skeletons or a new species?Or probably Lucy's cousins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harsh86_Patel... I will, for the first time, thank you... For giving me the heartiest laugh of my evening.

You really are the most scientifically-illiterate person I think I've spoken with; and I've spoken with Ray Comfort and the super-fundies!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand reconstructive procedures but their accuracy is only based on statistical data collected from various living specimens of those species.When you try to reconstruct entirely new species without ever seeing a living representative then you are pretty much in Alice's Wonderland. That is the reason why Pilt Down man was accepted for such a long period of time,since it was a part of the race to find the missing link in the myth of Human evolution and there was no precedant to compare the find to.

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.

BTW had taken up forensics as a side course during my graduation and am very aware of how reconstruction including muscle and facial feature reconstruction is done to identify victims from skulls but the reconstruction is done employing a lot of stastical data that already exists from Living and dead Specimens.

Then why aren't you using that knowledge?

Far too similar?I can pretty much give you fragments of Human skulls/Monkey skulls and tell you it is Australopithicus,and you would probably design a species around it..

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.

The skull of so called Australopithicus has almost the same features as that of a Monkey/Human,it doesn't have two foramen magnums to make it distinct.The only difference in skulls is in the shape which as i pointed out cannot be taken as evidence for an entirely distinct species.

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.

If not me,many zoologists will be able to tell you all the difference between Tiger and Lion skulls since they have seen and studied living members of the 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

Tell me which species the above skull belongs to tran.Maybe it's the missing link of Human evolution.

See a new species of hominids..called Elongatus Americana.

Human Dwarf skeletons or a new species?Or probably Lucy's cousins.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harsh86_Patel... I will, for the first time, thank you... For giving me the heartiest laugh of my evening.

You really are the most scientifically-illiterate person I think I've spoken with; and I've spoken with Ray Comfort and the super-fundies!

Happy to entertain the ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

chimpMsk.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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 Gacy should 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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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.

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.

chimpMsk.jpg

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.