Purely from an outsider's perspective -- a bird's eye view if you will -- I see a great deal of debators failing to maintain a proper debate simply due to a lack of equal definitions. I can argue saying evolution is true, for example, using one definition, and then you can argue saying it's not using an altogether different definition (or vice versa). This doesn't really lead anywhere and I know each and every one of us as posters do want to see some headway made, even if this is an endless debate. Points should be made with which individual posters are held accountable to. If you say X is X and in a later post argue something which contradicts with your own definition of X (saying that it is something closer to Y or Z), then it's clear you're not holding to truthful or even honest debating standards. Integrity is paramount if we are to move forward even an inch.

That being said, I'd like to take an extract from a post by LindaLou and see this given a specific defining term -- or a response saying that there is no specific defining term. Either way, it's impossible to debate any of this without definitions. So...

LindaLou wrote:


Since some of the creationist posters here have alleged that the various hominid species do not exist or are merely old ape bones or old modern human bones, it would help for us to see how this conclusion is drawn and based on what evidence. I'm certain the scientists of the world would be eager to see you show them the error of their ways, especially since -- as anyone making such an audacious claim would have to be -- you've established this belief with extensive research and study of no less effort than what the scientists have put in themselves (i.e., years and years worth of meticulous digging, sorting and analyzing).

If that's what you think, why don't you open your eyes?

CTD wrote:


If what's what I think? I was asking a question, not making a statement.

Hello Pwcca,

It's also quite amusing to look at the various quite contradictory divisions of hominids in to these two different categories by the various creationist "experts" ...

But let me help you out: start with this picture and we can then have everybody pick the apes and the humans out for us (from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html):

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/rssfqkipao.jpg">Enjoy

Where between {A} (chimp) and {N} (Homo sapiens) do you draw the line?

Enjoy

Just what I said. Thank you.

With the lower part missing (jaws) on the skull, including the entire rest of the skeleton, RAZD has just given proof of the evolutionary connection of apes and men! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Fit the skulls in line with human skulls ..... and voila you have proof that evolution has taken place.....if a person gets these skulls confused it's further proof? LOL!!!! Tell me RAZD, where do YOU draw the line? And does that line alter depending on what you want to believe took place? Do you have a convenient evolutionary eraser handy too in case the rest of the skeleton should show up?

Wow, if I see similarities in any kind, I'll assume one came from the other! It's interesting the way evolutionists do all they can to close the gap between man and ape (when it suits), yet when they're faced with fossils from the past (showing the complete form) with little to no change, suddenly RAZD tries widening the gap and emphasizes any differences.....or in the failure of that, he claims something else. Isn't that interesting? Evolution morphs its own theory and contradicts itself constantly.

Fossils from the past (in complete form, nothing missing) showing little to no change and he speaks of appearances being "decieving", or gives some other explanation..... yet here? with only skulls to go by, jaw missing, no full skeleton, his critical eye for "significant" differences, is suddenly replaced by an eye patch ....evolution must be laughing, they saw you guys coming.

See below: This is also not evidence for evolution RAZD <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />, though one might see similarities and then assume a scenario to match. This is very much in the eye of the beholder and unfortunate poses by Bush. But you could add that to your compelling list of evidences if you want. Certainly putting both side by side and making comparisons could add up to anything right?
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/iiiuutrpno.jpg">

Next time you go to the zoo RAZD, or any of you, I suggest you consider where the line is drawn between yourself and the monkeys in the cages.....Consider your ape-like past connection and why you find it ok that these relatives of yours are there for your entertainment behind a cage and you're on the outside of it enjoying your freedom. One wonders why the monkeys and apes haven't caught onto the unfortunate outcome of not being more advanced on the evolutionary scale than we are. I wonder when it will kick in!

Let's have a read of the impact of this kind of thinking: (I won't post it here, RAZD might be bothered by length and content of it).

Unfortunate and distressing story http://www.onehumanrace.com/docs/ota_benga.asp

Beat me to it RAZD . . . it looks to me like we're not going to have any answers to your question here. (BTW, I can't get your link to work-?)

CTD, the best you can do here is to say "I see no feet"? And Bex, assuming that the rest of these skeletons don't exist? (We're just looking at morphological differences between the skulls in this instance.) Can neither of you at least have a go at engaging with the actual evidence here?

Your own creationist leaders have tried to answer this question. According to their beliefs, it should be easy to tell the difference between apes and humans because the two were never similar. Yet curiously they don't agree here.

You'll notice that the above link discusses other skeletal parts of some of these fossils (e.g. Turkana Boy, homo erectus). You'll also notice links from that page which will explain what, despite Bex's objections to the contrary, archaeologists and paleontologists are able to study and learn from these fossils.

"According to their beliefs", eh? Which creationist has claimed each & every tiny fragment of a skeleton can be clearly distinguished?

It is evolutionists who produce skulls as evidence. Incomplete skulls at that, usually broken in more than one place. It is they who combine them with monkey bones in crazy composites. But they don't even agree among themselves, do they? Hmmm, do they?

Show me a complete creature, and if it's ape or man, anyone will be able to tell the difference. Failing that, produce a complete skeleton & people will still see the difference.

But what the evolutionists themselves have long known, is that anything with hands on its feet is a monkey; anything with feet on its feet is a man. Do you claim anyone has trouble understanding that the specimen was a monkey? C'mon - you're an evolutionist & we all enjoy a laugh. What's stopping you?

You asked how to draw the line clearly & unmistakably. I answered. "Riddle" solved. Your evospin can't alter this.

Have you actually looked at the link I provided? Most of these skulls are remarkably complete. Look up Turkana Boy. Most of his skull and entire body are complete. You also might want to look up what your creationist leaders have said about these finds and also why much of what they have claimed is wrong. (Gish, for example, points out similarities and ignores huge differences.) They also clearly disagree as to what they think is ape and what they think is human, despite your interesting claim that the differences should be obvious. If they are, then why don't you answer RAZD's question about how you would classify these skulls?

If I see any indication here that a creationist is willing to look at this evidence and deal with it, rather than dismiss it, I think I'll eat my socks. The thing is, if you're making all these claims that evolution is nonsense and that creationism should be taught in schools, you must deal with it. Science is evidence-based and you have to explain things like these fossils if you're going to claim any scientific basis at all to your ideology. That's why creationist leaders have made an attempt to do so, which as RAZD said has rather amusingly resulted in a public demonstration of how they are unable to tell the "obvious" difference between an ape and a human -- species which, according to them, were never any more similar to each other than they are now.

So can we expect something else here for once other than the perpetually unsubstantiated and rather unlikely "scientists are liars" and "it's all fake", or are these unrealistic expectations?

I still maintain the differences are obvious. Show me where any creationist has classified as "human" a skeleton with hands on its feet. Or where they've called a skeleton with feet on its feet "monkey". Can you do this? If not, then there's no conflict with what I've said, is there?

You might want to change the subject & stop reminding yourself & everyone else I'm right. Don't you evolutionists have any concept of morale?

So . . . you refuse to comment on the skulls because you're not seeing feet. I said earlier that hominid feet do exist, that there are web pages about them, and I linked you to one. At least the leaders of the creationist movement have attempted to comment, which gains a little more of my respect; though as I said, it's because they know that unlike people who for e.g. just post on internet lists, they have to do it if they're going to make a case for creationism being scientific. Did you have a look at Turkana Boy? They don't agree on that one even though it's nearly a complete skeleton. They don't agree on the others either.

If the differences are "obvious," then tell me what you think they are. I look forward to one single post that attempts to discuss the evidence, though as I said earlier these expectations look like being unreasonable. Please do not simply repeat yet again the empty waffle about how it's all clear but you're not going to say anything.

Another question I have is why CTD seems to fixate his questions on hand and foot bones. What makes you think that a) it is crucial to have these in order to work out the probability of the organism being bipedal; and b) that none exist? Or that certain crucial ones (please define) don't exist?

You can read here about hominid fossils, including information about how the leg bones and pelvis can tell us about bipedal locomotion. Here is a picture of the pelvises and leg bones of a chimpanzee, Australopithecus africanus, and a modern human. And also their feet. It is undeniable that africanus resembles the modern human bones. The fossil called Lucy is an australopithecus.

To further satisfy your curiosity on the subject, here is an article titled Fossils, Feet and the Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion. I learned a lot from reading it and I'm sure you will too.

Now, will you answer my questions?

Hello Linda,

Because they are missing from most fossils, so it makes a convenient excuse to avoid the issue.

Yes "little foot" (mentioned in your article) is good for some amusing creo dancing .... Australopithicine, fits the Laetoli (bipedal footprints) and has a big toe intermediate between chimp and human.

The pelvis bones are quite fun if you show first a front and then a side view, as you frequently get different answers from the creos.

Enjoy.

I did not fixate my questions. I remain fixed in my answer to your question.

I haven't said anything at all about bipedalism. But if it'll help, I'll point out that people can learn to walk on their hands. I'll even offer you a "proof" of evolution I haven't seen before: babies learn to crawl on all fours before they learn to walk.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Well, then again, maybe I have seen it before - my memory's kind of foggy sometimes. But if it's new, you could be a hero.

What's so important about this ape man business? The way you carry on, it's like Darwin needs to be proven right about them, or everything else he said fails.

Undeniable? Your pdf says otherwise.AndLeave it to an evolutionist to deny the undeniable. What makes them do that?
I'm wondering if anyone else is learning to appreciate the frequency with which your links contradict your claims.

I'll make no commitment just now. If I stumble across some good supporting sites, or an amusing explanation occurs to me, I may answer at such time as shall be convenient for me, or inconvenient for you.

Speaking of off-topic questions, have you chanced to come upon evidence yet of any 19th century evidence-based conversions from biblical creationism to evolutionism? It's been quite a while now, and just maybe you have one name, huh?

And there are pictures in the pdf showing how much of the "little foot" is based on imagination. They also explain that the "hypothesis" associated with it involves gorilla ancestors for humankind. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/boogie.gif" alt="" /> Amused?

I don't think the pdf link helps the cause of evolutionism very much. They're too honest:
Should've stuck with talkdeceptions. But then again, who has any confidence in them these days?

Who'll be the first to say "these are just trivial details & they fully agree about everything important"? Whoever you are, I laugh in advance!

Your point being . . . what exactly? What's this got to do with the fossils under discussion?


OK, so you've looked at the diagram I linked to? You don't think that Australopithecus rather more resembles modern humans?

The quotes you gave from the pdf don't dispute this. If you read the entire file you will have found that it is up-front and honest (imagine that) about what we still don't understand, and what doubts there are. There are few doubts that most of the fossils under discussion here were indeed bipedal; the example you quoted discusses evidence for remaining arboreal characteristics. Presumably you don't assume that because these hominids could climb, they could not also be bipedal.

You have ignored much thoroughly-discussed evidence at that site about how the foot fossils show transition from ape to human, and how they display different bipedal characteristics. In particular you will see the tarsus (one of the heel bones) and the hallux (big toe) feature prominently -- because they provide evidence of how the foot was in transition from being ape-like to human.


I've seen this comment before. You'll finish here and start a new thread about how evolutionists are liars, all the while dodging questions about evolution that make a creationist interpretation difficult.


Your quote here was very predictable. There is a frank discussion of issues still to be clarified and studied and the creationist will at this point ignore everything else that's been said and seize on the fact that scientists don't know everything, and are in some doubt about things.

What they are in doubt about here, if you'd read carefully (as I did because I knew this point would come up), is that precisely pinning down the phylogenetic trees of human ancestry is difficult because a) it would be helpful to have more fossils; and b) it appears that bipedalism might have evolved independently in several different species, which makes it more complicated to trace through the ancestral line. That these species were bipedal is not in much doubt -- did you catch the comment about how homo erectus appears to have been better at walking than us, because we have had to adapt to carry and give birth to children with large brains? Also, the disputes about human phylogeny are not huge. If you look at the cladograms in the link, you will see that they all match quite closely, with disputes about where to place a few specific species (or sub-species).

When people say that they have all the evidence they need and no longer need to question or learn, that's when alarm bells should be ringing. Do creationists ever feel they want to see more evidence, or do they question? Strange things for scientists to be doing who allegedly want to conspire to "fool" everyone with "evolutionism."

Now would you like to have a go at discussing the skulls? Despite your claims, you haven't answered the question: how would you classify them? Your beliefs forbid you to consider that they might be transitional, so what are they: ape or human?