Message 416 of 1075 (621922)
06-29-2011 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Portillo
06-28-2011 5:01 AM
Re: More evolved?
Portillo...just so you know, I agree with your post 349.
In the case of humans Ardi, although not the missing link, is proposed as an intermediate. Ardi is now being refuted by some reasearchers as not being in the human line.
This is the sort of thing you can see and I can see, and it happens often.
I can see no rebuttal at all to your post. I see some talk about what a kind is, some questioning some statistics, another suggesting your family are illiterate, another suggesting to not pay attention to news headlines. These are not rebuttals.
Here is a rebuttal to the ignorant evolutionists totally unaware of the garbage bin of evo delusions past, and prepared to follow the flavour of the month like sheep to the slaughter.
"Some of the most solid evidence for Ardi being included in the hominin branch is her small canine teeth. But the researchers are quick to point out that other ancient non-hominin species, including Oreopithecus and Ouranopithecus, also came to have reduced canine teeth, "presumably as a result of parallel shifts in dietary behavior in response to changing ecological conditions," the researchers suggest in their article. "Thus, these changes are in fact, not unique to hominins."
The placement of a hole at the base of the skull, known as the foramen magnum, also might suggest Ardi as an upright walker, and thus perhaps a solid hominin. But in looking to other apes, "this feature is more broadly associated with differences in head carriage and facial length, rather than uniquely with bipedalism," Wood and Harrison note. Some extinct primates, such as Oreopithecus bambolii, evolved outside of the human line but nevertheless possessed similarly hominin-like traits, which, the authors write, "encourage researchers to generate erroneous assumptions about evolutionary relationships."
I have also posted links to Lluc a flat faced primates and rebutted the fossil evidence as being either ape or human, with no intermediate all all being found.
Ardi, meant to be very similar to the common ancestor, and thought to be in the human line that is a now being refuted is yet another example of lost intermediates, if not common ancestors.
Here is a flavour of the year shot down in flames and delegated to the evolutionary garbage bin of delusions past.
"However, Kirk, Williams and their colleagues point out that short snouts and deep jaws are known to have evolved multiple times among primates, including several times within the lemur/loris lineage. They further argue that Darwinius lacks most of the key anatomical features that could demonstrate a close evolutionary relationship with living haplorhines (apes, monkeys, humans, and tarsiers)."
So above we see that really evolutionary researchers themselves in their rebuttal of Darwinius as a human ancestor have confirmed that human traits have evolved multiple times and is not necessarily anything to do with human lineage, as I have asserted.
The thread is about the human line and human ape intermediates not being around. Evolutionary bla bla bla is not a refute to either of us. Any so called support for TOE could be delegated to the garbage bin of delusions at any time. This is not just headlines, This was research put up in 2009. Then boofheads have the hide to swear at you when it is they themselves that are ignorant.
here is another intermediate delegated to the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions, "Little foot"
Here is more:
The study reconsiders the evolutionary relationships of fossils named Orrorin, Sahelanthropus and Ardipithecus, dating from four to seven million years ago, which have been claimed to be the earliest human ancestors.
Ardipithecus, commonly known as 'Ardi', was discovered in Ethiopia and was found to be radically different from what many researchers had expected for an early human ancestor.
Nonetheless, the scientists who made the discovery were adamant it is a human ancestor.
"We are not saying that these fossils are definitively not early human ancestors," said co-author Terry Harrison, a professor in NYU's Department of Anthropology.
"But their status has been presumed rather than adequately demonstrated, and there are a number of alternative interpretations that are possible," he added.
Wood and Harrison cautioned that history has shown how uncritical reliance on a few similarities between fossil apes and humans can lead to incorrect assumptions about evolutionary relationships.
They pointed out the cases of the Ramapithecus discovery in south Asia, which was touted in the 1960s and '70s as a human ancestor, and Oreopithecus bambolii discovered in Italy, which was assumed to be a human ancestor because of some of its skeletal features.
After more detailed research was done on both of them, both were found to be fossil apes instead.
The study will be published in the upcoming issue of the journal Nature.
So above we see some fossils no longer human ancestors but apes, once AGAIN delegated to the garbage bin of delusions, of once irrefuteable evidence for TOE.
You evos have no intermediates and no common ancestors for the human line. What you do have is a hope list of support for human evolution. You HOPE it doesn't get tossed aside.
So basically, I see that it is some evolutionists here that are unable to defend their 'so called' evidence for evolution with any more than faith, and wish lists......
They are also unable to explain why there are no intermediates around today with any more than possibly likely and maybe.
Evos just know there aren't any intermediates here with us today and they need to explain it with what ever twoddle they can come up with.
You, Portillo, are doing just fine..........Don't listen to this lot of TOE faithful, particularly not Nuggin.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 407 by Portillo, posted 06-28-2011 5:01 AM|| ||Portillo has not yet responded|