Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[Wildswanderer]

So you have nothing then. Of course, what did I expect?

What you claim here makes no sense. What you are saying is that disagreement over details brings the entire theory into question and that simply is not true. Does a difference of ammo choice mean that the entire hunt has to be scrubbed. Of course not. No sensible person would say that.

It is ok to actually support your claims. Even with the least pretense at evidence. Feel free. Any time.

Ok, I'll try to speak slowly.. so listen closely; it's not a debate over the details. It's a debate over whether it was a legitimate find.
Your analogy has nothing to do with it, but yeah if you bring .22s for your deer rifle the hunt is not going to go too well.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Any chance on that evidence thing? Hello. Hello. Is there anyone there?

Yes. For starters Johansson himself was convinced that some of the jawbones belong to a different taxon. After several visits he finally agreed that they could be also considered part of the Australopithecus species.
And then based on a few similar looking jawbones and cranial material they claimed the entire collection of around 300 bones and bone fragments all belong to a single humanoid species.
All of the Homo and ape like bones that they had reported as belonging to separate species were all now assigned to one.
Including bones that they and others has described as looking at pretty much identical to H. sapiens .
He also insisted that the footprints must be Lucy's although they had no feet bones

And when they presented this finding to the world a number of predominant members of the Paleo community expressed strong opposition. They argued that the variation seem in the sample is far too extensive to be from a single species.

 

[metis]

Well let's examine that for a moment, because, to the best of my knowledge, viruses stay viruses, no matter that they change to different form of virus.

Yep, just as I expected, just another reference to "kinds" even though you didn't use the word itself this time-- no knowledge of genetics whatsoever needed.

The fact is that viruses, like all other life forms, tend to change over time, and this includes basic genetic compositions as any serious geneticist will tell you. Things change, so why is that so utterly difficult for you to understand? And if they keep changing, the organism will change with it. When studying to be anthropologists, we had to learn how the general process of genetic change works.

If you think that means evolution, all I can say is, best to you, and take care.

That's all "evolution" is: change over time. And yet that very simple and obvious concept goes well beyond your willingness to accept.

However, if you want to use your religious beliefs as a set of blinders to avoid Truth, you certainly have that right.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. For starters Johansson himself was convinced that some of the jawbones belong to a different taxon. After several visits he finally agreed that they could be also considered part of the Australopithecus species.
And then based on a few similar looking jawbones and cranial material they claimed the entire collection of around 300 bones and bone fragments all belong to a single humanoid species.
All of the Homo and ape like bones that they had reported as belonging to separate species were all now assigned to one.
Including bones that they and others has described as looking at pretty much identical to H. sapiens .
He also insisted that the footprints must be Lucy's although they had no feet bones

And when they presented this finding to the world a number of predominant members of the Paleo community expressed strong opposition. They argued that the variation seem in the sample is far too extensive to be from a single species.

Are these your words? What is your source?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Are these your words? What is your source?

Look up: "Lucy's child, the discovery of a human ancestor by early man publishing Incorporated 1989.
And "origins reconsidered: in search of what makes us human" anchor books 1992
And, "a new species of the genus Australopithecus. " 1978

Yes I'm paraphrasing.. no direct quotes from anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, I'll try to speak slowly..

Of course. Please be as condescending to me as you can. You are an expert here after all.

so listen closely

Oh, I am on the edge of my seat. I brought popcorn.

; it's not a debate over the details. It's a debate over whether it was a legitimate find.

The larger picture is the creationist false dichotomy of equating any disagreement in science as evidence that the theory of evolution falls apart. You really haven't done a very good job of separating yourself from that principle of the movement.

Any claims about the details of the fossils regarding legitimacy need to be based on evidence. Is this debate sound? Just saying there is a controversy or finding someone in disagreement over the nature of a specific fossil, legitimate or not, still does nothing to the theory. It does not mean that humans did not evolve. I am open to the idea that Lucy may not be ancestral, but that would mean nothing regarding established science. If I find out that I am not related to Elvis, does that mean my entire family history must be tossed out the window?

Your analogy has nothing to do with it, but yeah if you bring .22s for your deer rifle the hunt is not going to go too well.

My analogy is apt regarding the historical and ongoing efforts of anti-evolutionists in general. Given the usual nature and lack of detail in your claims. Your failure to disconnect your claims from that history, the analogy is consistent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Look up: "Lucy's child, the discovery of a human ancestor by early man publishing Incorporated 1989.
And "origins reconsidered: in search of what makes us human" anchor books 1992
And, "a new species of the genus Australopithecus. " 1978

Yes I'm paraphrasing.. no direct quotes from anything.

Paraphrasing from these works? Or is it from the internet somewhere?

Have you read these works yourself?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Any claims about the details of the fossils regarding legitimacy need to be based on evidence. Is this debate sound? Just saying there is a controversy or finding someone in disagreement over the nature of a specific fossil, legitimate or not, still does nothing to the theory. It does not mean that humans did not evolve. I am open to the idea that Lucy may not be ancestral, but that would mean nothing regarding established science.

Well isn't that conveeeeenient?
Yes, we can always believe what we want regardless of evidence that the " proofs" are faulty.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well isn't that conveeeeenient?
Yes, we can always believe what we want regardless of evidence that the " proofs" are faulty.

And yet again you demonstrate no understanding at all of the theory and the nature, and quantity, of the evidence that supports it. It really doesn't depend on the exact placement of single fossils in a particular ancestral line. It's far broader and more general than that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well isn't that conveeeeenient?

It is a fact and I can tell by how you write that you know it is.

Yes, we can always believe what we want regardless of evidence that the " proofs" are faulty.

You believe what you want. Given how you post, you don't even bother to have valid evidence 99% of the time.

If it helps, I find you entertaining. So it isn't a complete loss.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well isn't that conveeeeenient?
Yes, we can always believe what we want regardless of evidence that the " proofs" are faulty.

Did you find any answers to my questions in post 187?

 

[Wildswanderer]

And yet again you demonstrate no understanding at all of the theory and the nature, and quantity, of the evidence that supports it. It really doesn't depend on the exact placement of single fossils in a particular ancestral line. It's far broader and more general than that.

The evidence fits fine into other paradigms.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It is a fact and I can tell by how you write that you know it is.
You believe what you want. Given how you post, you don't even bother to have valid evidence 99% of the time.

If it helps, I find you entertaining. So it isn't a complete loss.

The problem is, you won't step outside the evolution worldview and see that there are other explanations for every piece of evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem is, you won't step outside the evolution worldview and see that there are other explanations for every piece of evidence.

How do you know that I have not? You do not. That is just convenient for you to say so in order to maintain your closed mind and rigid beliefs that create a cozy little comfort zone for you.

The fact is that you will not provide even one record of these so called "other explanations".

I am not the one with problems here. It is unfortunate for you that you highlight yours so well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The evidence fits fine into other paradigms.

Then it should be easy for you to provide them and all your expertise in describing and explaining it all to us.

Good grief.

 

[ratiocinator]

The evidence fits fine into other paradigms.

Well you've shown no understanding of the nature of the evidence to date, but fine, do provide these "other paradigms" but I wouldn't rely on Answers in Genesis to help.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well isn't that conveeeeenient?
Yes, we can always believe what we want regardless of evidence that the " proofs" are faulty.

You realize there are many A. afarensis specimens, right?

Australopithecus afarensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

"Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals!"​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You realize there are many A. afarensis specimens, right?

Australopithecus afarensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

"Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals!"​

I am still looking for this controversy he is so vague about. The only thing I have gotten so far is that he can list some publications and that there is some controversy over how Lucy might have died. Some claim she fell out of a tree, but I have not gotten the time to look into that more deeply.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am still looking for this controversy he is so vague about. The only thing I have gotten so far is that he can list some publications and that there is some controversy over how Lucy might have died. Some claim she fell out of a tree, but I have not gotten the time to look into that more deeply.

For someone who mostly just repeats old, stale creationist talking points, he really doesn't even do a good job of that. That's why I've concluded that he's not even trying in these discussions.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I am still looking for this controversy he is so vague about. The only thing I have gotten so far is that he can list some publications and that there is some controversy over how Lucy might have died. Some claim she fell out of a tree, but I have not gotten the time to look into that more deeply.

Oh my goodness. You know that there was controversy over whether she was even a she right?
Bones don't exactly talk.
You know his coworker Mary was convinced it was two separate species right?
See "missing links", Oxford University press, page 383, 2011