Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[ecco]

I hope some of that information was useful.

What was your point?

 

[shunyadragon]

Classifications are those given by estimators based on what they claim to see in a fossil and as a result evaluate it as to the category they think it belongs in. While the categories are connected with the theory promoted by evolutionists, the categories do not prove anything besides classification by theorists, and placing them in what they think looks to be a similar identity. It is not proof of evolution, as you probably already know.

Again your lack science education is obvious in that you do not understand the classification of life on earth.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Your making some odd statements concerning the fossils and their relationships. What is your educational background in Paleontology, comparative paleo comparative anatomy, geology and genetics.

They were not homo (the group homo sapiens belong to) like bones. The Morphology of the homo group is distinctly different from the australopithecus group. The conclusions of the research on the Taung child fossils support this conclusion.

 

[ecco]

Are you sure life did not come about by evolution? Came about by something.

As you have been told many times, ToE and abiogenesis are two different fields of study. The field of biological evolution is called ToE (Theory of Evolution) or just Evolution (with a capital "E"). The dictionary gives us this...

1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
   
   
2. 2.
   the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
   "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"

Please note number 2. There we can see that the word "evolution" can be applied to many things. It is in that sense of the word that I will say that things evolved from atoms (oxygen, hydrogen) to simple molecules (water) to complex molecules (proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids) to living cells.

Nevertheless, the study of abiogenesis is indeed different from the study of biological evolution. There, now you have no excuse for ever again confusing or conflating the two.

 

[ecco]

If there's room to question the fossil finds then there's room to question the whole theory.

If there is room to question how kangaroos got to Australia following the Flood there is room to question the whole theory (Flood Story).
If there is room to question the length of a day (24 hours / millions of years) there is room to question the whole theory (Genesis).

Need I go on?

My emphases in the following quotes...

There is no proof to say unquestionably that evolution exists merely because -- some fossils resemble other fossils, and some animals look like others.

Something that really can't be proved?

It is not proof of evolution, as you probably already know.

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

It is understandable that creationists can not understand ToE. They cannot even understand that science does not offer proofs, it offers evidence. Regardless of how many times they are told this basic fact, they still like to erect the proof strawman. How silly.


Given that there is no proof for the Great Flood or anything else in Genesis, it is amazing that the people who accept these things on blind faith demand proof for certain aspects of science.

Since creationists demand proof from science and given that the concept of a spherical earth revolving around the sun has not been proved, it is safe to conclude that creationists are also flat earthers and geocentrists.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Given that there is no proof for the Great Flood or anything else in Genesis, it is amazing that the people who accept these things on blind faith demand proof for certain aspects of science.

Yes people of faith accept that we take the Biblical accounts on faith. Science isn't supposed to be by faith or so I'm told over and over and over again.
So if there's no proof, why would we accept it?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Since creationists demand proof from science and given that the concept of a spherical earth revolving around the sun has not been proved, it is safe to conclude that creationists are also flat earthers and geocentrists.

You can conclude anything you want...that doesn't make it so.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes people of faith accept that we take the Biblical accounts on faith. Science isn't supposed to be by faith or so I'm told over and over and over again.
So if there's no proof, why would we accept it?

More fundamentalist black/white thinking......it's either proven or taken by faith, no other possibilities exist.

Fascinating.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

That's it then. We scrap the theory of evolution. You did it. I can't wait to be there when you get the Nobel.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can conclude anything you want...that doesn't make it so.

You can be sure that I have drawn some conclusions. Based on the evidence, I think it is so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

And those old, stale, ridiculous arguments are presented as if they have never been seen before.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh my goodness. You know that there was controversy over whether she was even a she right?

So what.

Bones don't exactly talk.

They do. Just not in the way you mean.

You know his coworker Mary was convinced it was two separate species right?

You know Mary. She always wanted twins.

See "missing links", Oxford University press, page 383, 2011

I will take a look at this earth-shattering evidence that foils evolution again.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That's it then. We scrap the theory of evolution. You did it. I can't wait to be there when you get the Nobel.

Smart Alec comments don't negate the truth. We demand solid evidence in every other kind of science. I guess I'm supposed to make an exception for the ToE?

 

[ratiocinator]

We demand solid evidence in every other kind of science. I guess I'm supposed to make an exception for the ToE?

Not at all, there is solid evidence for the ToE, to quote a creationist; "gobs and gobs of it". It's not a secret either. Do you need help doing an internet search?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Not at all, there is solid evidence for the ToE, to quote a creationist; "gobs and gobs of it". It's not a secret either. Do you need help doing an internet search?

The internet isn't the holy grail. It doesn't contain all truth. In fact most internet searches give you a certain slant on the information you are seeking.

 

[ratiocinator]

The internet isn't the holy grail. It doesn't contain all truth.

No it doesn't, but it's not difficult to choose reputable sources (universities, for example). The evidence is out there (as even a committed creationist who doesn't believe it admits, in the link I posted) and is easy enough to find.

Just claiming it doesn't exist won't make it go away.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Got anything more current? Maybe from this century?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The internet isn't the holy grail. It doesn't contain all truth. In fact most internet searches give you a certain slant on the information you are seeking.

That's why some of us know that you should seek out academic sources instead of just any old thing that pops up.

 

[Jose Fly]

And those old, stale, ridiculous arguments are presented as if they have never been seen before.

Yep. Some of these talking points were around during the Scopes trial, about 100 years ago! Maybe whenever a new creationist comes here we should first send them this link: An Index to Creationist Claims (talkorigins.org)

Then we say, "This is from 2006, so if any of the arguments you plan on making are in that index, they're old, stale, and have been done to death, and we're not going to bother with them. So you'll need to come up with something new if you want folks here to take you at all seriously."

 

[Wildswanderer]

Got anything more current? Maybe from this century?

Your math needs work.