Announcement

**Lonestar** · April 17, 2002, 21:12

You guys need to get out more.

**ALPHA WOLF 64** · April 17, 2002, 21:13

what exactly makes a dog a dog? At what point would it stop being considered a dog and be considered its own species?

**loinburger** · April 17, 2002, 21:14

Lionburgger, from your posts i dont see that you have much understanding yourself.

From your failure to seriously answer my criticisms and assertions as well as the criticisms and assertions of many others, it is clear that you are incapable of engaging in a rational debate.

**mactbone** · April 17, 2002, 21:15

Well, someone seems to be ignoring all of my posts, here goes another attempt at informing him.

http://home.talkcity.com/librarydr/eztoamuse/webdoc17.htm

"There are no transitional fossils" is the battle cry of the ignorant Creationist. I will comment briefly on the history of this argument, show the various transitional species of human ancestors, and finally show the existence of transitional hominid individuals, between species.

Around the 16th century, people thought they were completely separate from the animal kingdom. At that same time, the great apes, the gorillas and orangutans, the chimpanzees and other monkeys, were all unknown. When the great apes were discovered, a fierce debate raged as to whether these creatures were a strange race of men, or just another animal. An English physician, Edward Tyson, wrote a book in 1699 concerning the anatomy of apes. Tyson listed 48 physiological characteristics that made the ape similar to man, and 34 characteristics that, on the other hand, connected the ape more closely to the animal kingdom.

The point I am trying to make is that the ape is, in a sense, a transitional form between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Creationists can't accept that, however, and demand a transitional form between man and apelike ancestors. When Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon remains were first found, creationists demanded transitionals between them and an ape-like ancestor, and between these human ancestors and present day humans.

Present day knowledge from the fossil record show the following progression from modern humans to ancient ancestors, as the table shows: Name
Looks Brain Size in cc's. # of specimens Dates Tools
Ramapithecus Small, no forehead, very apelike very small 20, mostly jawbones and a few skulls 12 million years old None
Australopithecus Half-Ape, half human, slight forehead, upright walk 600 cc. 800 specimens, mostly skulls, a few near complete skeletons 4 million years old None
Homo Habilus Slightly human head, bigger brain 725 cc. 200, mostly skulls, some hips and femurs 2 million years old Stone tools
Homo Erectus Larger brain, almost human head 1000 cc. 1500+ fossil specimens, some very complete skeletons 1 million years old Stone, and Fire.
Homo Sapiens Some look more human than others. 1350 cc. Tens of Thousands 350,000 years old All

Homo erectus discoveries demanded that the creationists employ a more refined strategy. Homo erectus is just as human as us, sloped forehead and all. Or, they were diseased humans. Or, perhaps they were apes, eaten by humans, and the tools found with them are simply what the humans used to carve up the apes. The fact is, H. erectus has an apelike head, human dentition, an upright walk. This ape-headed, walking creature also used tools and made fires. Over a thousand fossil specimens have confirmed this.

Homo Habilus is a transitional form between H. Erectus and the Australopithecines. H. Habilus has a smaller brain capacity than H. Erectus, 725 cc as opposed to 950 cc. The slope of the forehead is greater, and only stone tools are found at the Habilus sites. There is no evidence of fire use by H. Habilus.

When the Australopithecines were found, the initial thoughts were they were knuckle walkers, like apes. Creationists took the position they were just extinct apes. However, finds of australopithecine hips, femurs, and other bones indicate it walked upright--while having the unmistakeable head of an ape. Australopithicines are transitionals between older, knuckle-walking ape-like ancestors, and the more modern, tool using H. erectus.

Transitional Hominid Individuals:
There are quite a few fossil finds which don't translate well into one species or another. These are called "transitional individuals", and are intermediate in characteristics between an older type and a more recent specimen.

The Omo skulls, found by a team of Paleontologists led by Richard Leakey in Ethiopia in 1967 are skulls with a large (1430 cc) cranium capacity, but which preserve features of H. erectus skulls such as a receding forehead and prominent brow ridges. This is regarded as an early example of a human, even though it has characteristics of an H. Erectus specimen. It is over 100,000 years old.

Vertesszollos skulls were found in 1965 in a site in Hungary. The thickness of the skull and the one-piece brow ridge are features of an H. Erectus, but the brain capacity is modern: 1400 cc. The brain, though large, is configured in a more primitive manner than modern humans. It is an extremely early, and very primitive, example of H. Sapiens, but with distinct H. erectus features. It is about 400,000 years old.

The Petralona skull, about 400,000 years old, is from a cave in ancient Greece. It is an H. erectus skull with some advanced features normally found only in modern humans.

Ngaloba skull is an an early H. sapiens specimen found in sandstone and clay deposits in Tanzania in 1976. It has mostly human features, while retaining some archaic H. erectus features in its shape. It is about 120,000 years old.

Tautavel skulls originated in the Arago cave in southern France, excavated in 1964. The skull has features of both H. erectus and Neanderthals, and is a transitional fossil between the two species. It is about 300,000 years old.

Creationists use the same strategy with Archeopteryx. It's just a bird. In fact, Archeopteryx is fossil bird with reptilian characteristics. It could just as accurately be described as a fossil reptile with bird-like characteristics.

Transitional Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals

There are many transitional forms at all stages of evolution. Here are a few of the more interesting ones:

An ancient transitional species between invertebrates and vertebrates is the Jamoytius, a sea creature similar to the modern lamprey. Its "backbone" was a stiff, unsegmented tissue known as a notochord.

Acanthodes is a primitive jawed fish. Jaws, a major evolutionary development, originated from bony gill arches.

The Osteolepis is a bony fish, with a skull and jaw structure very analogous to early land-dwelling vertebrates. This is a lobe-finned fish, different from the lungfish, and indicates that this is the transitional form from sea creatures to the early amphibians, not lungfish.

Seymoura and Lyccaenops are early reptiles with amphibian characteristics, and are almost exactly half amphibian, and half reptile. They are transitional forms between amphibians and reptiles.

The Synapsids are a subclass of early reptiles that bridge the gap between reptiles and primitive mammals.

Conclusion:
Isn't this exactly what we would expect from the fossil evidence, if humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor? If life evolved gradually, from simple sea creatures without jaws or backbones, to large brained, tool-using mammals?

On the other hand, if humans were created by divine fiat, why does the fossil record show a slow and gradual progression from creatures who neither walked upright nor had large brains, through upright-walking, small brained creatures, and then to large-brained, tool using, upright walking creatures, and finally to modern humans?

If you want, you can visit your local museum of natural history, and verify everything on this page. Or, if you're intellectually lazy, you can continue to believe that humans were created by the impulsive act of a lonely Hebrew deity.

**loinburger** · April 17, 2002, 21:15

Ok how many explosions have been conducted that have produced matter.

Ever hear of a fusion bomb?

**loinburger** · April 17, 2002, 21:17

Originally posted by Lonestar
You guys need to get out more.

The sun went down awhile ago here.

**Draco aka Se7eN** · April 17, 2002, 21:18

Some of you said its ironic how religion has evolved to the standards of certain times and such. I do not disagree. Times change.

It is also ironic how Evolution is doing the exact same thing

Times change, we will see how evolution holds up over the next 20 years

**mactbone** · April 17, 2002, 21:24

The greatest tactic for someone who is losing an argument is to ignore the points that exploit the weakness in your own argument.

**S. Kroeze** · April 17, 2002, 21:24

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
S. Kroeze

I have said that i dont believe in any one religion. I never said the bible is 100% correct. That doesnt mean there isnt a creator.

Perhaps you didn't say that the Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But you said:

Try reading Genesis. Creation gives us purpose. It gives us morals. It Distinguishes right and wrong.

So you are suggesting the Bible (Genesis) portrays the world as it truly is. You claim the Bible gives us superior morality.

And what purpose do Genesis and 'Creation' in six days give us?
What morals do Genesis and 'Creation' in six days give us? How are right and wrong distinguished in Genesis?
Do you have an opinion about 'genocide'?
Have you already read Joshua 10 and 11?
Is it useful to know God likes pancakes?

Before you reject the theory of evolution you might try to inform us what you think this theory includes. It is my impression you are not able to do so.

**Lonestar** · April 17, 2002, 21:27

Originally posted by loinburger

The sun went down awhile ago here.

Homework, on my part. What's your excuse?

**Evil Knevil** · April 17, 2002, 21:27

Point of order:

The only thing i see to Debunk about your part about fossles is Archaeopteryx, Claimed to be transition from a dinosour to a bird. Well if you were more in touch with current scientific fact you would know that it was later to be proved just a bird and not lizzard like

Fossil's
Dinosaur
Lizard

If you were more in touch with archeology then you'd realise that Dinosaurs were not lizards. In fact they were more bird-like, as far as their limb and bone structure was concerned. The Archaeopteryx types were a stage between Dinosaurs and modern birds. In fact dinosaurs branched off from reptiles along time before!

The development of dinosaurs:

Devonian Period Triassic Period
Reptiles---->Mammal-like Reptiles --->simple dinosaurs--->

Cretatious(sic) Period Modern day
more complex, birdlike dinosaurs--->Transition? stage ---> Birds