Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You're such a liar. Peter Vlar has responded to your stupid post about that skeleton several times.

Yeah and the other supposed australopithecus remains he mentioned were even more lacking than Lucy. It's honestly the saddest theory of all time.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You're such a liar. Peter Vlar has responded to your stupid post about that skeleton several times.

Yeah and the other supposed australopithecus remains he mentioned were even more lacking than Lucy. It's honestly the saddest theory of all time.

The extremely simple thing about multicellular organisms that flies right over your head is symmetry. While there are minor differences in soft tissue that make H. Sapiens Sapiens appear.slighltly assymetrical on the outside, our skeletal structures are actually.symetrical. wjat.thst.means is if you have the fossils from the.left side, you know wjat the.right side will look like. Please show me the.remains of an average human that this degree of symmetry does NOT apply to. Where you see missing bones, I dont because they are represented throughout the morphology.of our entire genus. Its hillarious how the simplest of biological concepts flies so far above your head time and time again and.you are so blinded that you cant even look up at the reality you live within without being blinded to it.

originally posted by: peter vlar

The extremely simple thing about multicellular organisms that flies right over your head is symmetry. While there are minor differences in soft tissue that make H. Sapiens Sapiens appear.slighltly assymetrical on the outside, our skeletal structures are actually.symetrical. wjat.thst.means is if you have the fossils from the.left side, you know wjat the.right side will look like. Please show me the.remains of an average human that this degree of symmetry does NOT apply to. Where you see missing bones, I dont because they are represented throughout the morphology.of our entire genus. Its hillarious how the simplest of biological concepts flies so far above your head time and time again and.you are so blinded that you cant even look up at the reality you live within without being blinded to it.

Hmm I don't suppose that even doubling the cranial remains for Lucy would do much help in identification. It's a mess. Your faith is strong Peter, I'll give you that. Australopithecus transitional hominids were supposedly around for almost a million years and this is the best we can find? It goes to show how lacking the evidence is.

a reply to: cooperton

Why do you insist on such dishonest tactics to prop up something that exists only in your mind. You keep trotting out the same photo of Lucy knkwing full well that she's n2kt the only Australopithecus remains ever found. Apparently the 100's of 1000's of peer reviewed papers dont count for anything unless someone on a conspiracy site proves you wrong. Oh, and the cranium you claim doesnt exist and somehow demonstrates the lack of evidence as opposed to your inability to engage in anything resembling due diligence or even a modest effort on your end.


Again,.youre wrong.



Or does that not count because it's a side view? Provinf I'm hiding something in your warped sense olf reality.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

Evolutionary theory has been repeatedly scientifically refuted over and over again...
Only to be replaced by the next faith based theory that can be backed by loosely suggestible implied evidence...

You have anything to support the above claims or should we just take your word as an authority on all biological sciences?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

Why do you insist on such dishonest tactics to prop up something that exists only in your mind. You keep trotting out the same photo of Lucy knkwing full well that she's n2kt the only Australopithecus remains ever found. Apparently the 100's of 1000's of peer reviewed papers dont count for anything unless someone on a conspiracy site proves you wrong. Oh, and the cranium you claim doesnt exist and somehow demonstrates the lack of evidence as opposed to your inability to engage in anything resembling due diligence or even a modest effort on your end.


Again,.youre wrong.

Or does that not count because it's a side view? Provinf I'm hiding something in your warped sense olf reality.

How were they even able to compare that to Lucy's cranium which is mostly missing? I know how - assumption. You're an assumptionist Peter.



^Here's another view of how lacking Lucy's cranium is. If you really think they can make any cranial comparison with such a lacking specimen, then you must be the greatest assumptionist of them all. I prefer science... it demands conclusive evidence.

a reply to: cooperton

Why would they have to comlare it to Lucy's crania when the post cranial remains are the same. Thsts wjat you either dont get or are incapable of understanding. You essentially.want me to disseminate years of education amd research down to a short blurb on here and thats not how it works. We get it, you dont understand the science you hate and it's evertone else's fault, not yours. Well played.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

Why would they have to comlare it to Lucy's crania when the post cranial remains are the same. Thsts wjat you either dont get or are incapable of understanding. You essentially.want me to disseminate years of education amd research down to a short blurb on here and thats not how it works. We get it, you dont understand the science you hate and it's evertone else's fault, not yours. Well played.

I am referring to Lucy being classified as Australopithecus afarensis. How do they even attribute a new species to something that's cranium is mostly missing? It's because they're assumptionists, not scientists. At first you said there was ample data to apply the notion of bilateral symmetry to get a full picture of the skull, but you realize there isn't even ample enough cranium for that to be useful. They have the narrative they want to run, and they distort perception to make it seem factual. Like for example, the CGI images that misrepresent the data:



How do they know what it's face looks like when there aren't any nasal, maxillary or ocular (facial) bones found??? These transitional hominids between the ape pre-cursor and modern humans were supposedly walking around for 5 million years, so where's all the remains? We find many unambiguous dinosaur fossils because dinosaurs are real. Transitional hominids are not.

Bump...

originally posted by: cooperton
... We find many unambiguous dinosaur fossils because dinosaurs are real. Transitional hominids are not.

Prove it that they are not real.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

Why do you insist on such dishonest tactics to prop up something that exists only in your mind. You keep trotting out the same photo of Lucy knkwing full well that she's n2kt the only Australopithecus remains ever found. Apparently the 100's of 1000's of peer reviewed papers dont count for anything unless someone on a conspiracy site proves you wrong. Oh, and the cranium you claim doesnt exist and somehow demonstrates the lack of evidence as opposed to your inability to engage in anything resembling due diligence or even a modest effort on your end.


Again,.youre wrong.

Or does that not count because it's a side view? Provinf I'm hiding something in your warped sense olf reality.

How were they even able to compare that to Lucy's cranium which is mostly missing? I know how - assumption. You're an assumptionist Peter.

^Here's another view of how lacking Lucy's cranium is. If you really think they can make any cranial comparison with such a lacking specimen, then you must be the greatest assumptionist of them all. I prefer science... it demands conclusive evidence.

Your problem is that you are so myopically fixated on Lucy's cranium while neglecting every other exemplar of A. Afarensis which exhibit a more complete cramps and the post cranial remains are all well in lije with Lucy's. Ive never seen someone jump through so many hoops to prop up their pet hypothesis thats devoid of anytging resembling evidence. It would appear that you're a mutant ape after all swingijg from branch to branch goping and praying that somethijg will support your willful ignorance. But you have nothing but hyperbole.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Ive never seen someone jump through so many hoops to prop up their pet hypothesis thats devoid of anytging resembling evidence.

I just don't understand how you think it is due dilligence to suppose that you can identify that Lucy fossil into any sort of classification. I can't find any other "A. Afarensis" fossil that has more to it than Lucy. This is what shows me that there is a remarkable lack of evidence for your theory. The thing is, if transitional hominids were walking around for 5 million years you would think we would have ample evidence, instead you guys are grasping for straws... desperately.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Prove it that they are not real.

It's hard to prove a negative, but we've been looking for over 100 years with nothing but a bunch of CGI images to show for it. Peter is upset because deep down I think he realizes his whole life work has been a lie. It's a tough cookie to swallow, so that's why he gets so angry with me.

a reply to: cooperton

Talking about A. Afarensis, I like this book review about the subject:

Review of "Contested Bones" (Part 6 - Chapter 6 "Australopithecus afarensis") 3-10-2018 by Paul Giem

I especially find the terms "lumpers" vs "splitters" quite insightful and telling. I think the terms themselves were explained somewhere in part 1 or 2. But they are already pretty self-explanatory if you understand how things work amongst anthropologists, paleontologists and such. Also the stuff about mixing bones from different fossil remains, classifying them all as belonging to the same species and ignoring anatomical issues in the endresult.

Dr. John Sanford ("genetic entropy" guy) is one of the authors of that book.

I doubt the theory is completely correct.

Survival of the fittest? Nobody beats an incoming meteor or an ice age.

Adaption to new surroundings? Is that how organisms work?

Ligers are made in labs like clones.

I don't think we were made to know our origin.

If we all went to mars, would we adapt to the new surrounding?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
I doubt the theory is completely correct.

Survival of the fittest? Nobody beats an incoming meteor or an ice age.

Life has beaten many meteors and several ice ages. There have been 7 major extinctions in earth's history, and yes, every time, the best adapted to survive it, survived. We partially owe our existence to extremophile organisms that can survive almost anything.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

If we all went to mars, would we adapt to the new surrounding?

If we all went to Mars, we would have to take our environment with us. Otherwise we would all die before we had a chance to adapt.

Listen closely.

The basic step from a chemical to a biological life is still unknown.