'Missing link' in human history confirmed after long debate

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Mixing a few remains from apes and humans and pretending it's a species of its own that represents a "'missing link' in human history" (evidence that this is what's going on here I discussed in my previous response to the OP), then starting a useless 'fake' debate about it and prematurely declaring a resolution to the debate when the original issue of these remains being from multiple species hasn't even been addressed and the evidence for this reality conveniently ignored and/or swept under the carpet of evolutionary marketing and propaganda articles and discussions, is not much more impressive than someone making claims about ManBearPig:

The only interesting thing about it, is the phenomenon that it's taken a lot more "cereal" by both the public as well as scientists or publishers of what they label as "science".

Should I elaborate on why I referred to the supposed settled "debate" mentioned in the thread title as a 'fake' debate? One clue is in the same sentence, the real issue is carefully avoided. The evidence, the facts that demonstrate the fact/reality that this whole storyline of A.sediba is based on mxing ape with human remains. There is no A.sediba, that species is as mythological as pink unicorns. So no debate necessary, and certainly not any claims regarding a 'missing link' in human history (with the indoctrinated implication of a link to unidentified and unspecified apelike creatures that supposedly haven't been discovered yet).

a reply to: whereislogic

Over the theorized gap of 25 million years between apes and humans, there has yet to be one complete missing link found. IF transitional species between apes and humans were walking around for 25 millions of years we would have found them by now. It is obvious that evolutionary theory is not based in any real facts, just the imagination of "scientists". They're not even scientists, they're more like lobbyists, doing whatever it takes to keep getting grant money to continue to fool their self and others.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: whereislogic

Over the theorized gap of 25 million years between apes and humans, there has yet to be one complete missing link found.

Blatant lie.

IF transitional species between apes and humans were walking around for 25 millions of years we would have found them by now.

More dishonesty. Humans developed over 7 million years from other great apes, not 25 million years. LMAO @ "we would have found them by now" when we have found 24+. But yeah they all don't count right??? All evidence that conflicts with your lies are automatically wrong right?

It is obvious that evolutionary theory is not based in any real facts, just the imagination of "scientists".

talkorigins.org...

Great! Give your refutation then. LOL @ claiming ALL THAT evidence is just "imagination." You have no clue at all.

They're not even scientists, they're more like lobbyists, doing whatever it takes to keep getting grant money to continue to fool their self and others.

LMAO!!!!

originally posted by: Barcs

More dishonesty. Humans developed over 7 million years from other great apes, not 25 million years.

I would love for you to show empirical evidence for this claim. Like something that shows clearly that humans developed over 7 millions years from other great apes. How can you even come to this conclusion when there is not one single complete transitional fossil between "other great apes" and humans?

Don't send me to go fish through some sci-fi blog, just show me an actual complete transitional fossil that demonstrates the gradual morphological transition from apes to humans.

It's that easy. If the evidence is as abundant as you say it should be no problem.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: whereislogic

Why is it you never post research, only silly dishonest youtube videos?

originally posted by: Gargoyle91

originally posted by: Barcs
Thanks to the evolution of the human brain and problem solving skills.

Memes that tickle the ears but have no details regarding the thread topic:
And worthy of repeating in the response apparently.
Youtube videos with detailed research and quotations from so-called 'peer-reviewed' publications from those paleoanthropologists studying A.sediba specifically and details regarding the debate mentioned in the thread title:

And a reason to accuse it of being "silly" and "dishonest" and implying that it doesn't contain any "research".

Got it.

originally posted by: Phantom423
You really are desperate!!

Marketing, Indoctrination, (Social) Programming and Propaganda 101:

lesson 1) use memes and slogans with vague statements that because of their vagueness, are easy to agree with (and because they tickle the ears of a particular target market or type).

a reply to: cooperton

Repeating the same lies isn't an argument. Refute the evidence or STFU. Your lies are old and outdated. Time to move on.

originally posted by: Barcs
Refute the evidence or STFU.

You first need to show me the evidence I am supposed to refute. Show me one complete fossil of a transitional species between apes and humans.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
Refute the evidence or STFU.

You first need to show me the evidence I am supposed to refute. Show me one complete fossil of a transitional species between apes and humans.

Keep em coming!!! When you stick to your talking points like this it just shows how little you actually understand about the subject matter and how you don’t actually have any interest in understanding it when you can simply repeat the same lies over and over as if it makes them true.

You don’t need one single, complete crania/post cranial set of remains, to engage in legitimate comparative anatomy. Thanks to legitimate aspects of biology like symmetry, if we have the left side, then we know what that assemblage will look like on the right side. If one set of remains is missing particular assemblages and other remains DO contain those assemblages, then guess what?! We know what they will look like within a reasonable margin of error on a set of remains from the same species.

You refuse to acknowledge legitimate points that are made and instead repeat over and over the same BS about irreducible complexity and comparative anatomy. It’s getting old and sad that you don’t have any new material even with thenironically names ‘Whereislogic’ echoing the same BS from even more biased sources than yours.

It’s cute. But you’re both wrong.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
Refute the evidence or STFU.

... Show me one complete fossil of a transitional species between apes and humans.

originally posted by: peter vlar

... You don’t need one single, complete crania/post cranial set of remains, to engage in legitimate comparative anatomy. Thanks to legitimate aspects of biology like symmetry, if we have the left side, then we know what that assemblage will look like on the right side. If one set of remains is missing particular assemblages and other remains DO contain those assemblages, then guess what?! We know what they will look like within a reasonable margin of error on a set of remains from the same species.

Who cares about (100%) complete skeletons anyway? Works as a nice red herring-type distraction from the real issues* with the supposed fossil 'evidence' though...

And to reinforce an image of those who are supposedly debating on either side of the argument regarding evolutionary ideas.

*: you know, those inconvenient details about them (the fossils in this case) that hardly anyone here ever discusses or has much to say about in between the paintjobs and displays of showmanship how much better their arguments (and accompanying views/opinions) are.

I agree though that the evolutionary scientists, paleoanthropologists and such, and books, scientific articles and news articles promoting the idea of the evolution of humans from apelike creatures, that I used as sources for the relevant quotations that I used or are used in the 'Contested Bones' video that I shared (more in the other thread), are all pretty biased in favor of the evolutionary storyline in particular regarding the part that involves the 'ape(like)-to-man' story. I don't know if they're more biased than Cooperton's sources though, cause I can't be bothered with such trivialities that are determined in the eye of the beholder anyway and distracting from the facts that actually matter the most regarding this topic.

Those facts, regarding this thread in particular, being:

originally posted by: whereislogic

So the evidence (the facts) discussed in the book Contested Bones (details in the video ...) point to the fossils labeled “Australopithecus sediba” actually being a mixture of ape and human remains rather than a single species.

So not a missing link in human history between an apelike creature and man. ...

Some interesting quotations as quoted from that book regarding A.sediba and several other articles from evolutionists that book is quoting from.

“A. sediba has a strange mix of human and australopithecine qualities. Some say that if the various bones had been found separately, they would have been assumed to belong to different species.”29

This was first noted by Steven Churchill, evolutionary paleoanthropologist at Duke University and co-author of a number of the papers published in Science describing Sediba's remains.

Churchill notes, “If we found [the specimens] as separate parts, we'd probably think they came from different species....”He writes “if” we found them as separate parts. Actually, most of the remains were found as separate parts. Only a few of the bones were found in anatomically credible association. The site consisted of a mixed bone bed of many types of different animals; most of the bones were not found physically connected to one another. Thus it is possible that Sediba is not a legitimate species, but may be a mixture of bones from more than one species, as was the case with Habilis (see chapter 8). As we will show, there are multiple lines of evidence supporting this view.

Those details being available in the video entitled: Review of "Contested Bones".
...
I could find the first quotation (29) here:
2015 preview: Meet more of your long-lost cousins | New Scientist

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Mixing a few remains from apes and humans and pretending it's a species of its own that represents a "'missing link' in human history" ..., is not much more impressive than someone making claims about ManBearPig.
...
...the real issue is carefully avoided. The evidence, the facts that demonstrate the fact/reality that this whole storyline of A.sediba is based on mxing ape with human remains. There is no A.sediba, that species is as mythological as pink unicorns. So no debate necessary, and certainly not any claims regarding a 'missing link' in human history (with the indoctrinated implication of a link to unidentified and unspecified apelike creatures that supposedly haven't been discovered yet).

Seems those in favor of this 'ape(like)-to-man' story and similar evolutionary storylines don't even wanna touch that reality. Let alone argue against it. So far at least, but it's a familiar pattern to me. If an argument against it ever comes, it'll probably be short and uninformative, while conveniently disregarding those inconvenient statements from the gurus of evolutionary ideas and storylines (including those paleoanthropologists being quoted in the video or highlighted by me). Possibly disregarding, dissing, or dismissing them as mere opinion. It's an option, a convenient one, and it makes good use of any type of agnostic code that a listener may be enticed with and eager to follow whenever they are confronted with some inconvenient reality/fact. More likely or accompanied by an argument that these acknowledgements or statements do not prove the reality/fact I'm emphasizing to be 100% certain, i.e., an actual certainty/fact/truth/reality, something that is true/factual/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error. Because it's an inconvenient one to deal with. It's rather embarassing actually (bringing us back to what I said about ManBearPig).

I recommend following the evidence instead wherever it leads (rather than any form of any agnostic code, such as what I sometimes call convenient selective agnosticism, which I just described, it has a different expression in Dutch that I don't know how to translate). Or perhaps I should call it conveniently selective agnosticism. Pretending or arguing that something isn't clear (antonym: uncertain) when it is or when you actually think it is but don't want to admit to it. The way Lawrence Krauss admits he thinks it's most likely that the universe had a beginning, but he won't acknowledge it's certain, a fact/reality/truth/certainty.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why do they call this science when even those who make the call,decide it’s a missing link a fee clearly not sure
Evolution is a faith and we see the scientific evidence of that here in this very thread.

We have decided after not being sure.
No scientific evidence but assumption offered

Evolution is a process not a faith...

Man 200,000 years ago was different, a million years ago even more, so how far do you want to go back? All life on earth is related within our DNA, and the life with more matching DNA is close to us and the life with the lest matching DNA is far apart from us, but make no bones about it even the grape vine has 17% matching DNA with us and that suggests at some very distant past we are related even with it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why do they call this science when even those who make the call,decide it’s a missing link a fee clearly not sure
Evolution is a faith and we see the scientific evidence of that here in this very thread.

We have decided after not being sure.
No scientific evidence but assumption offered

Evolution is a process not a faith...

Man 200,000 years ago was different, a million years ago even more, so how far do you want to go back? All life on earth is related within our DNA, and the life with more matching DNA is close to us and the life with the lest matching DNA is far apart from us, but make no bones about it even the grape vine has 17% matching DNA with us and that suggests at some very distant past we are related even with it.

Well where is the process, show me the process, nothing even remotely relevant about going back. Water melons and clouds are 99% the same so what?

Grape vines, just dumb.

originally posted by: Raggedyman


Well where is the process, show me the process, nothing even remotely relevant about going back. Water melons and clouds are 99% the same so what?

Grape vines, just dumb.

Our most recent process started 600 million years ago after snowball earth wiped pretty much all advance life off the planet, so you want the process of 600 million years...lol

What are you getting at here...That we were planted as we are 6000 years ago?

You do know that the concept of "life" is a human crated term, right? To nature we are all just advance chemical processes, nothing really special.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Here is an updated point of view - probability based (why am i saying 'never say never' in my mind?)

In the new analysis, Andrew Du and Zeresenay Alemseged of the University of Chicago calculated the probability of finding a fossil from an ancestor that is 800,000 years younger than a fossil from a descendent. Based on the probable duration of each group’s presence on Earth and the amount of time they might have overlapped, the team determined that it would happen 0.09 percent of the time. “[O]ur models show that the probability is next to zero,” Du says in press release. A. afarensis, on the other hand, has been dated back to 3 million years, and in close proximity to the oldest Homo fossil. “Given the timing, geography and morphology, these three pieces of evidence make us think afarensisis a better candidate than sediba,” Alemseged says in the statement.

www.the-scientist.com...

The study:

advances.sciencemag.org...

The issue of the origin of Homo is one of the thorniest questions in paleoanthropology and one that has led to myriad proposals and, sometimes, speculations (2, 3, 18, 19). Answers to the questions of how, when, and where the earliest representatives of the genus emerged are still in flux, owing especially to the dearth of fossil data from the relevant temporal range (3.0 to 2.5 Ma ago). It is therefore important to use all available lines of evidence when addressing a question as data poor as this one. While fossil remains from the 3.0- to 2.5-Ma-old interval are necessary to reasonably document the morphological patterns surrounding the origin of Homo, probabilistic methods such as the one used here are also critical for assessing the chronological evidence for proposed relationships between Homo and candidate ancestors. Hypothesized ancestor-descendant relationships must satisfy both temporal and morphological criteria (7, 20). We tested the first criterion here, and the second one has been tested elsewhere (11). A. sediba fails both benchmarks, and the most viable ancestral candidate for the genus Homo remains Australopithecus afarensis both on morphological (5) and temporal grounds (7, 8).

a reply to: InTheLight

I agree, anything is possible.

Thanks for posting it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

A snowball?
Seriously a snowball
What are you getting at here, snowmen were at war 600 million years ago

To nature we are what?
You want me to believe your esotericless babble, go back to school

Thanks but, nah, compared to what you are blathering 6000 sounds very plausible