The nail in the Evolutionary Coffin, the final spike placed there by the Royal Society itself.

reply to post by Rocketman7


ima go out on a limb.. Without the evidence you request.. To say.. Uh.. Facial recognition doesnt work for animals because its designed for humans.. If you made a program to determine pigment colors and such, I bet you could have a facial recognition of dogs.. I can tell dogs apart.. Not al beagles have same face.. Some are fatter, skinnier.. This is bogus argument.. But I get ur point

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Ok I will post 3 good arguments and then you can discuss them...
(Prefix "arg" so you reference the point if you want)

Arg 1)
Why do humans all have different faces when no other form of life has different faces including apes?

Iidentical twins.

Originally posted by Myendica
Facial recognition doesnt work for animals because its designed for humans...

Indeed, point 1 of the OP is really bogus...I rarely say this, but I pretty much stopped clearly reading there. The argument was just too weak to consider the next ones.

I believe in evolution but theses arguments in no way "nail the coffin"

reply to post by Rocketman7


I'm not really here to disagree with you but I do think it's interesting that the foot prints were supposedly made in fresh lava? How does that work exactly? How does a human step onto lava and leave a footprint that stays without hurting/killing themselves...Or is this implying that a fully developed human just went for a walk on some fresh magma? Something about that doesn't add up for me.

Originally posted by SMTRu44
As a reply to arg1 in the OP I wonder what it would be like
If humans did not shave their faces or cut their hair ever?
Facial recognition software might have a harder time identifying
Two men with a face full of beard and three feet of hair over their
face. As for animals, Imagine if we shave the faces of two golden
Retreivers or two chimpanzees, would we see subtle asymmetries
That would allow our eyes to tell them apart?

Well speculating is not actual proof and the fact remains that people do shave their faces, as part of their need to be recognized and identified.

It comes down to the simple fact that mankind is important enough, on an individual basis, to require recognition of their identity.

And since there are 7 billion people and all are individuals, with individual facial features, it would be silly to think that was not part of being human.

Whereas, other animals look the same and in any numbers, would easily be confused.

So why then this vast difference? If evolution and natural selection are true, why this difference?

If sexual selection is true, then why not evolving towards the most attractive and most desirable simple model, to satisfy the condition of obtaining a mate through sexual attraction?

You see sexual selection may cause a peacock to grow large feathers but it has not been evident in the human species as prescribed. All peacocks look alike, but humans all look different and unique in their facial features.

reply to post by Rocketman7


thats cause faces have nothing to do with sexual selection. Sexual selection is influenced by behavior.. And attributes such as height, or width, or strength. A face has nothing to do with it.. Thus why majority of sex occurs at night in a dark room. If faces had anything to do with it.. We would look similar and have sex during day in the light face to face. We may have different looking faces, but its the behavior, and body language that is equal, for majority of humans..

reply to post by Rocketman7


Where are the scientific papers that state all animals look the same? For someone who claims to want only scientific articles you've certainly done nothing to prove that claim.

You are also making the fallacy in assuming that all other animals rely on site. Many animals can differentiate between individuals in their species based on smell or sound. If humans are so special why don't we have these capabilities.

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

I'm not really here to disagree with you but I do think it's interesting that the foot prints were supposedly made in fresh lava? How does that work exactly? How does a human step onto lava and leave a footprint that stays without hurting/killing themselves...Or is this implying that a fully developed human just went for a walk on some fresh magma? Something about that doesn't add up for me.

Humans fleeing volcanoes have been known to step on lava and lift their toes as well, and put more pressure on the ball of their foot, and these prints which I am afraid I am unable to show you due to the conspiracy, do show signs of toe lifting.

But the lava need not be red hot in order for a print to be left. If you examine the experts wording, that being Renne et al, in the journal Nature...and I quote
"recently erupted ash."

My point was that, regardless of the alleged footprint, evolution has been demonstrated and verified by scientific experiments. There's no way around it. There may be fossil findings we can't fully explain, but that's why scientists do research on these things. You are proposing a mystery and a hypothesis, but not talking at all about evolution.

But anyways I'll debunk it for you.

www.livescience.com...

Harris and other colleagues report in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal Science on finding several footprint trails within two sedimentary rock layers. An upper sedimentary layer included two trails of two prints each, one group of seven prints, and a variety of isolated prints. The lower layer had a trail of two prints and a single isolated print likely from a smaller, juvenile human.

The researchers identified the footprints as probably belonging to a member of Homo ergaster, an early form of Homo erectus. Such prints include modern foot features such as a rounded heel, a human-like arch and a big toe that sits parallel to other toes.

By contrast, apes have more curved fingers and toes made for grasping tree branches. The earliest human ancestors, such as Australopithecus afarensis, still possessed many ape-like features more than 2 million years ago — the well-known "Lucy" specimen represents one such example.

Homo erectus / ergaster prints were virtually the same as modern humans. 1.3 million years ago a glacial period ended. It's very possible that erecrus or a similar species crossed the ice bridge into America near the glacial maximum. It's not really that crazy of a find, even if it were true. Also don't forget the yellowstone volcano blew around 600,000 years ago, probably wiping out most hominids in North America.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

Where are the scientific papers that state all animals look the same? For someone who claims to want only scientific articles you've certainly done nothing to prove that claim.

You are also making the fallacy in assuming that all other animals rely on site. Many animals can differentiate between individuals in their species based on smell or sound. If humans are so special why don't we have these capabilities.

Do you really need a scientific article to realize these animals look the same?

cdn1.arkive.org...

and regarding being able to identify people by smell, have you ever had a male roommate?

They aren't so difficult to identify. Trust me on that one.

reply to post by Rocketman7


Once again I want scientific evidence. Just because you cannot differentiate between animals based on sight does not mean they can't differentiate between each other based on site. I want scientific evidence that animals cannot differentiate between each other based on sight but that they can differentiate between humans based on sight.

As for your comments regarding smell. Yes we can identify when a person smells bad but if you were to be blind folded and placed in a room of people all of who smell bad do you really think you would be able to identify your roommate?

I'm also trying to find these comments where Renne says humans are millions of years old. From what I can see they don't exist. What he does say is:

We conclude that either hominid migration into the Americas occurred very much earlier than previously believed, or that the features in question were not made by humans on recently erupted ash.

So he is saying outright that these prints are either not human or they were made much later than the lava. If we go with the follow-up done by Gonzalez and his team one if forced to accept the latter explanation. They found that the prints were about 40,000 years old. While this does change the date for when humans came to North America it does nothing to change when humans first emerged.

Human footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000 years

Originally posted by Barcs
My point was that, regardless of the alleged footprint, evolution has been demonstrated and verified by scientific experiments. There's no way around it. There may be fossil findings we can't fully explain, but that's why scientists do research on these things. You are proposing a mystery and a hypothesis, but not talking at all about evolution.

Romans 6:23

23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord.

But anyways I'll debunk it for you.

www.livescience.com...

Harris and other colleagues report in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal Science on finding several footprint trails within two sedimentary rock layers. An upper sedimentary layer included two trails of two prints each, one group of seven prints, and a variety of isolated prints. The lower layer had a trail of two prints and a single isolated print likely from a smaller, juvenile human.

The researchers identified the footprints as probably belonging to a member of Homo ergaster,

full stop.

No they aren't, they are probably modern man.

reply to post by Rocketman7


wow.. That explains alot.. You ever have a female roomate? They thinkings a wee bit off, and varies throughout the month. Im startin to have de ja vu..

Originally posted by AdaptationNation
Inter-cultural differences in facial structure can most likely be attributed to variations in diet.

“And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters: / And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.”/ex]

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

If I post a picture of a random man/woman and ask you if you recognize the picture you would answer yes then? You would be lying unless I randomly happen to pick out someone you actually do know. Otherwise it's just a generic human face.
Also if your argument is true then you would have no trouble finding and posting a picture of let's say 2 or more monkeys who all have the same face? Challenge accepted?

You might be missing the point.

Who is it important to that each man woman and child be identified by their face?

The same one who counts the sparrows?


And I already posted a picture of two monkeys with the same face.

sfappeal.com...

Seen one squirrel monkey, you have seen them all.

Originally posted by Rocketman7

Originally posted by Barcs
My point was that, regardless of the alleged footprint, evolution has been demonstrated and verified by scientific experiments. There's no way around it. There may be fossil findings we can't fully explain, but that's why scientists do research on these things. You are proposing a mystery and a hypothesis, but not talking at all about evolution.

Romans 6:23

23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord.

But anyways I'll debunk it for you.

www.livescience.com...

Harris and other colleagues report in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal Science on finding several footprint trails within two sedimentary rock layers. An upper sedimentary layer included two trails of two prints each, one group of seven prints, and a variety of isolated prints. The lower layer had a trail of two prints and a single isolated print likely from a smaller, juvenile human.

The researchers identified the footprints as probably belonging to a member of Homo ergaster,

full stop.

No they aren't, they are probably modern man.

edit on 4-3-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

Oh, ok. Great argument. Ignore the part that explains that homo erectus had the same foot features you are talking about. Now you're just being silly. Let's just pretend science doesn't exist.

Originally posted by mutatismutandis
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

According to your bible humans have only been around for just a few thousand years...so shouldn't we be asking you how you account for a footprint over a million years old?

I am afraid it is worse than that, I am in the aliens did it camp.

As far your argument about human faces, the human genome has been undeniably traced back to africa.

"I shall count the sheep among my favored sheep and shall offer you the protection of all the angels in heaven."

Please see fact A, B, and C on page 1.

reply to post by Rocketman7


Try a picture that actually shows the faces. Your argument has been killed several times already.

In regards to argument #1, have you never... been around animals? My curly coated retriever has a very different face from others, as have all of my dogs. Maybe animals think we (humans) all look the same?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Rocketman7

 

Try a picture that actually shows the faces. Your argument has been killed several times already.

Seriously. He also forgets that most animals have fir on their faces, covering them up. This is why cats with the same fir colors look exactly the same. They are definitely not. No 2 mammals are exactly identical, and similar to above it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, even if true. Some may look very similar, but there are plenty of people out there that say that about races of human, and they are ignorant. So what does that tell you?