honeychild:
Are you aware that working with DNA of ancient bone specimens is by no means an exact science? It is fraught with risks of misinterpretation.
'Although it is possible to recover mtDNA and occasionally even nuclear DNA sequences from well-preserved remains of organisms that are less than a few hundred thousand years old, determination of ancient hominid sequences is fraught with special difficulties and pitfalls. In addition to degradation and chemical damage to the DNA that can cause any ancient DNA to be irretrievable or misread, contamination of specimens, laboratory reagents and instruments with traces of DNA from modern humans must be avoided.
- Green, et al., Nature, 16 November 2006, “Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA”, pages 330-336

Lol what ignorance. You are unaware that it is the tracing back of current human and primate dna that they get the evidence for common descent?

Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.

The simplest and most powerful evidence is provided by phylogenetic reconstruction. Such reconstructions, especially when done using slowly evolving protein sequences, are often quite robust and can be used to reconstruct a great deal of the evolutionary history of modern organisms (and even in some instances such as the recovered gene sequences of mammoths, Neanderthals or T. rex, the evolutionary history of extinct organisms).

You are ignorant

Logicboy03:

You were being dubious and willfully ignorant. I dont insult people unless it is necessary.


All you were showing is that you are ignorant of the distinction between the theory of evolution and the study of the fossils.

There is no doubt that we and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor. The fossils give a general picture of the history of evolution but not specifics because some are incomplete and also even when we have useful fossils, we discover new information or even new fossils.


So, there is no doubt that we evolved from other animals or the timeline (from dating techniques) of human evolution from the fossils.

Okay time out . I admit I am not an expert in evolution. Please educate us all on the distinction between the theory of evolution and the study of fossils.

honeychild:

Okay time out . I admit I am not an expert in evolution. Please educate us all on the distinction between the theory of evolution and the study of fossils.

A simple definition of evolution is the change in inherited traits in organisms over successive generations.

A simple theory that says that organisms change and thats why we have diversity. The changes are caused by mechanisms such as adaptation, mutation and natural selection.


Now, the evidence for this is the dna that we can study and reconstruct. The fossils are also evidence for evolution- direct evidence of animals that existed before.




Paleontology or palaeontology is the scientific study of prehistoric life. It includes the study of fossils to determine organisms' evolution and interactions with each other and their environments

Logicboy03:



Lol what ignorance. You are unaware that it is the tracing back of current human and primate dna that they get the evidence for common descent?
You are ignorant

Okay o. Forgive my ignorance. Fine. Evolutionists have found that the DNA of humans and that of Chimpanzees are eerily similar ( I think that at last count there was only 4% difference - not very sure about that.)

From this they deduce (and you accept [/b]in faith[b]) that Humans and Chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.

I see this same evidence and conclude that whoever designed both Humans and Chimpanzees must have designed them to be very similar.

I have never seen my Unseen Designer.

You have never seen your common ancestor.

How does this make you more logical than I?

honeychild:

Okay o. Forgive my ignorance. Fine. Evolutionists have found that the DNA of humans and that of Chimpanzees are eerily similar ( I think that at last count there was only 4% difference - not very sure about that.)

From this they deduce (and you accept [/b]in faith[b]) that Humans and Chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.

I see this same evidence and conclude that whoever designed both Humans and Chimpanzees must have designed them to be very similar.

I have never seen my Unseen Designer.

You have never seen your common ancestor.

How does this make you more logical than I?

Yawn. They dont just deduce; they trace it back through reconstruction

The simplest and most powerful evidence is provided by phylogenetic reconstruction. Such reconstructions, especially when done using slowly evolving protein sequences, are often quite robust and can be used to reconstruct a great deal of the evolutionary history of modern organisms (and even in some instances such as the recovered gene sequences of mammoths, Neanderthals or T. rex, the evolutionary history of extinct organisms). These reconstructed phylogenies recapitulate the relationships established through morphological and biochemical studies. The most detailed reconstructions have been performed on the basis of the mitochondrial genomes shared by all eukaryotic organisms, which are short and easy to sequence; the broadest reconstructions have been performed either using the sequences of a few very ancient proteins or by using ribosomal RNA sequence.

honeychild:
and you know this how? What evidence of your common ancestor have you found? Remember Ida? The highly publicized 'common ancestor' found in 2009? She turned out to be nothing of the sort.

face it Logicboy. You are a man of faith just like the rest of us gullible ignorant believers. But you put your faith in teeth, jaw bones, fragments of skulls and 'educated guesses' of anthropologists.

Are you even aware of how much pressure is on those scientists to 'discover' a 'missing link'? Millions of dollars in research funding is at stake if they do not 'guess' that a bone or tooth (that actually looks exactly like that of the chimpanzee we go to gawk at in the zoo) is actually your great great grandfather.

Try and think hard about assertions you make before posting them on a public forum. It makes you come across as rather careless


The assertion you are forcing on him is similar to saying "dogie style is a method for s3xual abstinence"
You see how silly you sound?

Area_boy:

Try and think hard about assertions you make before posting them on a public forum. It makes you come across as rather careless


The assertion you are forcing on him is similar to saying "dogie style is a method for s3xual abstinence"
You see how silly you sound?

What is faith? 'Now faith is the confidence in what we hope for and the assurance about what we do not see' - heb 11:1 NIV

Logicboy believes that he and apes evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago. No scientist has shown him a fossil of said common ancestor. Yet he is "confident' in the hope that eventually they will discover a fossil of a common ancestor between him and chimpanzees. In the meantime he has a full 'assurance' and has no doubts that he and apes evolve from the same ancestor.

That is faith in action!!

honeychild:

What is faith? 'Now faith is the confidence in what we hope for and the assurance about what we do not see' - heb 11:1 NIV

Logicboy believes that he and apes evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago. No scientist has shown him a fossil of said common ancestor. Yet he is "confident' in the hope that eventually they will discover a fossil of a common ancestor between him and chimpanzees. In the meantime he has a full 'assurance' and has no doubts that he and apes evolve from the same ancestor.

That is faith in action!!

If logicboy is wrong, how does that make your bible story correct?

advocate666:

If logicboy is wrong, how does that make your bible story correct?

I wonder.



However, I am not wrong.

The fossils give a general picture while the geneitics gives clear and precise evidence for common descent.

Logicboy03:

The human population is losing their wisdom teeth. We dont eat as much grass anymore. We have smaller jaws

We look at the armours that medieval knights use and they are small. Keep in mind tht these were meant to be the alpha warriors of their time. even the armour of some eastern cultures are small. Even looking at the skeletons of peoples past, they are smaller.

Honestly, I see you as someone who is logical but on this issue (being more evoled than you ancestors), you appear VERY ILOGICAL. WHY? You said that human being in our time are bigger than human beings that lived in the 12th Century and that our teeth is smaller than there own because we eat less grasses. This is a FAULSE statement which is VERY ILOGICAL because all human being of any paticular generation have different body, skeleton, teeth or jaw sizes and whatever size of any body part they had thousands of years ago, we have all of them right now and whatever size of any body part we have right now, they had all of them then. So what point are you trying to prove?.

I am not saying logic boy is wrong. This thread is not about a debate on whether evolution is right or wrong. I am just saying you evolutionists should get off your high horse. You are always here prancing about saying you only believe in things that have been proved to you and we who believe in a God we have never seen are gullible and moronic. Well, in my humble opinion, some of the crap you guys swallow as scientific evidence would not convince anyone who did not believe evolution as an article of faith.

Here's another example

From those two tiny bones that are barely visible, the second picture - a specie that was at one time believed to be an ancestor of man (I don't know if it is still believed to be an ancestor of man or if it has now been discarded)was conjured. (Eosimias).

And you guys scoff at the story of a woman being created from a man's rib!

Lovethywilbedon: Honestly, I see you as someone who is logical but on this issue (being more evoled than you ancestors), you appear VERY ILOGICAL. WHY? You said that human being in our time are bigger than human beings that lived in the 12th Century and that our teeth is smaller than there own because we eat less grasses. This is a FAULSE statement which is VERY ILOGICAL because all human being of any paticular generation have different body, skeleton, teeth or jaw sizes and whatever size of any body part they had thousands of years ago, we have all of them right now and whatever size of any body part we have right now, they had all of them then. So what point are you trying to prove?.

lolz.....I give up.You cant educate a willfully ignorant person.


Anyone can verify these facts

1) Humans now have smaller jaws and are gradually losing our wisdom teeth

2) The average human is now bigger compared to those in medieval times

Here is another. From the bones pictured below, evolutionists have determined the existence of another early prehistoric animal :Orrorin tugenesis.
Please note: the thirteen bones are said to have come from at least 5 different individual prehistoric animals because they were found scattered all over the archeological dig. Please tell me how anyone can from these bones (which may in all probability have come from a man, his donkey, his sabre-toothed tiger and his child's pet cat)make an 'educated guess' about what Orrorin tugenesis looked like.

Well forgive my hasty conclusion. I just did a google search and voila - we have a picture of an Orrorin tugenesis - complete with ape-like face and furry body!! All from [/b]thirteen fragments that may or may not have come from the same creatures![b]

ijawkid:

The last time I checked fifa could not tell that the nigerian boys who played the U-19 world cup were far over aged...........

Most times as I have seen is that what ever scientists say becomes so perfect to some persons,especially atheist,simply because they never want to hear the word ""GOD""

I'm not aware of the bone test failing, but I'm aware of 28 out of 35 Nigerian u-17 players failing the bone test the year they started testing.

you guys argue like everything is black and white, that's why you can't understand theories even when they tell you it is a theory, use words like likely/probable, and even give you accuracy ranges....that's why honeychild keeps on bringing up bone fragments like she has never solved a jigsaw puzzle before.
evolutionists: trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle.
creationists: telling you the jigsaw puzzle is already solved though they haven't seen it.

Agiliti:

I'm not aware of the bone test failing, but I'm aware of 28 out of 35 Nigerian u-17 players failing the bone test the year they started testing.

you guys argue like everything is black and white, that's why you can't understand theories even when they tell you it is a theory, use words like likely/probable, and even give you accuracy ranges....that's why honeychild keeps on bringing up bone fragments like she has never solved a jigsaw puzzle before.
evolutionists: trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle.
creationists: telling you the jigsaw puzzle is already solved though they haven't seen it.

okay o.....If I give you a bag containing 13 pieces of a jigsaw puzzle without showing you what the picture would look like, I am sure you can make a scientific and 'educated' guess of how the final picture would look

honeychild:
okay o.....If I give you a bag containing 13 pieces of a jigsaw puzzle without showing you what the picture would look like, I am sure you can make a scientific and 'educated' guess of how the final picture would look

Yes. You should with only a few pieces of the 13 if you are intelligent enough!

turnstoner:

Yes. You should with only a few pieces of the 13 if you are intelligent enough!

O.k genius. Below are 13 pieces of a 30 piece jig saw puzzle. Please provide us a scientific, 'educated guess' of what the picture looks like. I have even made it a lot easier for you. I assure you the pieces are all from the same picture - not four or five.

manmustwac: Human Beings evolved from apes over a period of millions of years just like the baby evolves to the toddler the child the teenager then adult and the TV evolved from old black and white models to colour TVs with remote control then then 40 inch flat screen TVs then High Definition TVs with home cinema speakers. The house you live in now evolved from a hut that our ancestors lived in less than 200 years ago. Would you really ask a dumb question like would your house evolve into a spaceship in a hundred years or whether your TV would evolve into silverbird cinema. Don't you realize how naive you sound?

Babies don't evolve. They grow or develop. The so-called evolution of the TV occurred under the action of human intelligence. On the other hand evolutionists claim Nature as a whole somehow developed organisms through a gradual process. A false claim given the complexity of these organisms. And also because we've never actually witnessed Nature doing such.

Logicboy03: Ignorance. I am sure you went to a creationist website. You would have to assume that that is the only Homo habilis fossil ever found


Here is a nearly complete fossil of homo habilis; KNM ER 1813

As is usual with false arguments as this. This claim has been presented by logicboy as FACTUAL evidence that there are complete fossils of pre-historic man... and as is usual here, it has gone completely inchallenged... thus making it seem as if logicboy actually knows what he is talking about.

However what logicboy failed to tell us is that the skull volume for this fossil is too small to have belonged to a human (it would indicate a much too small brain size for a fully grown adult human male). There are two competing theories that could make this a plausible case for KNM ER 1813 being a human fossil...

1. It was probably a young adult - blown out of the water since the teeth clearly tells us this skull came from a fully developed adult.

2. It was probably a small human - makes no sense when compared with the other reconstructed fossils from the same era.

While logicboy has presented this as fact, he fails to tell us that scientists themselves have no clue if this fossil is truly human and that some are arguing that this is the skull of an ape (size and shape agrees with this).

davidylan:

As is usual with false arguments as this. This claim has been presented by logicboy as FACTUAL evidence that there are complete fossils of pre-historic man... and as is usual here, it has gone completely inchallenged... thus making it seem as if logicboy actually knows what he is talking about.

However what logicboy failed to tell us is that the skull volume for this fossil is too small to have belonged to a human (it would indicate a much too small brain size for a fully grown adult human male). There are two competing theories that could make this a plausible case for KNM ER 1813 being a human fossil...

1. It was probably a young adult - blown out of the water since the teeth clearly tells us this skull came from a fully developed adult.

2. It was probably a small human - makes no sense when compared with the other reconstructed fossils from the same era.

While logicboy has presented this as fact, he fails to tell us that scientists themselves have no clue if this fossil is truly human and that some are arguing that this is the skull of an ape (size and shape agrees with this).

lolz....putting words in my mouth and pulling things out of yer azzhole again?


The only claim I made was that there is another nearly conplete fossil of a homo habilis KNM ER 1813.


Unless it is not a homo habilis, all you have just written is nonsense. A very big strawman

Logicboy03:





lolz....putting words in my mouth and pulling things out of yer azzhole again?


The only claim I made was that there is another nearly conplete fossil of a homo habilis KNM ER 1813.

Unless it is not a homo habilis, all you have just written is nonsense. A very big strawman

Well like I pointed out a couple of posts ago, scientists are not really too sure what exactly it is. It may be a homo erectus, homo ergaster or homo habilis.

honeychild:

O.k genius. Below are 13 pieces of a 30 piece jig saw puzzle. Please provide us a scientific, 'educated guess' of what the picture looks like. I have even made it a lot easier for you. I assure you the pieces are all from the same picture - not four or five.

I have neither the interest nor the time to solve your silly puzzle!

turnstoner:

I have neither the interest nor the time to solve your silly puzzle!

honeychild:

honeychild:

Well like I pointed out a couple of posts ago, scientists are not really too sure what exactly it is. It may be a homo erectus, homo ergaster or homo habilis.

lies

honeychild:
okay o.....If I give you a bag containing 13 pieces of a jigsaw puzzle without showing you what the picture would look like, I am sure you can make a scientific and 'educated' guess of how the final picture would look

if you have a phd in jigsaw puzzles, you would be able to see the connections between at least two pieces. you can guess what the final piece would look like, but no one would have faith in your guesses till you can come up with a theory that can be recreated by other scientists and yield the same results.

and the next scientist after you would focus on finding the missing pieces, rather than trying to defend your guesses.

honeychild:
Here is a random quote:
Leakey believed that habilis was a direct human ancestor, with erectus out of the picture. While H. habilis is a generally accepted species, they (sic)opinion that it was a direct human ancestor seems to be in question. There are now at least two species of early Homo (whether habilis and rudolfensis or an undescribed species) living prior to 2.0 myr. In addition, H. erectus (which is almost universally accepted as a direct human ancestor) continues to be pushed further back into the paleontological record, making it possible that it is the first Homo ancestor of modern humans.

Other problems include that [b]some people see KNM-ER 1813 as a near perfect erectus,[/b] except for its small brain and size. It could be an erectus that was at the small scale of a wide variation of traits, or it may belong to ergaster, which some believe to be the ancestor of erectus. The questions are far from solved, and new specimens are needed. Homo habilis may be a direct human ancestor, a dead-end side-branch that leads nowhere, an invalid species whose designated examples belong in other species, or Wolpoff may be right, and all these species are basically part of one highly variable widespread species. - http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis/

@Logicboy
Please read the above. YouTube is really not the place to get accurate information you know.

Uyi Iredia:

Babies don't evolve. They grow or develop. The so-called evolution of the TV occurred under the action of human intelligence. On the other hand evolutionists claim Nature as a whole somehow developed organisms through a gradual process. A false claim given the complexity of these organisms. And also because we've never actually witnessed Nature doing such.

if you are a religious person and you say something is false because you have not witnessed it, that contradicts your whole belief system.

and evolution happens everyday, just not in the scale you might expect. when a short man marries a tall woman to weed out his short genes, that's evolution at work.

Agiliti:

if you are a religious person and you say something is false because you have not witnessed it, that contradicts your whole belief system.

and evolution happens everyday, just not in the scale you might expect. when a short man marries a tall woman to weed out his short genes, that's evolution at work.

That's not evolution at work. It's genetic recombination at work.

honeychild: Here is another. From the bones pictured below, evolutionists have determined the existence of another early prehistoric animal :Orrorin tugenesis.
Please note: the thirteen bones are said to have come from at least 5 different individual prehistoric animals because they were found scattered all over the archeological dig. Please tell me how anyone can from these bones (which may in all probability have come from a man, his donkey, his sabre-toothed tiger and his child's pet cat)make an 'educated guess' about what Orrorin tugenesis looked like.

Well forgive my hasty conclusion. I just did a google search and voila - we have a picture of an Orrorin tugenesis - complete with ape-like face and furry body!! All from [/b]thirteen fragments that may or may not have come from the same creatures![b]

Only goes to show the story-telling and wishful thinking that pervades the evolutionary field.

Logicboy03:


A simple definition of evolution is the change in inherited traits in organisms over successive generations.

A simple theory that says that organisms change and thats why we have diversity. The changes are caused by mechanisms such as adaptation, mutation and natural selection.


Now, the evidence for this is the dna that we can study and reconstruct. The fossils are also evidence for evolution- direct evidence of animals that existed before.




Paleontology or palaeontology is the scientific study of prehistoric life. It includes the study of fossils to determine organisms' evolution and interactions with each other and their environments

You can't even give a simple definition of your precious evolution. Evolution simply defined is the change of organisms from simple to complex forms over time via natural selection and mutation.

Uyi Iredia and honeychild are way way out of their depth in this matter, but don't know it! They think they are making sense because there are respondents ready to indulge them .