Atheism is bullshit, change my mind

[Sakandari]

A biologist will explain this increasing pattern of similarity using the taxonomic tree with more common lineages going from animals to mammals to apes. As in going down a taxonomic tree to specific branches means more recent common ancestry. More recent common ancestry means more biological similarity. It's the same type of similarity you find between yourself and your siblings and less and less so with your distant and even more distant cousins.

Maybe only an ignorant outdated one. According to the blind believers of Neo-darwinism, we have 2 moles: One is related more to the elephant while the other is related more to the kangaroo more than being related to each other.

http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/search/label/homology

 

[Wardheere]

Atheism seems cool until you age realzing the end is near..Not saying i am old but i have worked in a elderly home with people with severe dementia for one day i had to quit at same time was best job i have ever had in the sense of what it taught me.May Allah protect us. I am not a perfect muslim but I cant imagine not being able to look forward to meeting Allah....I pray that he guides me my off aprings from this lost world. May God guide yall too.

May Allah guide you

 

[Halimo-2018]

Atheism seems cool until you age realzing the end is near.May Allah protect us. I am not a perfect muslim but I cant imagine not being able to look forward to meeting Allah....I pray that he guides me my off aprings from this lost world. May God guide yall too.

May Allah guide you

Amin. thank you, i need it. May Allah guide you equally.

 

[Subeer]

Fossil records only shows that animals were created in the most suitable time. The cambrian explosion has no agreed-on explanation yet.

Alleged DNA evidence:
http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/04/human-chimp-dna-similarities.html
http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/chromosome-2-fusion-model.html

Funny that you mention the cambrian age too sxb, when we examine the terrestrial strata we actually see that all the living creatures in this time age appeared simultaneously, and these living creatures that are found in the strata that belongs to the cambrian age emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record with absolutely no pre-existing ancestor! The following fossils that are found in cambrian age are snails, trilobites,sponges, earthworms,jellyfish, sea hegdehogs, and many many other interesting, and complex creatures. Iit is actually discovered that all of these creatures all of sudden emerged on earth, or put on earth, with no scientific evidence for any proof that these creatures went through any evolutionary process, they simply were just there, in their perfect form, from the start!


All lot of these animals, were put on earth with very complex systems, and very advanced interior as exterior structure, such as eyes, gills, circulatory systems, exactly like those as we know of the creatures we know today.

For example the trilobite, a wonder creature, perfectly equipped with a double lensed eye structure. David Raup, proffessor of geology in harvard, rochester in chigaco university stated that "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today
( David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, Cilt 50, Ocak 1979, s. 24)

Theres is absolout no doubt that this eye 530 mil years ago emerged on the earth in a perfect, and comlex state. And this all of sudden emergence, have been discovered, but haven’t been explained, and i dare to say that it can’t be explained with the theory of evolution, but can only be explained with theory of creation, that there must’ve been a all knowing intelligence behind this complex creation. The eye structure of the trilobite, has survived to this very day. Insects, and dragon flies have the exact same eye structure as the trilobite had for 530 million years ago, which is a great impasse, and great proof that the theory of evolution must be wrong, since the thesis of evolution claims that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex, and fails to explain the trilobites all of sudden emergence on earth, with no prior ancestor.

@Kafir where did these creatures come from? who's their ancestor? Can you explain the origin of their complex structures? Why did they emerge on earth all of a sudden? Why haven't the evolutionist crew put on an effort to explain this subject to this day ?


(R.L.Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Physiology of Seeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, p.31

A. The Eye of Trilobite)

Another Deathrap for the evolutionary thesis was stated by Richard Monastersky, science journalist, at science news in on of the most famous publications of evolutionist literature, states the following regarding the cambrian explosion :


“A half-billion of years ago, the remarkably complex form of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of the earth’s Cambrian period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth’s first complex creatures… The large animal phyla of today were present already in early cambrian … and they were as distinct from eachother as they are today”

(Richard Monestarsky, "Mysteries of the Orient", Discover, Nisan 1993, s. 40)


How all of these complex creatures came to earth all of sudden simultaneously with no prior ancestor is still a question which is unanswered by evolutionists, even the famous zoologist evolitionist Richard dawkins himself, comments on this subjects which undermines the thesis of evolution, he famously stated :


“For example the Cambrian strata of rocks... are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history”

(Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton 1986, s. 229)


Dawkins himself is still baffled with this emergence, and he himself cannot explain it. He is on the edge to becoming a believer, since the only logical way to explain the the emergence of these creatures, is through again the theory of creation! And a another evolutinist is also on the edge to discovering the truth, DOuglas Futuyma admits this fact :


“Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.” (i.e created by god)

(Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983. s. 197)


And even when you thought it couldn’t get more worse for the evolutionist, the final blow comes from the authour of the thesis himself, charles darwin, when he said in his book “the origin of species” :


"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."

(Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, s. 302)


The lack of evidence concerning the emergence of complex creatures in the cambrian age, must be on of the biggest proof which invalidates the thesis of evolution, but still defended by darwinists to this day, with no proof, the swedish evolutinist Stefan bengtson actually comments on this lack of evidence and says that it is “ Baffling (and embarrassing to darwin, this even still dazzles us”

 

[Kafir]

Your claim that man evolved from some kind of ape-creature is false,
ALL of the Australopithecus species are unique apes that look and resemble the apes of today.The capacity of their cranium is absolut the same or even smaller than the chimpanzee we know today. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. Just like today the male chimpanzee-male is larger than the female, so was the Australopithecus male. they're short, not taller than 130 cm, just like the modern day chimpanzee. And there are many other characteristics such as the detail of their skull, the close set eyes, the sharp teeth, the structure of their lower and upper jaw, the long arms, and their short legs, are all evidence that this Australopithecus creature you claim is the ancestor of the modern day human is reaching.

You are arguing that Australopithecus, the entire genus as a whole, resembles more modern chimpanzees than humans. The takeaway being that these fossils are nothing more than just an extinct variety of chimpanzees and irrelevant to human evolution. Your base assumption that there are similarities between chimpanzees and Australopithecus is perfectly fine. In fact, there are even a bunch of similarities between modern humans and modern chimpanzees. Australopithecus being different however in that it has a more recent common ancestor with the chimpanzees and the lineage they are derived from. The stronger similarity between Australopithecus and chimpanzees than from humans and chimpanzees is that humans have spent millions of years longer diverging away from the common ancestor with chimpanzees.

But it isn’t as your implying that there aren’t stark similarities between Australopithecus Afarensis and modern humans. Similarities shared with modern humans and not with other great apes. This also includes (counter to what you were describing), bipedalism.


Latimer B1, Ohman JC, Lovejoy CO. “Talocrural joint in African hominoids: implications for Australopithecus afarensis” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 74:155-175 (1987)

“Our review of the anatomical features of the hominoid talocrural joint demonstrates the changes that occurred in the adaptive transition to habitual bipedalism. We have further shown that these anatomical and functional adaptation had clearly taken place in the early hominid lineage by the appearance of the Pliocene hominid species. A. afarensis. Thus, despite the pongidlike appearance of some isolated traits, the total functional pattern of the proximal ankle joint in A. afarensis was fully adapted to a bipedalism equivalent to that of Homo sapiens.”

the sexual dimorphism of Australopithecus was more similar with humans than other great apes:

Philip L. Reno, Richard S. Meindl, Melanie A. McCollum, and C. Owen Lovejoy "Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of modern humans" NATL ACAD SCIENCES 100, 9404-9409

“Extensive simulations using modern humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas confirm that this technique is accurate and that skeletal size dimorphism in A. afarensis was most similar to that of contemporary Homo sapiens”

The bones used in this experiment were those from both male and female Australopithecus Afarensis, modern humans, gorillas and chimpanzees. Bones like the distal humerus, proximal radius/ulna, proximal femur, distal tibia/fibula and other bones found in both male and female A.Afarensis.

Similarities like the ribs, arm bones and spine of humans and afarensis:

Yohannes Haile-Selassie,b,c,1, Bruce M. Latimera,b,c, Mulugeta Alened , Alan L. Deinoe , Luis Giberte , Stephanie M. Melillof , Beverly Z. Saylorg , Gary R. Scotte , and C. Owen Lovejoy “An early Australopithecus afarensis postcranium from Woranso-Mille, Ethiopia” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jul 6;107(27):12121-6

“The “bar–glenoid” angle has been used to orient the glenoid plane in A.L. 288–1 (29), but the specimen’s small size may have had scaling effects (30, 31), an observation supported by the fact that its bar–glenoid angle can be matched exactly by comparably sized humans”

“The ulnar tuberosity is well preserved and is most similar to those of humans”

“Even lower limb length, as now evidenced by KSD-VP-1/1, no longer remains an argument against “human-like” bipedal kinematics in Au. afarensis (58), because the distribution of relative lower limb length/relative forelimb size appears to have overlapped substantially with that of Homo. Moreover, judged in this manner, relative hindlimb length is likely to have been even more Homo-like than exhibited in Fig. 5, because the modern human forelimb (and thereby forelimb joint size) has been reduced substantially since Au. afarensis (42)”

That last point is especially important as it was one of Oxnard’s original arguments.

Sarmiento EE. 1996. Quadrupedalism in the hominid lineage: 11 years after. Am J Phys Anthropol Suppl 22:208

“There is no real dispute that A. afarensis progressed bipedally when on the ground”

Your text from Oxnard is arguing that A. afarensis has a skull and teeth that are primitive as compared to both A. africanus and H. habilis, whereas its limb proportions are more human-like. This article is arguing that this species was a physical intermediary between chimpanzees and humans also sharing a common ancestor with both. He’s using a taxonomic model which recognizes Australopithecus as being from the genus Paranthropus. Even other proponents of that model suggest that a subsection of these Paranthropus gave rise to the genus homo. For example, Australopithecus garhi from Asfaw et. al (2004) "Australopithecus garhi: A New Species of Early Hominid from Ethiopia"

Also that book you gave by Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower was published in 1970. The first bones for Australopithecus afarensis was in 1974.


Looking more at your responses I’m noticing a pattern between your responses and the ones found on this website:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html

The same sources, pictures, and even writing style: “The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge” You seem to have added “idiotic” on your own though.


Also, how do you fit all of this in your time frame? Did Adam live among Australopithecus Afarensis? 3 million years ago? Even if we’re using the Oxnard model with a different genus Praeanthropus for afarensis there’s still a genus homo that had to have lived concurrently with the praenthropus. Oxnard is proposing a homo erectus-like ancestor in his article. Isn’t it strange that we have to wait millions of years before finding any of Adam’s children’s remains?

 

[Subeer]

You are arguing that Australopithecus, the entire genus as a whole, resembles more modern chimpanzees than humans. The takeaway being that these fossils are nothing more than just an extinct variety of chimpanzees and irrelevant to human evolution. Your base assumption that there are similarities between chimpanzees and Australopithecus is perfectly fine. In fact, there are even a bunch of similarities between modern humans and modern chimpanzees. Australopithecus being different however in that it has a more recent common ancestor with the chimpanzees and the lineage they are derived from. The stronger similarity between Australopithecus and chimpanzees than from humans and chimpanzees is that humans have spent millions of years longer diverging away from the common ancestor with chimpanzees.

But it isn’t as your implying that there aren’t stark similarities between Australopithecus Afarensis and modern humans. Similarities shared with modern humans and not with other great apes. This also includes (counter to what you were describing), bipedalism.


Latimer B1, Ohman JC, Lovejoy CO. “Talocrural joint in African hominoids: implications for Australopithecus afarensis” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 74:155-175 (1987)

“Our review of the anatomical features of the hominoid talocrural joint demonstrates the changes that occurred in the adaptive transition to habitual bipedalism. We have further shown that these anatomical and functional adaptation had clearly taken place in the early hominid lineage by the appearance of the Pliocene hominid species. A. afarensis. Thus, despite the pongidlike appearance of some isolated traits, the total functional pattern of the proximal ankle joint in A. afarensis was fully adapted to a bipedalism equivalent to that of Homo sapiens.”

the sexual dimorphism of Australopithecus was more similar with humans than other great apes:

Philip L. Reno, Richard S. Meindl, Melanie A. McCollum, and C. Owen Lovejoy "Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of modern humans" NATL ACAD SCIENCES 100, 9404-9409

“Extensive simulations using modern humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas confirm that this technique is accurate and that skeletal size dimorphism in A. afarensis was most similar to that of contemporary Homo sapiens”

The bones used in this experiment were those from both male and female Australopithecus Afarensis, modern humans, gorillas and chimpanzees. Bones like the distal humerus, proximal radius/ulna, proximal femur, distal tibia/fibula and other bones found in both male and female A.Afarensis.

Similarities like the ribs, arm bones and spine of humans and afarensis:

Yohannes Haile-Selassie,b,c,1, Bruce M. Latimera,b,c, Mulugeta Alened , Alan L. Deinoe , Luis Giberte , Stephanie M. Melillof , Beverly Z. Saylorg , Gary R. Scotte , and C. Owen Lovejoy “An early Australopithecus afarensis postcranium from Woranso-Mille, Ethiopia” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jul 6;107(27):12121-6

“The “bar–glenoid” angle has been used to orient the glenoid plane in A.L. 288–1 (29), but the specimen’s small size may have had scaling effects (30, 31), an observation supported by the fact that its bar–glenoid angle can be matched exactly by comparably sized humans”

“The ulnar tuberosity is well preserved and is most similar to those of humans”

“Even lower limb length, as now evidenced by KSD-VP-1/1, no longer remains an argument against “human-like” bipedal kinematics in Au. afarensis (58), because the distribution of relative lower limb length/relative forelimb size appears to have overlapped substantially with that of Homo. Moreover, judged in this manner, relative hindlimb length is likely to have been even more Homo-like than exhibited in Fig. 5, because the modern human forelimb (and thereby forelimb joint size) has been reduced substantially since Au. afarensis (42)”

That last point is especially important as it was one of Oxnard’s original arguments.

Sarmiento EE. 1996. Quadrupedalism in the hominid lineage: 11 years after. Am J Phys Anthropol Suppl 22:208

“There is no real dispute that A. afarensis progressed bipedally when on the ground”

Your text from Oxnard is arguing that A. afarensis has a skull and teeth that are primitive as compared to both A. africanus and H. habilis, whereas its limb proportions are more human-like. This article is arguing that this species was a physical intermediary between chimpanzees and humans also sharing a common ancestor with both. He’s using a taxonomic model which recognizes Australopithecus as being from the genus Paranthropus. Even other proponents of that model suggest that a subsection of these Paranthropus gave rise to the genus homo. For example, Australopithecus garhi from Asfaw et. al (2004) "Australopithecus garhi: A New Species of Early Hominid from Ethiopia"

Also that book you gave by Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower was published in 1970. The first bones for Australopithecus afarensis was in 1974.


Looking more at your responses I’m noticing a pattern between your responses and the ones found on this website:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html

The same sources, pictures, and even writing style: “The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge” You seem to have added “idiotic” on your own though.


Also, how do you fit all of this in your time frame? Did Adam live among Australopithecus Afarensis? 3 million years ago? Even if we’re using the Oxnard model with a different genus Praeanthropus for afarensis there’s still a genus homo that had to have lived concurrently with the praenthropus. Oxnard is proposing a homo erectus-like ancestor in his article. Isn’t it strange that we have to wait millions of years before finding any of Adam’s children’s remains?

You started off by asserting that the modern day human, and the afarensis was in some way related to the modern human, there have even been reasearch, discoveries, and countless refutes to this theory, as isn't based on any scientific discoveries other than fabricated, imaginary claims, such as the skull fragment of the supposedly transitional ape-man that was found in the town ocre in spain, which evolutionists quickly assumed that is one of the greatest fossils contributing more truth to the thesis of evolution, but was later on revealed to be the skull fragment of 4 month old donkey, which put great shame to evolutionissts, and exposed them as liars.

"When French experts revealed the fact that "Orce Man" was most likely a skull fragment from a four-month-old donkey, embarrassed Spanish authorities sent out 500 letters cancelling invitations to the symposium."

But even looking aside other gaps to this afarensis-human relation theory such as, difference in the size of their brain, and the size of their skull, why the hair/fur of the modern human is significantly less than its "ancestor", and the ability to talk.
The evolution of the bipedalism has never happened in history, and why would it be logical to believe so?
Because since you hold on to the evolution of the bipedal stride to staunchly, it would've been self evident to believe that there would've been some middle ground between the quadrupedalism, and the bipedalism, should there have been any half-bipedal being to exist for the evolution of bipedlism to be tru in the first place? If so how could this transitional creature been able walk/move if its bipedal stride was changing, and more importantly how would've it been able survive?????????????????
And second of all in regards to the theory of the survival of the fittest, would it not have been a bigger advantage that the afarensis evolved from being a bipedal creature to a four legged creature, since we from common knowledge know that the modern day ape, moves faster, can climb in trees, physically much stronger, much more explosive in terms muscle fibres, im not following?? did the evolution of theory somehow move backwards, putting the whole thesis at risk.

 

[Subeer]

You are arguing that Australopithecus, the entire genus as a whole, resembles more modern chimpanzees than humans. The takeaway being that these fossils are nothing more than just an extinct variety of chimpanzees and irrelevant to human evolution. Your base assumption that there are similarities between chimpanzees and Australopithecus is perfectly fine. In fact, there are even a bunch of similarities between modern humans and modern chimpanzees. Australopithecus being different however in that it has a more recent common ancestor with the chimpanzees and the lineage they are derived from. The stronger similarity between Australopithecus and chimpanzees than from humans and chimpanzees is that humans have spent millions of years longer diverging away from the common ancestor with chimpanzees.

But it isn’t as your implying that there aren’t stark similarities between Australopithecus Afarensis and modern humans. Similarities shared with modern humans and not with other great apes. This also includes (counter to what you were describing), bipedalism.


Latimer B1, Ohman JC, Lovejoy CO. “Talocrural joint in African hominoids: implications for Australopithecus afarensis” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 74:155-175 (1987)

“Our review of the anatomical features of the hominoid talocrural joint demonstrates the changes that occurred in the adaptive transition to habitual bipedalism. We have further shown that these anatomical and functional adaptation had clearly taken place in the early hominid lineage by the appearance of the Pliocene hominid species. A. afarensis. Thus, despite the pongidlike appearance of some isolated traits, the total functional pattern of the proximal ankle joint in A. afarensis was fully adapted to a bipedalism equivalent to that of Homo sapiens.”

the sexual dimorphism of Australopithecus was more similar with humans than other great apes:

Philip L. Reno, Richard S. Meindl, Melanie A. McCollum, and C. Owen Lovejoy "Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of modern humans" NATL ACAD SCIENCES 100, 9404-9409

“Extensive simulations using modern humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas confirm that this technique is accurate and that skeletal size dimorphism in A. afarensis was most similar to that of contemporary Homo sapiens”

The bones used in this experiment were those from both male and female Australopithecus Afarensis, modern humans, gorillas and chimpanzees. Bones like the distal humerus, proximal radius/ulna, proximal femur, distal tibia/fibula and other bones found in both male and female A.Afarensis.

Similarities like the ribs, arm bones and spine of humans and afarensis:

Yohannes Haile-Selassie,b,c,1, Bruce M. Latimera,b,c, Mulugeta Alened , Alan L. Deinoe , Luis Giberte , Stephanie M. Melillof , Beverly Z. Saylorg , Gary R. Scotte , and C. Owen Lovejoy “An early Australopithecus afarensis postcranium from Woranso-Mille, Ethiopia” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jul 6;107(27):12121-6

“The “bar–glenoid” angle has been used to orient the glenoid plane in A.L. 288–1 (29), but the specimen’s small size may have had scaling effects (30, 31), an observation supported by the fact that its bar–glenoid angle can be matched exactly by comparably sized humans”

“The ulnar tuberosity is well preserved and is most similar to those of humans”

“Even lower limb length, as now evidenced by KSD-VP-1/1, no longer remains an argument against “human-like” bipedal kinematics in Au. afarensis (58), because the distribution of relative lower limb length/relative forelimb size appears to have overlapped substantially with that of Homo. Moreover, judged in this manner, relative hindlimb length is likely to have been even more Homo-like than exhibited in Fig. 5, because the modern human forelimb (and thereby forelimb joint size) has been reduced substantially since Au. afarensis (42)”

That last point is especially important as it was one of Oxnard’s original arguments.

Sarmiento EE. 1996. Quadrupedalism in the hominid lineage: 11 years after. Am J Phys Anthropol Suppl 22:208

“There is no real dispute that A. afarensis progressed bipedally when on the ground”

Your text from Oxnard is arguing that A. afarensis has a skull and teeth that are primitive as compared to both A. africanus and H. habilis, whereas its limb proportions are more human-like. This article is arguing that this species was a physical intermediary between chimpanzees and humans also sharing a common ancestor with both. He’s using a taxonomic model which recognizes Australopithecus as being from the genus Paranthropus. Even other proponents of that model suggest that a subsection of these Paranthropus gave rise to the genus homo. For example, Australopithecus garhi from Asfaw et. al (2004) "Australopithecus garhi: A New Species of Early Hominid from Ethiopia"

Also that book you gave by Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower was published in 1970. The first bones for Australopithecus afarensis was in 1974.


Looking more at your responses I’m noticing a pattern between your responses and the ones found on this website:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html

The same sources, pictures, and even writing style: “The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge” You seem to have added “idiotic” on your own though.


Also, how do you fit all of this in your time frame? Did Adam live among Australopithecus Afarensis? 3 million years ago? Even if we’re using the Oxnard model with a different genus Praeanthropus for afarensis there’s still a genus homo that had to have lived concurrently with the praenthropus. Oxnard is proposing a homo erectus-like ancestor in his article. Isn’t it strange that we have to wait millions of years before finding any of Adam’s children’s remains?

And wait for all for all of this to even happen, it should've been through mutation, and how did all of these mutation for all of those generation, millions of years, not create any damage to DNA in any way? Why are down syndrome, and cancer not evolutionary advantages??? since they formed through mutation, no mutation can put any living creature in advantage in any way, they would actually only be putting the living creatures survival chance at risk, as Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.
(B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988)

As the English paleoanthropologist robin crompton also proved that the bipedal stride in the first place could not undergo a change, that is was actually impossible for it be so, as he states that the living being can either move on four legs, or two.
(Ruth Henke, "Aufrecht aus den Baumen", Focus, Cilt 39, 1996, s. 178)

And since when did reading, understanding, formulating your own words through the understanding you've got, and using relevant quotes, scientific articles, books become copying and pasting?


​

 

[Kafir]

You started off by asserting that the modern day human, and the afarensis was in some way related to the modern human, there have even been reasearch, discoveries, and countless refutes to this theory, as isn't based on any scientific discoveries other than fabricated, imaginary claims, such as the skull fragment of the supposedly transitional ape-man that was found in the town ocre in spain, which evolutionists quickly assumed that is one of the greatest fossils contributing more truth to the thesis of evolution, but was later on revealed to be the skull fragment of 4 month old donkey, which put great shame to evolutionissts, and exposed them as liars.

"When French experts revealed the fact that "Orce Man" was most likely a skull fragment from a four-month-old donkey, embarrassed Spanish authorities sent out 500 letters cancelling invitations to the symposium."

But even looking aside other gaps to this afarensis-human relation theory such as, difference in the size of their brain, and the size of their skull, why the hair/fur of the modern human is significantly less than its "ancestor", and the ability to talk.
The evolution of the bipedalism has never happened in history, and why would it be logical to believe so?
Because since you hold on to the evolution of the bipedal stride to staunchly, it would've been self evident to believe that there would've been some middle ground between the quadrupedalism, and the bipedalism, should there have been any half-bipedal being to exist for the evolution of bipedlism to be tru in the first place? If so how could this transitional creature been able walk/move if its bipedal stride was changing, and more importantly how would've it been able survive?????????????????
And second of all in regards to the theory of the survival of the fittest, would it not have been a bigger advantage that the afarensis evolved from being a bipedal creature to a four legged creature, since we from common knowledge know that the modern day ape, moves faster, can climb in trees, physically much stronger, much more explosive in terms muscle fibres, im not following?? did the evolution of theory somehow move backwards, putting the whole thesis at risk.

I want to know what your timeline is. Did Adam live among Australopithecus Afarensis? 3 million years ago? If that’s the case and modern humans appeared 3 million years ago, why is it that no modern human remains exist from that long ago? Instead, looking at the fossil record from millions of years ago you find only these human-like creatures. Strangely enough when you look at more recent fossils from tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago you will find modern humans. And no more of these human-like creatures. Even the other humanoids from the more recent fossils are much more human-like than ape-like.

You describe the similarity between Australopithecus afarensis and chimpanzees. Similarities like body fur and smaller size of brain. This shouldn’t be unexpected, Australopithecus afarensis aren’t modern humans. They lived 3 million years ago. They are much closer to the common ancestor with chimpanzees and other great apes than modern humans are (Modern humans also trace their lineage back to a common ancestor with chimpanzees). Australopithecus have both traits you’ll find in chimpanzees and traits you’ll find in modern humans. Even the source you cited yourself the article by Oxnard is arguing for the same thing.

I didn’t use Ocre man in my responses. Looking through PubMed/Web of Science for any scholarly references to an ocre man showed no results. Looking through google, the only reference come from creationist blogs and think tanks claiming that’s what evolutionists are/were proposing.

The ability to talk developed later. Two changes were necessary prerequisites for modern human speech abilities: (1) modification of vocal tract morphology, and (2) development of vocal imitative ability. We can only be certain that it existed as late as Neanderthals.

Maricic et al. (2013) "A Recent Evolutionary Change Affects a Regulatory Element in the Human FOXP2 Gene" Molecular Biology and Evolution, 30(4) p.844-852

"The discovery of a well-preserved Neanderthal hyoid bone in Israel also raises the question of Neanderthal speech abilities, because its anatomy is fundamentally modern. Its discoverers claimed that the Neanderthal vocal tract was also modern, with a descended larynx" Gene sequencing of Neanderthals also shows this. Sequenced DNA from a 49 thousand year old Iberian neanderthal bone fragment showed that neanderthals from this time period also had some variants of the FOXP2 gene. Other modern non-human apes don't have this gene. It's argued that it's one of the major reasons they can't learn language in any true sense. The fox gene for language is the same as humans.

Natural selection depends on environment. You take as granted that moving on four feet is in all contexts better than only two. That survival is more assured from being on four feet. I could easily imagine that moving on four feet would make a creature able to move faster. However, there is a big advantage to being bipedal, it frees up your hands for usage. It allows for a better form of dexterity than the alternative. Also according to S. M. GatesyA. A. Biewener May 1991 "Bipedal locomotion: effects of speed, size and limb posture in birds and humans" Volume, 224(1), p.127-147

“A more upright posture increases the effective mechanical advantage of limb muscles by aligning the limb more closely with the ground reaction force vector, enabling larger mammals to maintain constant stress in their bones and muscles. Similar stresses are achieved, therefore, primarily by a reduction in the mass-specific force that limb muscles exert to support the animal while running”

Mutations happen haphazardly. A mutation in a gene sequence doesn't mean or imply that it is a positive mutation. In fact most mutations are either detrimental or inconsequential. Offspring born with detrimental gene mutations have natural selection working against them. They are unlikely compared to those without that mutation to grow and reproduce themselves. Meaning they are less likely to propagate that detrimental gene. Another random mutation at another time to another individual at that same gene sequence may recreate its appearance in a population. A mutation might by coincidence be a positive one. In these cases natural selection is working in their favour. Meaning they are more likely to produce offspring of their own and that mutated gene sequence increases in frequency in that population.

There's a mutation that resulted in an evolutionary advantage in populations today. This mutation was on chromosome 11. A mutation on a single nucleotide of a gene sequence that resulted in red blood cells of those who carried a copy of this gene to form in a sickle shape. Having some of their red blood cells shaped this way made it less likely for mosquitoes to be able to spread malaria to that person. In other words people with a copy of this gene were more resistant to malaria than those without it. Several variants of this sickle-causing gene exists. It came about from a single mutation. This resistance came about within a single generation.

I also like that you use cancer as an example about evolutionary advantages arising from mutation. I can argue to you that an advantage did arise, but not for the human. Not the eukaryote, but for the cell that became cancerous. It did get an evolutionary advantage. The cancerous mutations include dividing and proliferating much more extensively than all the other cells around it. All the cancerous mutations are all advantages for that cell and its lineage. Even within a cancerous growth you find multiple different cancer lineages competing against one another for resources, energy and proteins from the rest of your body. This is why cancer kills a person, when it spreads so significantly much of the resources from your blood is directed towards the cancer lineages. This also includes oxygen, the non-cancerous cells in your body can't compete and starve as a result. If there was no evolution, there would be no death from cancer.

Also what do you imagine when you think about an intermediary between full bipedalism from fully being on all-fours? Do you think it's either, or? You don't even need to go back into the fossil record to see something like this. Even other great apes like chimpanzees and bonobos switch between movement with two feet from all fours. Albeit the time spent moving on two feet isn't as long.

 

[Kafir]

And since when did reading, understanding, formulating your own words through the understanding you've got, and using relevant quotes, scientific articles, books become copying and pasting?​

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html :​

"The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:312"

Comewithrealness: "This whole assumption is quite idiotic and unscientific, and the claim is pretty much based on insufficient research and knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose functions had not yet been discovered. The best proof of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs."​

You're right my bad. You did use your own words. You added the word "idiotic" yourself. And changed "The" to "This"

 

[Elijah Muhammed]

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html :​

"The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:312"

Comewithrealness: "This whole assumption is quite idiotic and unscientific, and the claim is pretty much based on insufficient research and knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose functions had not yet been discovered. The best proof of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs."​

(You're right my bad. You did use your own words. You added the word "idiotic" yourself. And changed "The" to "This")

Lmao

Bruh

 

[3leven11]

Do you really think two of each species of animal can fit on a boat?

 

[Elijah Muhammed]

Do you really think two of each species of animal can fit on a boat?

The boat was huge so it could

 

[Somali Realist]

I think the most well known atheist on here is @Cognitivedissonance

 

[Kafir]

The boat was huge so it could

Just how big exactly was this boat? How could it possibly have held all the species that exist today? One family built this boat? How long did it take them?

And what were they feeding these animals on the boat? What were the wolves and bears eating?

 

[3leven11]

The boat was huge so it could

That boat would have to be big enough to hold more than double the amount of people on earth.

 

[Subeer]

@Kafir


So you’re actually claiming that being bipedal is actually a advantage becuase “ it frees up the hands”, well yea while that being true, it still doesn’t free the bipedal creature from moving slower, not being able to climb on trees, and also the hands from the four legged creature which according to you underwent a “evolution” still put the creature at risk in the environment, the creature couldn’t climb trees which was a big disadvantage back at that time, they couldn’t reach the fruits/food that were growing on the trees. Being bipedal as i said before slows the creature ability to move swiftly,and at great speed, which is also putting them at risk, making them vulnerable to attacks form much bigger animals. And not only that, did the bipedal man according to you “devolve” in terms of strength, as i said before again, the bipedal creatures strength decreased, again putting them at more risk, giving them another BIG disadvantage when confronted with bigger animals, or even animals that were the same size as them, but the differences in muscle efficenciy and strenght, made them vulnerable to death.

As Gary b. gills in 2007 in his article “Chimp power” states:


“Anecdotal and scientific evidence indicate that humans have inferior strength to chimps, and most would be hard-pressed to win a rope-tugging contest against a chimp half their size. Since chimps aren't overly endowed with muscle mass, Scholz and her colleagues wondered if there might be something special about the intrinsic properties of chimpanzee muscle that sets them apart from humans. To investigate, they compared squat jumping performance between bonobos (Pan paniscus), close relatives of the common chimpanzee, and humans."

During squat jumps, the amount of work generated by the limb muscles closely parallels the potential energy gain of the body. Since a body's potential energy gain is directly related to the height of a jump, estimates of muscle energy output can be made by keeping a close track of a body's vertical movement during a jump, without using any invasive procedures”

(http://jeb.biologists.org/content/210/3/iv.1)

So is being bipedal really advantage in regards to the environment that the creature lives in, is “freeing up your hands” really that much of advantage when you see all of the other clear cut disadvantages that being bidepal puts you in, is this the result of evolution? The thesis that claimed that all of creatures are evolving for better chances of survival through mutation, but ironically devolving in the same time? We might from now on call it the “devolution”. Why did our pound for pound strength decrease? Why did we lose the ability to climb? Why did we lose our “ancestors” speed? And the biggest question of them all, why did we survive, since our “ancestor” back then were relying on brute physical strength for survival. And not only that but there's is countless disadvantages being bipedal, not only the great survival risk it would put you in, but also in matters such as ageing, and other varieties of diseases, stated in the article “the problem of remaining upright” by Peter Kroker a consultant phsysician, and geriatrician states:

“The downside of an upright gait is the need for a highly developed apparatus for balance, with rapid integration of multiple sensory input from the eyes, inner ear, and internal position sensors, and accurate regulation of muscle tone and contraction.3 The unstable anatomy with its peculiar weight distribution makes relentless adjustments of joint position and muscle length necessary, and these corrections have to be integrated with spatial orientation to allow purposeful locomotion. The complexity of the process is only beginning to be understood. Unfortunately, a large number of physiological disturbances can impair postural control, ranging from disorders of electrolyte concentration (for example, after diarrhoea or diuretics) to changes of sensory perceptions (for example, disease of the eye or inner ear).4 Another major problem is the progressive decline of “balance reserve” with increasing age.5 In healthy elderly people measurements of horizontal body oscillations (“sway”) after a minor but sudden tilt of a floor platform show an increased amplitude and duration compared with young people. Minor environmental hazards, such as uneven kerbs or pavements, which are easily compensated for by young people often lead to falls in elderly people.6 Many different deficits have been identified as the underlying disorder in ageing, especially alterations in the peripheral and central nervous system and the “hardware” of locomotion such as joints and muscles. Elderly individuals show considerable variations in posture maintenance, and there is debate if these changes are due to disease or part of normal ageing”

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129077/)

Now is this what you claim that were putting our "ancestors" in advantage in regards to the envoirment, you claimed "natureal selection" as a cause of the bipedal change, but we know from charles Darwin himself that natural selection was the struggle for survival, and only the best traits were left off in the creature for the best chance of survival... but ironically the best traits were somehow dropped of, only adding more suspection the thesis of evolution.
But i ask again, why where they dropped off? Where they not the traits which in that time was best suitable for survival??????
Now It would be intellectually dishonesty to still be claiming that the advantages of being bipedal are greater than being quadrupedal, there isn't any sxb, other than “freeing up your hands” ,and all these dont even need scientific articles, but are matters that can be logically concluded by yourself.

 

[Elijah Muhammed]

Just how big exactly was this boat? How could it possibly have held all the species that exist today? One family built this boat? How long did it take them?

And what were they feeding these animals on the boat? What were the wolves and bears eating?

1. Only allah knows that
2. The boat was huge and big enough for the task
3.Only allah knows that
4. Allah supplied the animals with food

 

[tesfey67n]

@Kafir Darwin was entitled to much credit for the discovery of this principle in nature, alchemists have been in possession of this knowledge for ages. To me "Natural selection" is epigenesis. Darwin presented the material facts of evolution in such a way that they could be grasped and accepted in the materialistic age. And the real irony is, Darwin and all the other great scientists have been inspired by occultists.