Jump to content


Photo

Has Anyone Come Across This...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
18 replies to this topic

#1 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 January 2012 - 10:50 AM

Posted Image

If I can find out the bio background of each of these skulls then it shouldn't be too hard to determine which are
apes and which are humans.

Any help I can get here would be most appreciated.

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 07 January 2012 - 12:29 PM

Seems like a run-of-the-mill lazy evolutionist tactic. Throw a picture at them, ask them "which ones are apes" and let them hang themselves. Ask the evolutionist for DNA samples on each skull, it would be silly to try and guess visually. Even a trained antrhopologist would need to posess each one, take measurements, etc. Ask geode, he is well versed in geology, yet he refuses to speculate on causes of geologic formations based on pictures online. There is also no telling if the photos are legitimate or have been doctored by evolutionists.

If they are trying to say that because they visually are similar, that this is proof of evolution, then they are lying. Ultimately, apes are genetically similar, so we share some traits with them, but there is a large percentage of dissimilarity in the genomes which separates us from them. Genes determine if they had hair all over their body, lengthened airway to allow language, biped vs quadruped, and more, none of these can be determined by looking at dirty, well worn skulls. Details matter in science.

If they are unwilling to admit that they provided insufficient data to determine which skull is human vs ape and are telling you that details don't matter, then they have no business discussing science.

#3 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 January 2012 - 12:32 PM

(A-F) are Australopithecines. (D-F) are classified as Habilines, but the taxonomic classification is tentative.Faulty and biased reconstructions gave them a more human like flat face, which also places them in the genus Australopiticus http://www.trueorigin.org/skull1470.asp (G) is H. georgicus. It has no characteristics that can place it in the genus Homo, although paleoanthroplogists are cherry picking features to try and place it as intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. (H-N) are conclusively in the genus Homo and included Homo sapiens neaderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Cro-Magnon, and Homo sapiens sapiens, all of which are variations within our own species.


Enjoy.

#4 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 07 January 2012 - 12:51 PM

(A-F) are Australopithecines. (D-F) are classified as Habilines, but the taxonomic classification is tentative.Faulty and biased reconstructions gave them a more human like flat face, which also places the them in the genus Australopiticus http://www.trueorigin.org/skull1470.asp (G) is H. georgicus. It has no characteristics that can place it in the genus Homo, although paleoanthroplogists are cherry picking features to try and place it as intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. (H-N) are conclusively in the genus Homo and included Homo sapiens neaderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Cro-Magnon, and Homo sapiens sapiens, all of which are variations within our own species.


Enjoy.


or you can ask jason777. haha as he has stated, they HAVE been doctored. Not the picture but the reconstruction process. I knew they would work their bias in there somewhere.

#5 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 January 2012 - 01:48 PM

Seems like a run-of-the-mill lazy evolutionist tactic. Throw a picture at them, ask them "which ones are apes" and let them hang themselves. Ask the evolutionist for DNA samples on each skull, it would be silly to try and guess visually. Even a trained antrhopologist would need to posess each one, take measurements, etc. Ask geode, he is well versed in geology, yet he refuses to speculate on causes of geologic formations based on pictures online. There is also no telling if the photos are legitimate or have been doctored by evolutionists.

If they are trying to say that because they visually are similar, that this is proof of evolution, then they are lying. Ultimately, apes are genetically similar, so we share some traits with them, but there is a large percentage of dissimilarity in the genomes which separates us from them. Genes determine if they had hair all over their body, lengthened airway to allow language, biped vs quadruped, and more, none of these can be determined by looking at dirty, well worn skulls. Details matter in science.

If they are unwilling to admit that they provided insufficient data to determine which skull is human vs ape and are telling you that details don't matter, then they have no business discussing science.


Thanks. I caught the person who posted this in dead silence. He isn't saying anything. But i required of him the necessary background, classification, & other bio information that I could make an accurate determination. But so far, I am still waiting.

#6 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 January 2012 - 01:49 PM

(A-F) are Australopithecines. (D-F) are classified as Habilines, but the taxonomic classification is tentative.Faulty and biased reconstructions gave them a more human like flat face, which also places the them in the genus Australopiticus http://www.trueorigin.org/skull1470.asp (G) is H. georgicus. It has no characteristics that can place it in the genus Homo, although paleoanthroplogists are cherry picking features to try and place it as intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. (H-N) are conclusively in the genus Homo and included Homo sapiens neaderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Cro-Magnon, and Homo sapiens sapiens, all of which are variations within our own species.


Enjoy.


Thanks, Jason. I thought so.

God bless you, friend.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 January 2012 - 06:20 PM

or you can ask jason777. haha as he has stated, they HAVE been doctored. Not the picture but the reconstruction process. I knew they would work their bias in there somewhere.


They also use the size illusion. Here is KNM-ER-1813 (D) in the palm of someones hand; It's the size of a small monkey.

Posted Image

Here it is next to KNM-ER-1470 (F).

Posted Image

It would appear that we have a juvenile and adult specimen of the same species or S@xual dimorphism. But, add mythical amounts of time between them and you have evolution. LOL

You should also note that the context that their claiming is that chimps share an ancestor with humans and this line up is evidence of it. But, no Australopithicus or Habilis fossil is aligned with chimps; They are closer to orangutans and gorillas. And we share more physical characteristics with orangutans than we do with chimps.

http://www.scienceda...90618084304.htm


http://www.pnas.org/...04/16/6568.full



Enjoy.

#8 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 07 January 2012 - 07:45 PM

None of them are missing links unfortunately.

#9 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 07 January 2012 - 08:02 PM

for the evos.

#10 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 January 2012 - 10:04 PM

Right gang.

Jason, I intend to also use this information you provided elsewhere. It's good stuff. Thanks again.

#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 January 2012 - 01:52 PM

You also need to pay close attention to the evos timeline. There are many human fossils and artifacts that pre date the age of their mythical ancestors. KP-271 is a prime example.

Early Man Fossils: KP 271

KP 271 (Elbow of a Homo sapien)
In 1965 Bryan Patterson of Harvard University found the lower end of a left upper arm bone in Kanapoi, southwest of Lake Rudolf in northern Kenya, Africa. It was well preserved and was dated at 4.5 million years.
Patterson and Howells compared the bone to modern humans, chimpanzees and Australopithecines. Their analysis revealed that it was "strikingly close" to modern humans but their conclusion was that is was an Australopithecine. Later, others such as Henry Mc Henry (University of California, Davis) stated "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens ...". (Science 190 (31 October 1975):428)(Lubenow 1992, 53)
As it turns out, for this type of fossil it is relatively easy to discriminate between humans and other primates. It tests out to be human but is classified as an Australopithecine. Howells in 1981 gave the reason "We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element"


In the 10-year controversy over the dating of one of the most important human fossils ever discovered, the pigs won. The pigs won over the elephants. The pigs won over potassium-argon dating. The pigs won over argon40/argon39 dating. The pigs won over fission-track dating. They won over palaeomagnetism. The pigs took it all. But in reality, it wasn't the pigs that won. It was evolution that won. In the dating game, evolution always wins.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n3/pigs



#12 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 January 2012 - 02:51 AM

You also need to pay close attention to the evos timeline. There are many human fossils and artifacts that pre date the age of their mythical ancestors. KP-271 is a prime example.

Early Man Fossils: KP 271

KP 271 (Elbow of a Homo sapien)
In 1965 Bryan Patterson of Harvard University found the lower end of a left upper arm bone in Kanapoi, southwest of Lake Rudolf in northern Kenya, Africa. It was well preserved and was dated at 4.5 million years.
Patterson and Howells compared the bone to modern humans, chimpanzees and Australopithecines. Their analysis revealed that it was "strikingly close" to modern humans but their conclusion was that is was an Australopithecine. Later, others such as Henry Mc Henry (University of California, Davis) stated "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens ...". (Science 190 (31 October 1975):428)(Lubenow 1992, 53)
As it turns out, for this type of fossil it is relatively easy to discriminate between humans and other primates. It tests out to be human but is classified as an Australopithecine. Howells in 1981 gave the reason "We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element"

[/size][/font]



http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n3/pigs


Jason,

That last link is an excellent article. It exposes how index fossils date even over radiometric dating. Really I don't know how these people carry on their "science." They throw out anything that doesn't confirm their theory. Well, follow the money! :farmer:

#13 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 22 January 2012 - 05:58 AM

Seems like a run-of-the-mill lazy evolutionist tactic. Throw a picture at them, ask them "which ones are apes" and let them hang themselves. Ask the evolutionist for DNA samples on each skull, it would be silly to try and guess visually. Even a trained antrhopologist would need to posess each one, take measurements, etc. Ask geode, he is well versed in geology, yet he refuses to speculate on causes of geologic formations based on pictures online. There is also no telling if the photos are legitimate or have been doctored by evolutionists.


I am not aware that I have ever refused to speculate on the causes of geologic formations based upon pictures found online, and have offered my opinion on several in various threads.

I have posted that it can be very difficult to make valid structural interpretations (as have been offered from by some in the forum) as it is hard to see rock orientations in a 2D photo.

I will not comment on these skulls as their study is not geology but that of physical anthropology.

#14 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 22 January 2012 - 09:22 AM

I am not aware that I have ever refused to speculate on the causes of geologic formations based upon pictures found online, and have offered my opinion on several in various threads.

I have posted that it can be very difficult to make valid structural interpretations (as have been offered from by some in the forum) as it is hard to see rock orientations in a 2D photo.


Oh ok, my fault. Sometimes photos don't provide enough detail, is what I meant. Sorry if I misrepresented your position.

#15 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 January 2012 - 01:42 PM

Jason,

That last link is an excellent article. It exposes how index fossils date even over radiometric dating. Really I don't know how these people carry on their "science." They throw out anything that doesn't confirm their theory. Well, follow the money! :farmer:


That's because they have turned evolution theory into a fistful of rubber bands that they can stretch any way they feel is necessary depending on the subject matter. No matter how one exposes it for it's errors they stretch things any way they think they can get away with.

#16 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 22 January 2012 - 02:10 PM

Jason,

That last link is an excellent article. It exposes how index fossils date even over radiometric dating. Really I don't know how these people carry on their "science." They throw out anything that doesn't confirm their theory. Well, follow the money! :farmer:


Yes. The original fossils are locked away in a tornado proof vault that is virtually indestructable. An ape fossil might bring some money on the market, but attatch the term "Human ancestor" to it, and you now have a fortune worth any collection of jewels on the planet.



Enjoy.

#17 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 22 January 2012 - 02:17 PM

That's because they have turned evolution theory into a fistful of rubber bands that they can stretch any way they feel is necessary depending on the subject matter. No matter how one exposes it for it's errors they stretch things any way they think they can get away with.


The problem is not that they believe in evolution as a theory, it is that they are dishonest about where science ends and faith begins. At least be honest. If you claim that creationism should not be taught in schools then neither should evolution, and if you think evolution should be taught, then teach creationsim too. Both are mixtures of faith and science. What irritates me is that it takes more faith to believe in evolution as an explanation of origins, than it does Creationism, yet faith is the main reason they try to push Creationism out of schools.

#18 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 26 February 2012 - 05:39 PM

Concerning D2700, at first glance, it seems like an ape. I don't see a prominent nasal ridge, the face looks very angled, and the canines looks very large and sharp.
Posted Image

Also, does anyone know if the mandibular ramus in the picture in the top right corner is intact or broken? If it's intact, it doesn't look like it's from a human or even a creature that should be leading up to a human.

Posted Image
D2700 seems to have a gorilla-like mandibular ramus. Above, you can see that Australopithecines and Gorillas have the morphology of their mandibular ramus set up differently than in humans, chimps, and orangutans.

This would be "unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology."(1)

The Australopithecines are being referenced in the above quote, but it seems like the statement could be applied to D2700 (if its mandibular ramus in that picture is intact).

The problem I have with it being an ape is that it is described as having a human skeleton, being able to walk or run like a human, and tools were found nearby, so maybe it is a human, but it doesn't look like one at first glance. Does anyone have more information on this skull?

(1) Yoel Rak, Avishag Ginzburg, and Eli Geffen, "Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis madibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths," PNAS 104:6568-6572, (2007); http://www.pnas.org/...6/6568.full.pdf

#19 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:16 PM

Also, does anyone know if the mandibular ramus in the picture in the top right corner is intact or broken? If it's intact, it doesn't look like it's from a human or even a creature that should be leading up to a human.

D2700 seems to have a gorilla-like mandibular ramus. Above, you can see that Australopithecines and Gorillas have the morphology of their mandibular ramus set up differently than in humans, chimps, and orangutans.

This would be "unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology."(1)

The Australopithecines are being referenced in the above quote, but it seems like the statement could be applied to D2700 (if its mandibular ramus in that picture is intact).

The problem I have with it being an ape is that it is described as having a human skeleton, being able to walk or run like a human, and tools were found nearby, so maybe it is a human, but it doesn't look like one at first glance. Does anyone have more information on this skull?

(1) Yoel Rak, Avishag Ginzburg, and Eli Geffen, "Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis madibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths," PNAS 104:6568-6572, (2007); http://www.pnas.org/...6/6568.full.pdf


Sorry for double posting. I just wanted to point out that I was wrong about the mandible.

"The condyles are missing from the mandible."
- Vekua, A. et al., "A new skull of early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia," Science 297:86, (2002); http://www.mendeley....manisi-georgia/#




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users