Re: Tweedy's Turkana Boy

Ray Martinez wrote:
Richard Clayton wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
Richard:

I do not know anything about your retroviral insertions.

Really? That's odd, because it was one of the points I raised in the
very first post of our debate. If you couldn't be bothered to even read
up on what endogenous retroviral insertions are, then I'm not surprised
you dodged the issue and then eventually fled the debate altogether.

No response?

I have asked
Dana to post an argument about his boy but it has never materialized.

Another lie. Dana has repeatedly pointed to "Turkana Boy" as an
excellent example of a transitional fossil between humans and non-human
apes.

No response here either?

Here is the Creationist position about Turkana Boy:

It does not actually prove anything UNLESS two earth shattering
assumptions are made.

1. Assume special creation is false.

2. Assume design seen in nature does not indicate work of invisible
Designer.

Neither of those assumptions are required to see that many fossils
(including Turkana Boy) show a striking intermediacy between humans and
other apes.

And none here?

What kind of persons would make such assumptions (atheists) ?
Regardless though, assumptions are not evidence.

Another lie. Many biologists, paleontologists, and other scientists are
strongly religious, ranging from Christians to Hindus to Unitarians. So
once again you're back to claiming that everybody who disagrees with
you is an atheist with a secret agenda.

Your silence is deafening, Ray. So I'll just skip down to the part you
actually DID answer.

A skeleton, does not, in itself, prove that apes are in the human
lineage because apes bones and anatomy are very similar from the
get-go. If a person rejects special creation and design then you have
no other alternative and the view loses all objectivity, much like a
third world country going to the polls with only one person on the
ballot.

So what's YOUR scientific explanation? Oh, wait, I asked you THAT in
our debate too-- and you fled.

The next reason: extreme credulity.

The next reason: Dr. Scott: "Only morons would even consider such
obvious nonsense."

Quotes are not evidence-- particularly not quotes from a flake like
Doctor Scott. Have you ever considered citing primary sources instead?

All of the above is physically supported by the amount of CLAIMED
fossil evidence, which we know is so scarce that it is held in bank
vaullts. If human evolution was true, then there would be a
commensurate amount of evidence for this extraordinary claim.

Another lie. You can walk into any major museum and take a look at the
fossils. I've been to LA, and it has some great museums-- you're
cheating yourself if you don't check them out.

I've been to them more times than I can remember. What I actually saw
were fake plaster casts and reproductions.

Why ?

Because the total amount of genuine hominid fossils that Darwinists
claim to actually support human evolution is very low in volume and
numbers.

Why the paucity ?

Because the claim is not true ?

Ahh, so you're back to the "obscure scraps" and "all human fossil
remains can fit in a small box" claims? Perhaps you've forgotten that
you were soundly spanked on that one, as well.

The number of fossils found is not as large as paleologists and
anthropologists would like, but certainly enough to demonstrate the
evolution of species beyond a reasonable doubt. (I'd remind you of the
cetacean fossil lineage, but your strange amnesia regarding past
threads has probably swallowed that as well.) Given this ample
demonstration of macroevolution, is there any scientific reason to
doubt that Homo erectus and other hominds are exactly what they seem to
be-- a link between humans and other apes?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Read about evolution fraud....
    ... >> without any sort of fossil proof of their theories. ... >> prove that men came from apes or monkeys or subsequently both. ... apes congeneric with humans. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Wherein Ray Martinez explains why KNM WT 15000 ("Turkana Boy")
    ... isn't a transitional fossil SNIP... ... are you going to explain WHY Turkana ... humans and other apes? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: paleontology
    ... Humans are fallible, and we don't have all the answers. ... nature of reality drift further and further from the known evidence. ... fossil data that he's showing, I just don't know where to look to get it ... Evolution Oops! ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: paleontology
    ... Humans are fallible, and we don't have all the answers. ... nature of reality drift further and further from the known evidence. ... fossil data that he's showing, I just don't know where to look to get it ... Evolution Oops! ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: paleontology
    ... Humans are fallible, and we don't have all the answers. ... nature of reality drift further and further from the known evidence. ... fossil data that he's showing, I just don't know where to look to get it ... Evolution Oops! ...
    (talk.origins)