As in the days of Noah.....

[baydoll]

No, on both counts. Not if you're going to dismiss everything that I say out of hand. I don't usually continue debate with someone who is deliberately obtuse.

Do YOU think Lucy is the missing link then?

 

[Toxick]

Okay.....ever hear of the Anthropic Principle?

Yes.

Do YOU think Lucy is the missing link then?

Being that she is not missing, no.

I think she's simply another link in the chain.

 

[baydoll]

Originally Posted by baydoll
Again, the Cambrian explosion pretty much puts the lid on that 'logic'.

To you, perhaps. I still fail to see how the cambrian explosion scientifically disproves evolution. But then, I'm not a geneticist, biologist or geologist.

In the Cambrian explosion, all animal groups appear separately, fully formed and at the same time. Is that evidence of gradual evolution or instantaneous creation?

 

[baydoll]

Being that she is not missing, no.

I think she's simply another link in the chain.

The Cambrian explosion pretty much destroyed that 'chain' Toxic.

 

[tommyjones]

The Cambrian explosion pretty much destroyed that 'chain' Toxic.

just beacuse you hafd a rapid increase in the rate of evolution during that period does not negate that evolution happened.

The obvious reasons for the cambrian explosion are that O2 levels increased or some other environmental factor changed significantly. a change like that in any population could have an immediate effect, and the rate of change would eventually plattue.

where do you get the idea that all these species suddnely appeared fully formed? there is absolutly no evidence of that

 

[tommyjones]

The Cambrian explosion pretty much destroyed that 'chain' Toxic.

BTW, the cambrian explosion occured a long time before lucy would have emerged, so its existence wouldn't affect ANYTHING we know about her.

and care to show me all the chimpazees that walk upright?

 

[baydoll]

Originally Posted by baydoll
Okay.....ever hear of the Anthropic Principle?

Yes.

Amazing, is it not?

Too bad most scientists are not honest enough to admit that this incredibly and beautifully fine-tuned universe shows amazing design and complexity far beyond anything we could ever hope to imagine....and that this incredible Creation requires an AMAZING Creator. There is no plausible explanation for the Anthropic Principle other than a Cosmic Designer. And yet INCREDIBLY, most 'scientists' will go through extreme measures to explain it all away.

So do you STILL say that the Intelligent Design argument doesn't belong in a Science Class?

 

[Toxick]

In the Cambrian explosion, all animal groups appear separately, fully formed and at the same time. Is that evidence of gradual evolution or instantaneous creation?

It is evidence of an accelerated diversification. Perhaps the end of an ice age, or global warming period? Perhaps some threshhold of cellular complexity was finally passed which allowed for more genetic diversity to be expanded upon? (These are just a couple of theories off the top of my head BTW, I'm citing any of them as fact or gospel).

However, given that there are PRE-Cambrian fossils, I would submit to you that this cambrian explosion can not be cited as the "creation event". The only thing it is evidence of is acceleration of diversification. If you want to attribute that to God I won't disagree with you.


And I didn't really want to be drawn into a discussion about Creation vs. Evolution. As I said, I'm not a biologist, geologist or any *ologist, or even a hobbyist in any of these fields. I have a (better than average, IMO) layman's working knowledge, but no expertise where I can debate you on a fact by fact basis. Not to mention that I believe in Intelligent Design.... All I wanted to point out is that Science is not about faith and does not rely on faith the way you assert that it does.


That all these things are called "theories" and "hypothoses" and are treated as such proves my point. Not one element of today's science relies on any of the aforementioned theories (not even biology or applied genetics). And nothing about today's science books will be affected if any of these theories were debunked tomorrow. IOW: None of it is faith-based, and none of it is bad science.

This is point that you refuse to acknowledge.



It's your right to do so, but I'm certainly not inclined to rehash it again.

 

[Toxick]

Amazing, is it not?

It is.

So do you STILL say that the Intelligent Design argument doesn't belong in a Science Class?

Yes I do.

Given that there is no physical evidence of a Supreme Creator, then yes I do.


For the same reason that mathematical principals shouldn't be taught in a Spanish class, and Sex Education shouldn't be taught during History.

 

[baydoll]

BTW, the cambrian explosion occured a long time before lucy would have emerged, so its existence wouldn't affect ANYTHING we know about her.

So? What's that have to do with anything?

and care to show me all the chimpazees that walk upright?

DESCRIPTION:
Chimpanzee faces are pinkish to black, and the apes' bodies are covered with long black hair. Chimps lack a tail. Their opposable thumbs and toes help them grasp objects easily. Chimpanzees are quadrupedal, which means that they walk on all four limbs, although they can also walk upright (bipedal) for short distances.

 

[tommyjones]

So? What's that have to do with anything?

you do notice that your source indicates that chimpazees are quadrapedal, and can only walk upright for short distances. that is a far cry from what scientists believe lucy did.

So? What's that have to do with anything?

it just shows that you dont understand the concept of time. millions of years separated these events. how would a cambrian explosion have meaning in the validity of the lucy fossils?

 

[baydoll]

you do notice that your source indicates that chimpazees are quadrapedal, and can only walk upright for short distances. that is a far cry from what scientists believe lucy did.

That she was more than likely a knuckle walker?

Lucy In The Sky
Case For The Tree-Dweller
By Jordan P. Niednagel
©TrueAuthority.com - 12/03

She is an espoused ancestral link to humans, but recent headlines are shedding light on the controversial lady we've all come to know as Lucy. One reads, "Early Man Walked On All Fours," while another says, "Did Lucy Walk On Her Knuckles?" So, we ask ourselves, what's the huff and puff all about? Simply put, it all has to do with scientific discoveries, discoveries revealing that the fossil ‘Lucy’ (Australopithecus afarensis) has the same wrist anatomy as knuckle-walking chimpanzees and gorillas. For the layman reader, you may be asking yourself what the significance is. Lucy, you see, has been pushed by mainstream science as an upright, human-like animal, with feet and hands also like that of a human. Don't believe it? Let's take a little trip to St. Louis Zoo in Missouri, USA.

It's a $17.9 million exhibit featuring evolution, and within the attraction stands an impressive statue of a purported reconstruction of the subject of this article . . . Lucy. She's upright, shows an intelligent expression on her face, and, without having to look closely, has feet and hands near identical to that of a human (though a bit harrier). One, of course, would assume that the reconstruction is based on fossil evidence. This, however, is not the case. Rather, the statue's feet and hands are plain wrong and misleading to the public. Associate professor of anatomy and neurobiology at the nearby Washington University, Dr. David Menton (interviewed in Creation magazine, Vol.16 No.4, pp. 16-19) confirms that they're not based on the fossil facts, as do others.

But why? Why display with vivid detail features of an animal that aren't accurate? Bruce Carr, the zoo's director of education, shares the answer.

"We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think that the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct."

Very interesting.

Dr. Menton also says that if Lucy's feet were shown accurately, they clearly could never fit into the well-known Laetoli fossil footprints. These are 'exhibit A' for evolutionary belief in upright walking by Lucy's kind, whereas in truth they are identical to bare-foot humans. In any case, Menton did, at least, state back in 1989 that "I think the zoo owes it to all the people who helped pay for that exhibit to give (Lucy) an honest presentation."

Let us return, now, to the initial subject of this article.

Lucy, it's been confirmed, has the same wrist anatomy as chimpanzees and gorillas. Furthermore, using multivariate analysis, the anatomist Dr. Charles Oxnard has shown that Lucy's big toe actually sticks out as in chimpanzees. This, it must be noted, is a very important point, because evolutionists point to the famous fossil footprints at Laetoli (which look just like human footprints but are claimed to pre-date humans) as concrete evidence that Lucy walked upright. When correctly reconstructed, however, australopithecine fossil foot bones show that Lucy could not possibly have made those footprints. Rather, they are just like those of children who habitually walk barefoot, as Dr. Russell Tuttle’s of the University of Chicago believes.

Still, many evolutionists refuse to concede anything other than upright walking for Lucy. According to them, her knuckle-walking wrist joints are a leftover (or vestige) from an early ancestor who came down from the trees and walked on her knuckles, just like chimpanzees and gorillas.

Everyone, of course, is entitled to their beliefs, but once belief supercedes evidence, a dangerous ground is encroached.

Fortunately, there is more evidence other than the wrists and feet of Lucy to build a case that she was, in essence, "chimp-like." Anatomist Dr. Fred Spoor and his colleagues at University College, London, performed CAT scans on australopithecine inner ear canals (reflecting posture and balance) and came to the conclusion that they did not walk habitually upright.


Conclusion

So, in the final analysis, what was Lucy? Dr. Charles Oxnard, after conducting his multivariate analysis, stated that the australopithecine fossils "clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique." Whether or not he's right, one thing is certain: Lucy was in all likelihood a knuckle-crawling tree-dweller . . . yes, not an upright walker on the ground, but instead a stooped branch-swinger in the sky.

 

[tommyjones]

That she was more than likely a knuckle walker?

they looked at leg bones and such to determine if these hominoids walked upright.

where is the discussion of the fossil evidence? the article you quoted only says that some guy says the zoo's representation isn't correct. he doesn't ever say he actually studied the fossils or even replicas of the fossils.

 

[Xaquin44]

they looked at leg bones and such to determine if these hominoids walked upright.

DUH tommy

we don't even have leg bones

we can't see them lolz

 

[tommyjones]

DUH tommy

we don't even have leg bones

we can't see them lolz

how can we have leg bones? we dont even have bones......

 

[baydoll]

it just shows that you dont understand the concept of time. millions of years separated these events. how would a cambrian explosion have meaning in the validity of the lucy fossils?

So what does time have to do with validity of lucy's fossils? It still shows lucy to be a chimpanzee whether she was around during the Cambrian period or many years after.

 

[foodcritic]

how can we have leg bones? we dont even have bones......

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

I thought all scientists agreed on everything.....after all it's science!!!!

 

[tommyjones]

So what does time have to do with validity of lucy's fossils? It still shows lucy to be a chimpanzee whether she was around during the Cambrian period or many years after.

the time issue.

cambrian explosion many millions of years before lucy. you said it refuted the legitimacy of the fossils. I say how?

you see, if the two happened millions of years apart, other than one possibly being a precurser to the other, they have no connection.

you have yet to show that lucy is the skeleton of a chimpanzee. you only have quote someone who HAS NOT STUDIED THE FOSSILS.


find something from a scientist who has actually studied the LUCY fossils.

 

[tommyjones]

I thought all scientists agreed on everything.....after all it's science!!!!

you obviously dont understand science

ever hear of a little thing called global warming?

 

[baydoll]

they looked at leg bones and such to determine if these hominoids walked upright.

Actually that's a lot better than what your scientists have been known to do. Ever heard of Java Man?

where is the discussion of the fossil evidence? the article you quoted only says that some guy says the zoo's representation isn't correct. he doesn't ever say he actually studied the fossils or even replicas of the fossils

That 'some guy' is actually Dr. David Menton, an Associate Professor of anatomy and neurobiology at Washington University.