Is Evolution Real? Please read MOD WARNING

You didn't look at the links I gave you. You didn't look at the pics of the skeletons from which they assembled "Lucy". I can tell from you replies.
Try reading this:
More recently, in 1979, the medical researcher Ludwik Fleck noted in his book "The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact" a very similar trend. He wrote:

"What we are faced with here is not so much simple passivity or mistrust of new ideas as an active approach which can be divided into several stages.

(1) A contradiction to the system appears unthinkable

(2) What does not fit into the system remains unseen;

(3) alternatively, if it is noticed, either it is kept secret, or

(4) laborious efforts are made to explain an exception in terms that do not contradict the system.

(5) Despite the legitimate claims of contradictory views, one only tends to see, describe, or even illustrate those circumstances which corroborate current views and thereby give them substance.

What does not fit the theory is thus excluded. The anomalous event is forced outside the official circle of consciousness into a kind of outlaw existence.
From:http://amasci.com/tesla/ballsci.html

And it goes further:
The doctor who first told physicians to wash their hands was scorned and harassed. The doctor who first found bacterial involvement in stomach ulcers was vilified until he was eventually exonerated and given prizes. Medical errors, taken as a whole, are today one of the largest single causes of death in the US. How can there be advances or improvements if critics, researchers, and innovators are all gagged?

 

For your further investigation This is a must read:
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=76
And the argument about "Lucy" is over.

Lucy Dethroned
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

" The March 29, 2000 San Diego Union Tribune reported:
A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of “Lucy,” the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee’s, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles (Fox, 2000)."
"Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, studied Lucy extensively, and summarized his efforts as follows.
When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes (as quoted in Leakey and Lewin, 1992, pp. 193-194)"
", in the March 1996 issue of National Geographic, Donald Johanson himself admitted: “Lucy has recently been dethroned” (189[3]:117, emp. added). His (and Lucy’s) “fifteen minutes of fame” are over. As Lee Berger declared: “One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree” (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Fascinating, how often the hominid family tree is pruned!"

 

None of your links indicated they had looked at anything besides pictures of the skeleton, which is a very unreliable method. Tell me, what color is the dress?

Here's something for you to read:
The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why The Incompetent Don’t Know They’re Incompetent

Did Dr's Thompson and Harrub study the actual fossils of Lucy, or did they rely on photographs like your other sources? What experience does either of them have in the field of paleontology? Did they submit their analysis and conclusions to other experts for review?

Of course Lucy has been dethroned because we have so much more that links Australopithecus afarensis to modern humans now than we did in 1974 when Lucy was discovered. Here's an interview with Dr. Johanson that is more recent and far more complete.

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1882969,00.html

 

He's still insisting that she's a hominid after other scientists are saying that she's a plain old monkey and may not be female either?
That certainly is an example of bias and denial too.

 

The last three are one species Homo Sapiens as in late modern man not three distinct species so the chart is fundamentally wrong, and I unlike you read the Bible literally if it said it created a man and then a woman it was not over a dozen but two and I assume its a modern man like us its based on. If its not literal then its faulty and you have no right calling on it as a source for morality or science. I don't buy the whole faith or believe in this god being but if I read holy book using it as the basis of the faith I have no right to interpret in things and make up things anymore than the faithful do

Why would taking the book literally be an issue for the faithful I never understood I seem to be more honest in this than some of the faithful like trying to ram in evolution of man into the Bible for clear individuals in the Bible, that's a huge stretch don't you think?

 

Sorry to step on your moment, but the most recent analysis of Australopithecus afarensis shows they're still human and that Lucy is still most likely female.

From Lucy to Kadanuumuu: balanced analyses of Australopithecus afarensis assemblages confirm only moderate skeletal dimorphism

 

OK.....I have decided to end this deabte once and for all.

EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES EVOLUTION IS A FALLACY PLEASE POST YOUR REAL NAME ADRESS AS WELL AS RELATIVES NAMES ON BOTH SIDES OF YOUR FAMILIES SUCH AS SISTERS, BROTHERS, UNCLES, AUNTS, CHILDREN......ETC.....you get the point.........and stand out by the curb of the street or if you live in the hills come down to your closest POST OFFICE......and wait for the GIANT TRUCK to pick you all up at exacty.......8 am...in whatever time zone you live in this MONDAY MORNING JUNE 22ND 2015.

These GIANT TRUCKS will be in your mind a MODERN NOAH'S ARK......because obviously all of us WICKED AND GODLESS BARBARIANS AND HEATHANS......will be swept away by the NOW COMING WORLD WIDE APOCALYPSE as we will either drown or burn or be crushed by BURNING METEORS FALLING FROM THE SKY!!

While the rest of you who don't believe in EVOLUTION who are picked up by these BIG TRUCKS.....will be allowed to enter the GIANT TRUCK in a most COMFORTABLE MANNER as at the back of each truck there is a place to lie down and when the man who hangs off the end of these HEAVENLY TRUCKS.....while they are driving......puts down a clean sheet for each one of you accepted into this HEAVENLY REWARD as you lie down the man will pull a level and your body will be wrapped up and protected in this SHROUD......and placed into the Truck with the others for your VOYAGE TO THE GREAT UNKNOWN!!!

AboveAlpha....p.s.....Secret Message to the rest of us who will be not getting into the TRUCKS.....don't put your regular trash out if it usually get's picked up Monday Morning because there won't be enough room hardly as it is that is if you would rather have your garbage picked up instead of getting these people OUT OF THE GENE POOL once and for all!! LOL!!!!

p.s......YES!! This is a JOKE!! So PLEASE no one get their panties in a BUNCH!!!

 

The article I read mentions the apparent size of the pelvic opening as the determination that "Lucy" was likely to have been male.
These so-called "scientists" are putting a lot of imagination into these scraps of bone and partial skeletons in their desperate effort to prove evolution. None of it is conclusive.
And even if "Lucy" was a hominid - so what? What exactly does that prove? "She" is NOT human or even near human. "She" is more closely related to the monkey than to humans. And 3 million years old at that. Where are the 1 million year old bones; the 500 thousand year old bones; the 100 thousand year old bones? Shouldn't there be more of them than the older ones?
Desperation strengthens their Faith doesn't it?

 

That's why scientists don't base their conclusions on "apparent size" and instead use "quantitative analyses" based on "multiple measurements".

That you would resort to scare quotes here tells me just how little you understand or appreciate real science.

If you had just bothered to consult Wikipedia, you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

 

I've seen the list at wiki. Like I said scraps of bone and monkey skulls...."big foot" and a few humans....
http://the-oh-zone.com/the_oh_zone_001.htm

 

So you think that paleontology in general is a poor field of science?

 

You realize that the same science that allows scientists to determine the sex of "Lucy" and figure out her species is the same science that identifies modern day corpses and convicts their killers, right? Unless of course you think that the court system just makes this stuff up to convict innocent people.

 

I dunno if it would be the same science considering scientists haven't found two sets of Lucy to make a proper comparison. Originally, Lucy being a female was just a guess.

 

In general, no. I think that they are so desperate to prove evolution that they see it everywhere. They find a scrap of bone and some artist draws a whole creature. Like the Pig's tooth they found somewhere in the US. Like the elephant's knee cap that one of these "scientists" thought was a part of a skull, and again some artist obliged with a drawing of a complete creature - pre-human of course.

 

It may be the same science, but not the same scientists.

 

You are wrong. A famous creationist (who has a Ph.D. in Geology, despite his creationists views) works for the oil and gas industry.

There is no reason to know about evolution to do biotechnology work. It's just biochemistry, and doesn't require the need to know about evolution. Yes, academically it would make no sense, but practically speaking it's irrelevant.

 

If you don't believe them, check out the data and their methods yourself, it is all available.

 

I don't know what oil company would hire a geologist who thinks it takes less than 6,000 years for oil to form.

 

I didn't say that I didn't believe them.

You do know don't you that these scientists were examining the Reconstructed skeleton. There is no way to know what the original looked like. That pelvic bone had been crushed (so says Johnston or whatever his name was) and then refused itself to the shape of an ordinary monkey pelvis (how does dead bone do that?) And so he "fixed" it! he admitted this. Fixed according to his desired outcome of course. This part is not brought to the attention of those who later examine it.
If you would look at the video I provided you would see that part about the pelvic bone.

 

And what about the rest of the field that isn't blighted by simple failings of a few scientists? I mean, it isn't like the other disciplines of science have not had to deal with either false discoveries, misattributions, or fraud. You're basically touting your opinion as correct simply because of some fallibility on the part of some men.

 

You're right - it runs across all fields. That's why we have to think for ourselves and not take these so-called experts at their word.

If it can be destroyed by Truth it should be.

 

And how exactly do you propose we "think for ourselves" when we don't have the specialistic training that these men and women have? Our only option is to trust in the peer review process to drive out errors.

 

I trust lots of experts to do things better than I do and know my medical doctors I tend to trust to advise me on my care so why not trust scientific experts on science?

 

This sweeping disregard for education and all science is probably one of the more serious risks America faces today.

It is why our schools are in trouble. It is a threat to our economic competitiveness. It is a risk to our health. The list goes on.

This topic puts other risks to shame as it attacks the very root of our ability to face those risks.

 

There is such a thing as taking information in for consideration without accepting it.