logicboy:


This is the second time you have ignored the journal i put forward. Please kindly reread the post or GTFO because there would not be a 3rd time

Pls see above dumbo.

logicboy:


Fail again..... the link has a part on human transitional fossils

"The hominid Australopithecus afarensis represents an evolutionary transition between modern bipedal humans and their quadrupedal ape ancestors"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Were you too lazy to scroll down?

You mean "Lucy"?

davidylan:

You mean "Lucy"?

You want to make the creationist claim that the australopithecus afarensis is a fake?

Let me spare you;

logicboy:
I remain a humble servant of reason and logic and I shall defend their honour

your reasoning and logic is needed here>> https://www.nairaland.com/922372/faith-reason-skeptics-reasoning-leads

davidylan:

Did you read the abstract you posted right there?
First of all - AR has a 2012 impact factor of 1.93 (on this basis i really shld ignore the paper but then let me humor you since i'm sure you have zero idea what impact factor means in terms of scientific reach)
Secondly, read the last two lines of the abstract - the use of the words "may" renders its conclusions really poor.
Lastly, is it your opinion that Australopithecus is a transitional fossil? Are you aware that Lucy is the symbol for the australopithecine fossils and has since been debunked as a fraud?

lol you want to claim that the Australopithecus is a hoax? Many creationist have tried to promote this lie. Lucy is not a hoax, there are many human fossils, of course there would be creationist trolls who would plant fakes for money or to spoil evolution. However, lucy is just one fossil in the australopithecus afarensis. Lucy is not a hoax, it is a real fossil.

Read more on another australopithecus fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selam_(Australopithecus)

You are loking more foolish as you're trying to discredit real fossils.


The impact factor is not useful here. It does not make the findings in the journal fake. Your use of impact factor is another strawman.


Responses

-Because "the impact factor is not always a reliable instrument" in November 2007 the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) issued an official statement recommending "that journal impact factors are used only - and cautiously - for measuring and comparing the influence of entire journals, but not for the assessment of single papers, and certainly not for the assessment of researchers or research programmes".[4]

-In July 2008, the International Council for Science (ICSU) Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the conduct of Science (CFRS) issued a "Statement on publication practices and indices and the role of peer review in research assessment", suggesting many possible solutions, e.g. considering a limit number of publications per year to be taken into consideration for each scientist, or even penalising scientists for an excessive number of publications per year.(e.g. more than 20). [26]

-In February 2010, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Foundation for Science) published new guidelines to evaluate only articles and no bibliometric information on candidates to be evaluated in all decisions concerning "...performance-based funding allocations, postdoctoral qualifications, appointments, or reviewing funding proposals, [where] increasing importance has been given to numerical indicators such as the h-index and the impact factor".[27] This decision follows similar ones of the National Science Foundation (US) or the Research Assessment Exercise (UK).[citation needed]

3 strawmen that you have tried to play on me so far;

1) Fish fossils

2) Lucy is a hoax

3)Impact factor.

Anyone can see that your a deceitful creationist.

Intelligent design has failed you and you're trying to debunk the well grounded evoultion theory

logicboy:

You're an embarrassment. Are you a crab? Put plenty crabs in a bucket and as soon one tries to get out another pulls him down.

Why are you talking nonsense? You have given Davidylan another strawman to use. As you can see, he has started to lump us together and say that atheists are confused. You are confused and your buddy Daviddylan is a strawman troll

Logicboy iy seems you ,misunderstood me. I meant that micro evolution and macroevolution are the same as one leads into the other by definition. Little drops of water (micro) over time filling a cup of water (macro.) Creationnists assume that macro means the changes all happened at once and should be noticeable but, if filling a glass of water drop by drop do you notice the gradual increase at first. Pardon all typos please, I am using my mobile.

ea7: Logicboy iy seems you ,misunderstood me. I meant that micro evolution and macroevolution are the same as one leads into the other by definition. Little drops of water (micro) over time filling a cup of water (macro.) Creationnists assume that macro means the changes all happened at once and should be noticeable but, if filling a glass of water drop by drop do you notice the gradual increase at first. Pardon all typos please, I am using my mobile.

mkmyers45:

Evolution according to Geological time maps take a lot of time hence the changes are hardly noted...Do you know that the continents are drifting apart at 2cm a year? Thats another geological time process that takes a lot of time.....

what you guys finding excuse to run from answering the question on why we can't see evolution happening forget is this:

the time required as a factor for evolution to have taken place has already elapsed.that is why today you say humans evolved.so that time has already gone away.the evolutionary process already started and have taken place.therefore if it has happened,we should still be seeing it happening today.time is not an excuse because the time needed had passed long ago.

LagosShia:



what you guys finding excuse to run from answering the question on why we can't see evolution happening forget is this:

the time required as a factor for evolution to have taken place has already elapsed.that is why today you say humans evolved.so that time has already gone away.the evolutionary process already started and have taken place.therefore if it has happened,we should still be seeing it happening today.time is not an excuse because the time needed had passed long ago.

WTF are you talking about? We still observe evolution happening. Did you ignore all my posts on this thread?

logicboy: 3 strawmen that you have tried to play on me so far;

1) Fish fossils

2) Lucy is a hoax

3)Impact factor.

Anyone can see that your a deceitful creationist.

Intelligent design has failed you and you're trying to debunk the well grounded evoultion theory

Guess the fish with legs?

OLAADEGBU:
Guess the fish with legs?

What is with you and your childish pictures

logicboy: 3 strawmen that you have tried to play on me so far;

1) Fish fossils

2) Lucy is a hoax

3)Impact factor.

Anyone can see that your a deceitful creationist.

Intelligent design has failed you and you're trying to debunk the well grounded evoultion theory

Lucy is a hoax. Click on the suggested link and see how you have been lied to.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

OLAADEGBU:
Lucy is a hoax. Click on the suggested link and see how you have been lied to.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Lied to? Lucy is not a hoax, it is one of the australopithecus fossils. Even if it were, there are other australopithecus fossils eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selam_(Australopithecus)

I said that lucy was a strawman to my argument because, I never mentioned lucy and it doesnt disprove all the real fossils i mentioned

Logicboy,
quick question. Do you conceed that despite the fact its the 'closest' explanation science has, there are some real issues with the theory of evolution? I think that may be all that David is saying.

As a side point, there should probably be clear definition of what a 'creationist' is, because not all christians believe alike in the very basic interpretation of Genesis. I for one do not subscribe to the view of a 6000yr old earth, that's obviously not correct. Cheers.

The Big Lie.

"Missing Link" Still Missing

Did dinos soar? Imaginations certainly took flight over Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis, a birdlike fossil with a meat-eater's tail that was spirited out of northeastern China, 'discovered' at a Tuscon, Arizona, gem and mineral show last year, and displayed at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C. Some 110,000 visitors saw the exhibit, which closed January 17; millions more read about the find in November's National Geographic. Now, paleontologists are eating crow. Instead of 'a true missing link' connecting dinosaurs to birds, the specimen appears to be a composite, its unusual appendage likely tacked on by a Chinese farmer, not evolution.

"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first 'missing link' to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England's Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man's ape-like ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax." -- U.S. News & World Report, February 14, 2000.

"Darwin admitted that millions of 'missing links,' transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated." Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God

"The gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict." -- David Berlinsky

"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." -- Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977

"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing." -- G.K. Chesterton.

JeSoul: Logicboy,
quick question. Do you conceed that despite the fact its the 'closest' explanation science has, there are some real issues with the theory of evolution? I think that may be all that David is saying.

As a side point, there should probably be clear definition of what a 'creationist' is, because not all christians believe alike in the very basic interpretation of Genesis. I for one do not subscribe to the view of a 6000yr old earth, that's obviously not correct. Cheers.

I

Thank you for your honest input.


While I agree with you, evolution is not meant to explain the origin of matter. Evolution is a well grounded theory explaining the biological changes in organisms. I am not a scientist but the evidence for evolution is a lot. To deny it is very foolish and arrogant. All it takes is a simple reading about the evolution process itself and the fossils that prove it. Evolution is even happening around us.


Creationists like Davidylan want to lie that there is no evidence for evolution and that creationism is scientific

OLAADEGBU: The Big Lie.

You can keep spouting the lies of your creationist website. The fact remains that there are numerous fossils to prove evolution. Simple wikipedia check can help

Please you can try to debunk any of the fossils in the video that I put up. But you will fail

logicboy:


You can keep spouting the lies of your creationist website. The fact remains that there are numerous fossils to prove evolution. Simple wikipedia check can help

Please you can try to debunk any of the fossils in the video that I put up. But you will fail

For starters, the suggested link will debunk your Lucy lies you have been fed with.

http://www.icr.org/article/human-foot-bone-misidentified-lucys/

OLAADEGBU:
For starters the suggested link will debunk your Lucy lies you have been fed with.

http://www.icr.org/article/human-foot-bone-misidentified-lucys/

Creationist website, you fail!

Try again.

logicboy:


Lied to? Lucy is not a hoax, it is one of the australopithecus fossils. Even if it were, there are other australopithecus fossils eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selam_(Australopithecus)

I said that lucy was a strawman to my argument because, I never mentioned lucy and it doesnt disprove all the real fossils i mentioned

Lets get real here. Lucy IS a confirmed hoax. That you dont know speaks volumes of your lack of intelligence. I wont bother getting drawn into another senseless circular argument with you again.

logicboy:


Creationist website, you fail!

Try again.

Your websites share the same lack of credibility problem so what's new?

logicboy: I

Thank you for your honest input.


While I agree with you, evolution is not meant to explain the origin of matter. Evolution is a well grounded theory explaining the biological changes in organisms. I am not a scientist but the evidence for evolution is a lot. To deny it is very foolish and arrogant. All it takes is a simple reading about the evolution process itself and the fossils that prove it. Evolution is even happening around us.


Creationists like Davidylan want to lie that there is no evidence for evolution and that creationism is scientific

Really? In what sense is evolution a "well grounded theory"? Grounded in what?
If Lucy is your "evidence for evolution" then there is no point talking with you.

davidylan:

Lets get real here. Lucy IS a confirmed hoax. That you dont know speaks volumes of your lack of intelligence. I wont bother getting drawn into another senseless circular argument with you again.

Good. So i dont have to argue with your lying. Keep repeating the creationist lie that lucy is a hoax and maybe it will become true for you.

This is the national geographic website on lucy;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060920-lucy.html


Here is a scientific journal about lucy;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.1390050302/abstract

I am happy that everyone can see you for the liar that you are. Lucy is not a hoax

logicboy:





Good. So i dont have to argue with your lying. Keep repeating the creationist lie that lucy is a hoax and maybe it will become true for you.

This is the national geographic website on lucy;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060920-lucy.html


Here is a scientific journal about lucy;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.1390050302/abstract

I am happy that everyone can see you for the liar that you are. Lucy is not a hoax

Its good to know who your true ancestors are.

OLAADEGBU:
Its good to know who your true ancestors are.

lol....the cartoons again. nothing of substance, eh?


You believe that women came from a man's rib

logicboy:





Good. So i dont have to argue with your lying. Keep repeating the creationist lie that lucy is a hoax and maybe it will become true for you.

This is the national geographic website on lucy;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060920-lucy.html


Here is a scientific journal about lucy;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.1390050302/abstract

I am happy that everyone can see you for the liar that you are. Lucy is not a hoax

Perhaps you are not aware but estimating body mass index from bones does not make Lucy a transitional fossil to humans. You can use the same method to estimate BMIs for cows too.

Oh dear, this guy is quite stup[i]i[/i]d

Are you unable to find Science, Nature or Cell papers that confirm the legitimacy of Lucy as a human transitional life form? Why the recourse to obscure journals saying nothing?

Another problem with the idiocy of the evolutionary story is that there are established fossil records for fully formed organisms existing at a time humans were still assumed to be evolving from apes?

logicboy:

lol....the cartoons again. nothing of substance, eh?


You believe that women came from a man's rib

Yes. Cain beat you to that question.

davidylan:

Perhaps you are not aware but estimating body mass index from bones does not make Lucy a transitional fossil to humans. You can use the same method to estimate BMIs for cows too.

Oh dear, this guy is quite stup[i]i[/i]d

Are you unable to find Science, Nature or Cell papers that confirm the legitimacy of Lucy as a human transitional life form? Why the recourse to obscure journals saying nothing?

What? I thought you said that lucy was a hoax? So it is now a fossil? I could care less about if lucy was a transitional human life form as [b]I was not the one who brought it up as an example of one. You were the one that borught up Lucy as a strawman [/b]to my examples of human transitional life forms.

[13 mya] Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
[4.4 mya] Ardipithecus
[3.7 mya] Australopithecus
[1.9 mya] Homo rudolfensis
[1.9 to 1.6 mya] Homo habilis
[1.7 to .25 mya] Homo erectus

Did mention lucy in the examples?

OLAADEGBU:
Yes. Cain beat you to that question.

Lmao. You believe that? Eve came from Adams ribs? You do know that that is incest because Eve would be a clone of Adam?

davidylan: Another problem with the idiocy of the evolutionary story is that there are established fossil records for fully formed organisms existing at a time humans were still assumed to be evolving from apes?

Please explain further this failed attempt to discredit evolution.

If you're a scientist like you say you are, are your fellow scientist disagreeing with evolution?

logicboy:


What? I thought you said that lucy was a hoax? So it is now a fossil? I could care less about if lucy was a transitional human life form as [b]I was not the one who brought it up as an example of one. You were the one that borught up Lucy as a strawman [/b]to my examples of human transitional life forms.

[13 mya] Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
[4.4 mya] Ardipithecus
[3.7 mya] Australopithecus
[1.9 mya] Homo rudolfensis
[1.9 to 1.6 mya] Homo habilis
[1.7 to .25 mya] Homo erectus

Did mention lucy in the examples?

Dumb id[i]i[/i]ot. You definitely didnt mention Lucy but it is the most widely referenced "alleged" member of the Australopithecus group (you know your own list number 3).