Significant find on Human evolution

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not a chance. You would continue quoting 100 year old sources and would ignore the new finds.

[b]Perhaps if whole skeletal structures hadnt been made from nothing more than a lower jaw bone and two teeth (ramapithecus), persons would be less sceptical. who can say?
Please point me to a reference to this whole skeletal structure.
And by your use n't' are you suggesting the past much be changed before you will accept any form of evidence?[/b]

look up ramapithecus, and once again, i am not prepared to do your research you lazy atheist!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
LOL, you guys are incredible, you venerate, yes that is the correct word, venerate
these fossils like some devotee from a medieval church holding up a piece of St Peters
finger nail and proclaiming its power. All hail the squillion year old fossil! bend to its
power you infidel creationist scum, or suffer destruction!

LOL, you guys are incredible

It's taken just over four years but you've finally seen the light!! 😉

The rest of the post was just mere sensationalist 'flapdoodle'. The book offer has been refused once more it seems.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well I think I am safe in saying it would not matter if we had 30 tons of full skeletons, the creationist set would not be satisfied.

Probably not even if we had a time machine and could go back year by year 10 million years ago making a movie of every primate and proto human to have lived, they would deny, deny, deny.

In the face of new evidence, the scientists now have to change their theory... and shift Sapiens to another branch of the evolutionary tree instead.
In the future, if some other evidence appeared then would they shift Sapiens yet again to another branch?
With the emergence of new data, theory is being changed by individuals to fit the data... it would be laughable if only biology /evolution wasn't one of my favourite subjects.

Originally posted by shahenshah
In the face of new evidence, the scientists now have to change their theory... and shift Sapiens to another branch of the evolutionary tree instead.
In the future, if some other evidence appeared then would they shift Sapiens yet again to another branch?
With the emergence of new data, theory is being changed by individuals to fit the data... it would be laughable if only biology /evolution wasn't one of my favourite subjects.

With the emergence of new data, theory is being changed by individuals to fit the data.......it would be laughable if only biology /evolution wasn't one of my favourite subjects

Why is it laughable? This is how science works.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
look up ramapithecus, and once again, i am not prepared to do your research you lazy atheist!

I did and so far have found nothing supporting your claim. If you make a claim it is up to you to back it up with a reference, there is no point making others search the whole internet for something you made up.

Originally posted by shahenshah
In the face of new evidence, the scientists now have to change their theory... and shift Sapiens to another branch of the evolutionary tree instead.
In the future, if some other evidence appeared then would they shift Sapiens yet again to another branch?
With the emergence of new data, theory is being changed by individuals to fit the data... it would be laughable if only biology /evolution wasn't one of my favourite subjects.

The do not 'change their theory'. They change the structure of the most likely family tree for the known species existing today and represented in the fossil record. At no point does science say "this specimen was definitely our ancestor on such and such a branch of the family tree" and then later change that claim.
Sometimes there is almost indisputable evidence of relationships for example the Gorilla is clearly more closely related to humans than the Vervet Monkey. This will not be changed. Other times there is not enough evidence to be sure, so a guess is made an a possible family tree is drawn up subject to possible rearrangement. But I wouldn't call this changing their theory.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did and so far have found nothing supporting your claim. If you make a claim it is up to you to back it up with a reference, there is no point making others search the whole internet for something you made up.

Simply because you cannot find it does not mean that i made it up, it simply means
that you are ignorant of the details. But we knew that already and yet here you are
professing belief in something which you know practically nothing about. Don't
worry, its a common phenomena.

“How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws, without a
known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward marching procession?”

Natural History, “False Start of the Human Parade,” by Adrienne L. Zihlman and
Jerold M. Lowenstein, August/September 1979, p. 86.

Next time spanky you had better think twice before you accuse others of making
things up especially with regard to those things which you know next to nothing!
You had better return to venerating your fossils, who knows if the God of science
may here your petitions!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Why is it laughable? This is how science works.

C'mon, after all these years, we can't get it right?
Okay just take a step back and try to see if from another person's point of view, say, a theist or even someone new to evolution or biology.
Would it be credible if a person keeps trying to change his story?

BTW, I know that is how science works, but why can't we come up with the right hypothesis / theory from the start?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Simply because you cannot find it does not mean that i made it up, it simply means
that you are ignorant of the details.

But unless you provide a reference or a reference is easily accessible via an internet search, there is no way I can tell whether or not you made it up. Given your lack of honesty in the past, and your habit of sending people on wild goose chases when you know you are lying, I am not particularly motivated to go searching for something that you could have made up.

But we knew that already and yet here you are
professing belief in something which you know practically nothing about. Don't
worry, its a common phenomena.
What have I professed belief in?

“How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws, without a
known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward marching procession?”

Natural History, “False Start of the Human Parade,” by Adrienne L. Zihlman and
Jerold M. Lowenstein, August/September 1979, p. 86.
That is the best you can do? So it turns out I was right and you did make it up after all.

Remember what you claimed was:

whole skeletal structures had been made from nothing more than a lower
jaw bone and two teeth

Your quote says nothing of the sort.

Next time spanky you had better think twice before you accuse others of making
things up especially with regard to those things which you know next to nothing!
And you had better think twice before making things up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The do not 'change their theory'. They change the structure of the most likely family tree for the known species existing today and represented in the fossil record. At no point does science say "this specimen was definitely our ancestor on such and such a branch of the family tree" and then later change that claim.
Sometimes there is almost indisputable ...[text shortened]... drawn up subject to possible rearrangement. But I wouldn't call this changing their theory.

Again semantics..... but it must be admitted that this find is a major change from what was previously supposed, right?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But unless you provide a reference or a reference is easily accessible via an internet search, there is no way I can tell whether or not you made it up. Given your lack of honesty in the past, and your habit of sending people on wild goose chases when you know you are lying, I am not particularly motivated to go searching for something that you could have which you know next to nothing!
And you had better think twice before making things up.[/b]

my lack of honesty? you are the one who accuses others without the slightest foundation, sooo if you apologise like i know your gonna, ill be on my way!

soo lets get this correct., you cannot find anything, you accuse others, when they present you with a reference you still accuse them, because

1. you know your full of crap, yet still continue the charade
2. because your simply incapable of rational thought
3, because you cannot read english
4. because you dont know what you are talking about
5. a combination of all four.

here it is again, if you need help to understand it simply ask,

How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws, without a
known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward marching procession

what does this purport to state, that a skeletal structure of ramapithecus was
constructed from what, a lower jaw bone and some teeth, which in view of my
statement is not only accurate but in total harmony with the reference that i
provided from a third party. Note the terms, reconstructed! note the terms lower
jaw and teeth! note the terms, pelvis , limbs or skull! NOTE THE TERM
WITHOUT!

Conclusion, you have no idea what you are talking about, are a dishonest scurrilous
fellow who has neither the decency nor the common sense to admit it, will continue
to talk even more crap in the hope that it will obfuscate the argument presented
and are best to be drop kicked over the moon in the hope that when you land it may
knock some sense of decency into your thick skull.

Originally posted by shahenshah
Again semantics..... but it must be admitted that this find is a major change from what was previously supposed, right?

I haven't researched this particular case, but it is quite possible. My point is that 'what was previously supposed' was never put in stone and never assumed to be accurate. It was simply the most accurate guess based on the data available.
You may call it semantics, but you appeared to be saying that when new observations reveal that Jupiters orbit is not exactly the same as that in a 100 year old star book then the theory of gravity must have changed and cannot be trusted.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
here it is again, if you need help to understand it simply ask,

How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws, without a
known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward marching procession

what does this purport to state, that a skeletal structure of ramapithecus was
constructed from what, a lower jaw bone and ...[text shortened]... moon in the hope that when you land it may
knock some sense of decency into your thick skull.

OK, I'll downgrade my accusation from lying to stupid.
You simply cant understand basic English.

Your quote does not say that a "skeletal structure of ramapithecus was
constructed" or anything close or similar in meaning.
Your mind saw various words and put them together in a sentence that wasn't there.

When called on it, you should have read it over, realised your error and apologised and moved on. But you either didn't bother (a stupid thing to do) or you decided to bluff it out (also stupid).

Originally posted by shahenshah
C'mon, after all these years, we can't get it right?
Okay just take a step back and try to see if from another person's point of view, say, a theist or even someone new to evolution or biology.
Would it be credible if a person keeps trying to change his story?

BTW, I know that is how science works, but why can't we come up with the right hypothesis / theory from the start?

BTW, I know that is how science works, but why can't we come up with the right hypothesis / theory from the start?

How were we going to come up with the exact theory from the start?

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, I'll downgrade my accusation from lying to stupid.
You simply cant understand basic English.

Your quote does not say that a "skeletal structure of ramapithecus was
constructed" or anything close or similar in meaning.
Your mind saw various words and put them together in a sentence that wasn't there.

When called on it, you should have read it ...[text shortened]... u either didn't bother (a stupid thing to do) or you decided to bluff it out (also stupid).

i refuse to believe you are as dumba$$ as you make out, no one can be that dim,

Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws

reconstructed, well duh? what do you think was reconstructed Einstein? do you
know what reconstructed means? do you understand that it requires some kind of construction?

Let me ask you this, do you enjoy acting like a dick? do you
think that it reflects well upon your character, wins you respect? emanates warmth so
as to make friends? If you dont know what you are talking about just shut the hell up,
its easy, you cannot know everything, you are limited to experience and lifespan. It
will save you from appearing like a complete idiot, all it takes is a little modesty.
Man you put Atheism back years.