How wrong is this?
![ken-ham[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5dih69O.jpg "ken-ham[1].jpg")
Absolutely disgusting
define "wrong"
>>8115553
Incorrect in any way, shape, or form.
morphology has been defunct since the 1800s lmao this is gold.
Friendly reminder that creationism is NOT racist. I repeat, NOT racist.
"I wanna walk like you, talk like you, too-oo-oo!"
>>8115987
>gay ape or normal ape
>>8115997
Not sure which would be which in that case.
This was a thing.
>>8115987
>look at tapering in the arms
>they should be longer!
>don't look at tapering in the legs
>they should be shorter
Oh, now I get it.
>>8115512
>The "True" Lucy
>Trucy
>>8116069
>whic
>>8115913
>Creationism
>relevant in anything other than choosing which psychiatry ward a person should be sent to.
>>8116330
And remember, if you don't see it how I do, you don't have enough faith in "God" (my opinion).
I feel like this diagram tried to be right, but even failed on the evolutionary aspect of "Man's Word."
Bump.
Lucy is cute
>>8117324
How is it wrong. DESU I'm happy if only they get the principle right.
>>8117883
They make it look as though apes and man evolved parallel to one another rather than hybridization and speciation. I know it's meant to be a strawman of sorts, but come on.
So is this just a "creation v evolution" thing, or is there more data and relevant discussion to be had?
I'm actually more fascinated by whales and dolphins which may have evolved from sea to land as other land creatures, but returned to the sea, from natural selection and food source, something like a wolf alligator that lost most of its "legs" over time.
>>8117940
Ah, you mean this. I always loved the transitional creatures. They just look so odd when compared to their descendants.
>>8117950
Yeh, I think that is cool, and I'd like to see more of the evidence in the transformation.
I'm a geology student and this is just stupid and wrong. It assumes that Lucy is the only Australopithecus we've ever found.
Hint. We've got about 60 of them now with most found in the last few years thanks to GIS and satellite imagery being used to find new fossil beds where they are more readily discovered.
>>8118052
I thought this was real, until I saw the toaster.
>>8115512
absolutely wrong.jpeg
took a few courses in bio-anthropology. an ape that paw-walks would still look like example a here. lucy was somewhere between c-d, humans are d.
>>8118129
They also claim that the pelvis was "doctored" in some way. Any truth to that statement?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DH2_j7bpsLo
Anybody?
>>8118143
Looking at some pictures, it appears to me as though it is a legitimate pelvis. As far as I can see, there is a clearly defined iliac crest, too, which I doubt people would be capable of artificially carving out of a larger pelvis. Nothing looks amiss with the sacrum, either; it appears to be proportional in size and shape to the rest of the pelvis.
>>8117119
Most underage post on sci
>>8118779
They claim that the pelvis had been sawed in half and then plastered together to appear normal. Your standard "tampering with the evidence" claim.
Remember when AiG shot themselves in the foot? Good times.
Come on guys.
>>8118774
nice
>>8119624
At least I'm moving on up.
>>8118789
Here's a clip from the DVD.
>>8119738
Forgot the link.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p6RfIEVO6YQ
Bwahahahaa!
I still can't get over the fact people believe this shit!
>>8119869
>whole planet is flooded
>leaves no archeological evidence
>>8118789
I'm not seeing it. One would think that there would be some evidence of tampering, not to mention that they would have a lot of work to do to make it look legitimate. Even if the ilium were sawed in half and made to look smaller, other components of the pelvis should reveal the fake. Like I said earlier, everything looks proportional. Unless the entire pelvis is faked, it does not seem very likely that anything was tampered with.
>>8119905
I'm still not feeling it. Lucy's foramen magnum is still in a place that suggests bipedalism, and her ilium are not so gorilla-like that I would expect her to have trouble walking.
>>8119950
Then they would argue from absence. Because Lucy doesn't have a complete skull (and no others can be used because reasons) that it's all up in the air.
One a side note, does the sacrum show that she was bipedal?
>>8119953
I believe so. It looks a lot like a human sacrum, except smaller, but Lucy was pretty small anyways.
>>8119961
Ok. Also, I'm currently having an argument on /christian/ about sediba. Do the two fossils have enough bones in common to tell if they share the same significant deviations frrom known morphology?
>>8119968
I can't confidently help you as much here since I have yet to do anything quite like this in class, but I'll do my best. Since they both have a mostly intact humerus, one could use the length of each to determine their approximate stature and use the results appropriately.
>>8119996
Would the spinal column, jaw, andskull also be useful in this?
>>8120001
Also, I've heard some argue that the bones were deformed by the environment, like how a chicken bone will turn rubbery when you soak it in vinegar. Is there any reason to assume these bones were deformed?
>>8120001
Maybe the dental formula? One could compare the mandibular teeth of the one skeleton to the maxillary teeth of the other.
>>8120006
Bones are fun like that. If you soak them in certain stuff, like HCl, all that will remain is the collagen, and they will become all rubbery, for a lack of a better word. I don't believe that the missing mineral content of the bone would return after being soaked in stuff like that, so if the bones aren't super flexible, I don't think there is any reason to worry.
Apparently the Muslims are on the creationist boat too. They even have their own Ken Ham: Harun Yahya.
>>8119893
but muh fossils
>>8120228
How can you not believe someone with suh glorious eyebrows?
If there's one thing I never understood is why the creationists are so against this one idea, but aren't opposed to the idea of a "round" earth. Any thoughts on that?
>>8119893
what about the grand canyon
checkmate atheists
Bump.
Where is everybody?
Hello?
Anyone at all?
Why do monkeys have so thick fur? Imagine walking with that in a warm place like Africa.
>>8115512
>How wrong
Very Fckng Wrong
>>8123622
It's not that think. Sure they have hair, but it's not "fur." Prolly because they still have to face the elements and don't have concrete shelters. Other than trees and throwing shit at each other.
>>8123701
Maybe like this?
>>8115512
ITT
>>8119896
>One would think that there would be some evidence of tampering
What if I told you that the one doing the tampering was the Devil, and that he was trying to make you believe in evolution?
>>8125215
My Negroid.
Has the pied-piper of education put you under his spell?
