Jump to content


Photo

Missing Transitional Intermediates


  • Please log in to reply
287 replies to this topic

#181 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 10 September 2017 - 02:26 PM

Here is a recent article: https://www.theguard...human-evolution
 
"Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks."
 
"If you found the Dmanisi skulls at isolated sites in Africa, some people would give them different species names. But one population can have all this variation. We are using five or six names, but they could all be from one lineage."


Interesting. As the fossils found span a timeframe of several hundred years, other researchers have suggested that the variation may reflect migration and replacement by different contemporaneous species but I would concur that intraspecific variation within Homo erectus seems more likely.
 

Seems to me that all this fuss about the supposed transitional hominid species is nothing more than normal variation.


See, this is the kind of statement that makes me question your claim to be an evolutionist. You're not suggesting the skulls are within the normal range of modern Homo sapiens are you ? What about Austropithecus, do you consider this taxon transitional ?



#182 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 10 September 2017 - 03:28 PM

Wibble, even for you this is pretty amazing, this literally is just a load of rhetoric, you addressed nothing at all.


If you are worried about rhetoric why don't you complain about Blitzking, every one of his posts drips with it.
 

Showing me an animation of Lucy wit human feet doesn't alter the fact that her feet were never found.


It is an animation of Lucy's species, Australopithecus afarensis. While the individual 'Lucy' is the most complete specimen yet found, the feet are indeed missing. But that doesn't matter if we have evidence from other specimens does it ? We have bones that show that the foot was stiffly arched like a human, not flat and flexible like a chimp. There are only a couple of hallux (big toe) bones available, while there is some debate about the degree of divergence, they certainly weren't splayed like an ape.

 

https://www.research...hecus_afarensis

 

https://www.research...and_Unshod_Homo


Of course, fragmentary bone evidence is not what you would expect going by your previous comments on this forum, asserting that most fossils are complete due to being suddenly overwhelmed by the Flood (presuming you don't think these hominins are post Flood ??). The fragmentary nature is much more in line with more mundane causes of death, which would likely be followed by the attentions of scavenging animals. What does your critical thinking analysis say about that ?
 



#183 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 September 2017 - 06:35 AM

Wibble, okay, let's take a more conversational approach, we both are convinced of different positions, so instead of trying to throw arguments and links at you, all I will ask you to consider is the fragmentary nature of the bones. If Lucy, a 40% skeleton, is the most "complete" skeleton of an Afarensis found, don't you think it's at least reasonable that conclusions drawn should be regarded as preliminary or tenuous? How can you be so conclusive/dogmatic, based on such limited evidence?

 

Also when we consider that scientists themselves consider some taxa to be, "taxanomical waste-bins" what that basically means is that they find so few of a specimen that it could just represent a mixture of a few bones from a pithecine and a few bones from a human.

 

CMI has a point when we consider the following facts;

 

 

hey based their case on the fact that A. afarensis fossils were also found at Laetoli, and that the only fossil reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot was arched, and hence compatible with the Laetoli Footprints. Thus, for over twenty years we have been told, both in the scientific and in the popular literature, that Lucy was bipedal and that she is what our evolutionary ancestor at that time looked like—or close to it.

Finally, a report in the August 2005 Scientific American suggests that there might be a problem. William E.H. Harcourt-Smith (American Museum of Natural History) and Charles E. Hilton (Western Michigan University) challenge Lucy’s bipedality. They claim that the fossil reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot is based on a mixture of fossils, some from the 3.2 million year old A. afarensis collection, and some from the 1.8 million year old Homo habilis collection. Specifically, they claim that one of the bones, the navicular, used to determine that the A. afarensis foot was arched, actually was a Homo habilis fossil foot bone, not an A. afarensis fossil foot bone

 

If those fragmentary remains could be "habilis" and many think habilis is a taxanomical wastebin that contains some pithecine, some human, bones, then is it not plausible that they found some homo-bones, if those are classed as habilis?

 

Conclusion; Think how easy it is to make such mistakes when we are talking about a handful of bones. To my mind it is poor science to even name species based on so little evidence. It seems to me there isn't enough evidence to even properly define what an afarensis or habilis is.

 

Now before you scream, "bias" in fact I can tell you with 100% confidence that even if I was an evolutionist I would have the same attitude of applying more vigour and being more sensible about such limited remnants of bones. Therefore I myself would wait for more evidence for the species "afarensis". It only makes sense, given the most complete skeleton has no feet at all.

 

P.S. Bare in mind I am not saying, "it is an impossible conclusion afarensis had more human like feet", if that is the case, as I have said to Bonedigger in the past, yes that would fit somewhat with evolution but it might also fit with mosaic features, after all a platypus has a duck's bill. And the most common thing evolutionists confuse mosaic features with, is evolution. We also have to consider my chart from those evolution-scientists, they themselves as evolutionists, shown that usually it is a matter of, "either P or X", or, "either pithecine or human", rather than, "intermediate". They only labelled one such feature for the early homos, as, "intermediate".

 

I think a reasonable explanation is that the australopithecines are just extinct apes and habilis didn't exist, and it's a mixture of pithecine bones and human bones. At the very least I can see no solid reason to not go with that conclusion, as a pretty parsimonious explanation of such fragmentary remains of evidence of such a tiny percentage. After all how many skeletons have they found, of homo sapien or neanderthal? If you saw a picture for the bones for pithecines like afarensis and homo habilis, they would fit in a bingbag, but the other species such as sapien, neanderthal, you would obviously need hundreds of museums. 

 

:P



#184 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 11 September 2017 - 02:07 PM

Wibble, okay, let's take a more conversational approach, we both are convinced of different positions, so instead of trying to throw arguments and links at you, all I will ask you to consider is the fragmentary nature of the bones. If Lucy, a 40% skeleton, is the most "complete" skeleton of an Afarensis found, don't you think it's at least reasonable that conclusions drawn should be regarded as preliminary or tenuous? How can you be so conclusive/dogmatic, based on such limited evidence?
 
Also when we consider that scientists themselves consider some taxa to be, "taxanomical waste-bins" what that basically means is that they find so few of a specimen that it could just represent a mixture of a few bones from a pithecine and a few bones from a human.
 
CMI has a point when we consider the following facts;
 

 
hey based their case on the fact that [/size]A. afarensis fossils were also found at Laetoli, and that the only fossil reconstruction of the [/size]A. afarensis foot was arched, and hence compatible with the Laetoli Footprints. Thus, for over twenty years we have been told, both in the scientific and in the popular literature, that Lucy was bipedal and that she is what our evolutionary ancestor at that time looked like—or close to it.[/size]
Finally, a report in the August 2005 Scientific American suggests that there might be a problem. William E.H. Harcourt-Smith (American Museum of Natural History) and Charles E. Hilton (Western Michigan University) challenge Lucy’s bipedality. They claim that the fossil reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot is based on a mixture of fossils, some from the 3.2 million year old A. afarensis collection, and some from the 1.8 million year old Homo habilis collection. Specifically, they claim that one of the bones, the navicular, used to determine that the A. afarensis foot was arched, actually was a Homo habilis fossil foot bone, not an A. afarensis fossil foot bone

 
If those fragmentary remains could be "habilis" and many think habilis is a taxanomical wastebin that contains some pithecine, some human, bones, then is it not plausible that they found some homo-bones, if those are classed as habilis?
 
Conclusion; Think how easy it is to make such mistakes when we are talking about a handful of bones. To my mind it is poor science to even name species based on so little evidence. It seems to me there isn't enough evidence to even properly define what an afarensis or habilis is.
 
Now before you scream, "bias" in fact I can tell you with 100% confidence that even if I was an evolutionist I would have the same attitude of applying more vigour and being more sensible about such limited remnants of bones. Therefore I myself would wait for more evidence for the species "afarensis". It only makes sense, given the most complete skeleton has no feet at all.
 
P.S. Bare in mind I am not saying, "it is an impossible conclusion afarensis had more human like feet", if that is the case, as I have said to Bonedigger in the past, yes that would fit somewhat with evolution but it might also fit with mosaic features, after all a platypus has a duck's bill. And the most common thing evolutionists confuse mosaic features with, is evolution. We also have to consider my chart from those evolution-scientists, they themselves as evolutionists, shown that usually it is a matter of, "either P or X", or, "either pithecine or human", rather than, "intermediate". They only labelled one such feature for the early homos, as, "intermediate".
 
I think a reasonable explanation is that the australopithecines are just extinct apes and habilis didn't exist, and it's a mixture of pithecine bones and human bones. At the very least I can see no solid reason to not go with that conclusion, as a pretty parsimonious explanation of such fragmentary remains of evidence of such a tiny percentage. After all how many skeletons have they found, of homo sapien or neanderthal? If you saw a picture for the bones for pithecines like afarensis and homo habilis, they would fit in a bingbag, but the other species such as sapien, neanderthal, you would obviously need hundreds of museums. 
 
:P


"Now before you scream, "bias" in fact I can tell you with 100% confidence that even if I was an evolutionist I would have the same attitude of applying more vigour and being more sensible about such limited remnants of bones."


I dont see how that is possible.. Because, by definition, anyone who starts to apply more vigour is more sensible about limited remnants of bones CANT BE an Evolutionist in the first place!! LOL

#185 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 11 September 2017 - 03:59 PM

Wibble, okay, let's take a more conversational approach, we both are convinced of different positions, so instead of trying to throw arguments and links at you, all I will ask you to consider is the fragmentary nature of the bones. If Lucy, a 40% skeleton, is the most "complete" skeleton of an Afarensis found, don't you think it's at least reasonable that conclusions drawn should be regarded as preliminary or tenuous? How can you be so conclusive/dogmatic, based on such limited evidence?


I’m not being dogmatic at all, if new evidence came to light, like an A. afarensis skeleton with the foot bones still articulated that showed that the feet were actually fully ape like then obviously all other evidence from disassociated bones would need to be discarded on that point. As the evidence stands however, taken together it strongly suggests that this species was a habitual biped.

Your quote from CMI in reference to the 2005 Scientific American article is just cherry picking from the literature in order to support the creationist agenda. It of course does not take into account more recent bone finds and more advanced analysis of existing bones as for example described in the two papers I linked for you in the previous post, which add further weight to the consensus that the feet of afarensis were functionally like that of modern humans.
 

I think a reasonable explanation is that the australopithecines are just extinct apes and habilis didn't exist, and it's a mixture of pithecine bones and human bones. At the very least I can see no solid reason to not go with that conclusion.


That would be your bias to lean that way. Do you envisage these extinct apes and humans socialized together to leave their bones at sites like Hadar and Laetoli ? The small cranial capacity of all skull material found associated with pithecines strongly indicates that none of the fossils, fragmentary or otherwise, were of humans. Later in the geological record, in the last few hundred thousand years, when we do get crania approaching modern capacity, we don’t find them associated with scattered pithecine type post cranial bones do we ? Does that not suggest something to you ?


I'm interested to see if you can provide any clarification on what I asked in my previous post
 

Of course, fragmentary bone evidence is not what you would expect going by your previous comments on this forum, asserting that most fossils are complete due to being suddenly overwhelmed by the Flood (presuming you don't think these hominins are post Flood ??). The fragmentary nature is much more in line with more mundane causes of death, which would likely be followed by the attentions of scavenging animals. What does your critical thinking analysis say about that ?



#186 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 September 2017 - 04:16 PM

Wibble I think the overarching fact here is that if we zoom out and look at all of the evidence taken together, homo sapiens, neanderthals, etc, represent hundreds of museums full of skeletons. Then we have homo habilis and pithecus afarensis, and the totality of the bones they have found for those two would barely fill your dustbin. Do you predicate an evolution on that amount of evidence? Only a fictional one from my perspective. :D

 

What is more likely, that we are seeing an evolution based on these scant few bones, or that they are perfectly explainable as two genera skirting the parameters of their physiques leading to some superficial similarities? I would say for the former, I might expect just as many afarensis and habilis skeletons as sapiens, if it was evolution. 

 

As for cranial capacity, it has been proven that even a Nobel-prize winner had a 900cc cranial capacity, they have found archaic features in modern skulls. The trend from smaller to large seems like an absurdly tenuous and happy coincidence.

 

Kirk out.

 

:gotcha:



#187 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 12 September 2017 - 01:36 PM

Why don't you want to answer this, Mike ?
 

Of course, fragmentary bone evidence is not what you would expect going by your previous comments on this forum, asserting that most fossils are complete due to being suddenly overwhelmed by the Flood (presuming you don't think these hominins are post Flood ??). The fragmentary nature is much more in line with more mundane causes of death, which would likely be followed by the attentions of scavenging animals. What does your critical thinking analysis say about that ?


 
 

What is more likely, that we are seeing an evolution based on these scant few bones, or that they are perfectly explainable as two genera skirting the parameters of their physiques leading to some superficial similarities? I would say for the former, I might expect just as many afarensis and habilis skeletons as sapiens, if it was evolution.


Australopithecus and early Homo didn't bury their dead, so you certainly would not expect to find just as many as H. sapiens.
 

As for cranial capacity, it has been proven that even a Nobel-prize winner had a 900cc cranial capacity, they have found archaic features in modern skulls. The trend from smaller to large seems like an absurdly tenuous and happy coincidence.


This is really grasping at straws. Australopithicus spp and Homo habilis had much lower cranial capacity than this, only when you reach Homo erectus does it rival your Nobel Prize winner, what's the chances of all the 20+ H. erectus skulls being at the extreme low end of the H. sapiens range ?
 


  • StormanNorman likes this

#188 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 September 2017 - 01:56 PM

 

 

Wibble:  Australopithicus spp and Homo habilis had much lower cranial capacity than this, only when you reach Homo erectus does it rival your Nobel Prize winner, what's the chances of all the 20+ H. erectus skulls being at the extreme low end of the H. sapiens range ?

 

No Wibble, what's "grasping at straws" is the whole discussion about cranial capacity. In case your rather limited memory has let you down again, the only reason cranial capacity is being discussed is because you had no answer to all of the defining features those scientists compared. As I shown on that chart, we had very clearly either "A"s for australopiths or "H"s for humans.

 

(Oh and by the way I would expect habilis and the pithecine you mention to have lower cranial capacity than this, several times I've said I believe habilis wasn't even a real species but a taxanomical wastebin and that all pithecines are apes. I believe most of the habilis bones are also really pithecine, so I would expect them to have lower-than-human cranial capacity, I would only expect humans to have human cranial capacity, and Erectus was human. I am not arguing that humans should have an apes cranial capacity Wibble. Gordon Bennet man, concentrate! :rolleyes:

 

What were those features, and should we just focus on cranial capacity? Firstly, for a comparative anatomy, to only argue cranial capacity because it shows some kind of progression from smaller to larger, is desperate, for by comparison if we compared a motorcycle to a car it would be like arguing that because none of the parts matches that we should just focus solely on the shape of the wheels, which prove that motorcycles and cars are the same things because they both have round wheels.

 

So that's what you need to do; apply critical thinking, for a comparative anatomy of ALL the anatomy shown this;

http://evolutionfair...iates/?p=139958

 

So what did the evolutionist scientists compare? These features;

 

 

 

1) body size, 2) body shape, 3) locomotion, 4) jaws and teeth, 5) development and 6) brain size. H = like modern humans, A = australopith-like, I = intermediate

 

So yes - if you only take cranial capacity and ignore all the other evidence that's a nice way to commit the slothful induction fallacy, thanks for showing us how to make that mistake. I will have a concession with you; I shall admit that the heads of apes evolved into human head but not the bodies.

 

:get_a_clue:  :rotfl3:



#189 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 12 September 2017 - 02:47 PM

Why don't you want to answer this, Mike ?
 

Of course, fragmentary bone evidence is not what you would expect going by your previous comments on this forum, asserting that most fossils are complete due to being suddenly overwhelmed by the Flood (presuming you don't think these hominins are post Flood ??). The fragmentary nature is much more in line with more mundane causes of death, which would likely be followed by the attentions of scavenging animals. What does your critical thinking analysis say about that ?


 
 

What is more likely, that we are seeing an evolution based on these scant few bones, or that they are perfectly explainable as two genera skirting the parameters of their physiques leading to some superficial similarities? I would say for the former, I might expect just as many afarensis and habilis skeletons as sapiens, if it was evolution.


Australopithecus and early Homo didn't bury their dead, so you certainly would not expect to find just as many as H. sapiens.
 
​ 

 

 

 

We've actually been pretty lucky to find what we already have thanks to the tectonic plate movements pushing East Africa up (higher altitudes) and exposing the sedimentary layers to the elements...



#190 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 12 September 2017 - 03:01 PM


 

Wibble:  Australopithicus spp and Homo habilis had much lower cranial capacity than this, only when you reach Homo erectus does it rival your Nobel Prize winner, what's the chances of all the 20+ H. erectus skulls being at the extreme low end of the H. sapiens range ?

 
No Wibble, what's "grasping at straws" is the whole discussion about cranial capacity. In case your rather limited memory has let you down again, the only reason cranial capacity is being discussed is because you had no answer to all of the defining features those scientists compared. As I shown on that chart, we had very clearly either "A"s for australopiths or "H"s for humans.

 


I thought you didn't do insults....

You opined that the observed trend of increasing cranium size "seems like an absurdly tenuous and happy coincidence". So I responded to that desperate claim.

As for the chart, a mix of features is exactly what you would expect for an ape-human intermediate. Lucy's species was bipedal, but retained some arboreal ability (curved finger bones, relatively long arms) and had a cranial capacity about a third of modern human (but higher than chimps). There is no reason to believe that all anatomical changes would have to happen in parallel, and in a linear fashion. The ability to walk upright evolved first, skull size increase followed later. This is what the fossil record shows.
 

(Oh and by the way I would expect habilis and the pithecine you mention to have lower cranial capacity than this, several times I've said I believe habilis wasn't even a real species but a taxanomical wastebin and that all pithecines are apes. I believe most of the habilis bones are also really pithecine,


Your prejudiced, baseless belief is worth nowt.
 

I would only expect humans to have human cranial capacity, and Erectus was human.


Yet all had bizarrely small skull size ?
 



#191 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 12 September 2017 - 03:05 PM

Wibble I think the overarching fact here is that if we zoom out and look at all of the evidence taken together, homo sapiens, neanderthals, etc, represent hundreds of museums full of skeletons. Then we have homo habilis and pithecus afarensis, and the totality of the bones they have found for those two would barely fill your dustbin. Do you predicate an evolution on that amount of evidence? Only a fictional one from my perspective. :D

 

What is more likely, that we are seeing an evolution based on these scant few bones, or that they are perfectly explainable as two genera skirting the parameters of their physiques leading to some superficial similarities? I would say for the former, I might expect just as many afarensis and habilis skeletons as sapiens, if it was evolution. 

 

As for cranial capacity, it has been proven that even a Nobel-prize winner had a 900cc cranial capacity, they have found archaic features in modern skulls. The trend from smaller to large seems like an absurdly tenuous and happy coincidence.

 

Kirk out.

 

:gotcha:

 

To quantify evolution whether it be micro or macro, you need to look at populations and not at individuals.  What I mean, Mike, is that say you consider Trait X in Species Y.  If the mean and variance of Trait X changes over time, that's evolution (micro or macro depending on the degree of change)...in the sense that the genetic distribution of Species Y, e.g., allele frequencies, etc. is changing at least with respect to Trait X.  And, it does not matter that you can find an individual from before and one from after that have nearly the same Trait X....because the change or evolution is at the population level.

 

Also, not only did these early hominid fossils have significantly smaller cranial capacities than your average human, but their brains were of a very different shape than ours, e.g., the lack of significant frontal lobes, etc.  And that's probably a more important distinction in terms of understanding human development than the size difference.



#192 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:37 PM

Yet all had bizarrely small skull size ?

brain size (cranial capacity) cannot be directly equated to intelligence.
humans have been known to have over half of their brain removed and show no significant decrease in intelligence.

if i'm not mistaken, the largest human brain on record is that of a "mentally deficient".

#193 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 12 September 2017 - 07:58 PM

Here is a recent article: https://www.theguard...human-evolution
 
"Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks."
 
"If you found the Dmanisi skulls at isolated sites in Africa, some people would give them different species names. But one population can have all this variation. We are using five or six names, but they could all be from one lineage."

Interesting. As the fossils found span a timeframe of several hundred years, other researchers have suggested that the variation may reflect migration and replacement by different contemporaneous species but I would concur that intraspecific variation within Homo erectus seems more likely.
 

Seems to me that all this fuss about the supposed transitional hominid species is nothing more than normal variation.

See, this is the kind of statement that makes me question your claim to be an evolutionist. You're not suggesting the skulls are within the normal range of modern Homo sapiens are you ? What about Austropithecus, do you consider this taxon transitional ?


"See, this is the kind of statement that makes me question your claim to be an evolutionist."

Some people, as well as many of us EX EvoAtheists on this thread, actually came to our senses after HONESTLY looking at the overwhelming facts and evidence that prove without a shadow of doubt that the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth is Satans Fairytale from Hell that it is.. A hopeless delusion that has brainwashed generations of people..

We have come to our senses and accepted the truth.. You remain stuck in your willful ignorance due to the IMPLICATIONS of the Darwinian Fairytale...

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

Richard Dawkins

#194 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 12 September 2017 - 08:17 PM

Wibble, okay, let's take a more conversational approach, we both are convinced of different positions, so instead of trying to throw arguments and links at you, all I will ask you to consider is the fragmentary nature of the bones. If Lucy, a 40% skeleton, is the most "complete" skeleton of an Afarensis found, don't you think it's at least reasonable that conclusions drawn should be regarded as preliminary or tenuous? How can you be so conclusive/dogmatic, based on such limited evidence?

I’m not being dogmatic at all, if new evidence came to light, like an A. afarensis skeleton with the foot bones still articulated that showed that the feet were actually fully ape like then obviously all other evidence from disassociated bones would need to be discarded on that point. As the evidence stands however, taken together it strongly suggests that this species was a habitual biped.
Your quote from CMI in reference to the 2005 Scientific American article is just cherry picking from the literature in order to support the creationist agenda. It of course does not take into account more recent bone finds and more advanced analysis of existing bones as for example described in the two papers I linked for you in the previous post, which add further weight to the consensus that the feet of afarensis were functionally like that of modern humans.

I think a reasonable explanation is that the australopithecines are just extinct apes and habilis didn't exist, and it's a mixture of pithecine bones and human bones. At the very least I can see no solid reason to not go with that conclusion.

That would be your bias to lean that way. Do you envisage these extinct apes and humans socialized together to leave their bones at sites like Hadar and Laetoli ? The small cranial capacity of all skull material found associated with pithecines strongly indicates that none of the fossils, fragmentary or otherwise, were of humans. Later in the geological record, in the last few hundred thousand years, when we do get crania approaching modern capacity, we don’t find them associated with scattered pithecine type post cranial bones do we ? Does that not suggest something to you ?
I'm interested to see if you can provide any clarification on what I asked in my previous post

Of course, fragmentary bone evidence is not what you would expect going by your previous comments on this forum, asserting that most fossils are complete due to being suddenly overwhelmed by the Flood (presuming you don't think these hominins are post Flood ??). The fragmentary nature is much more in line with more mundane causes of death, which would likely be followed by the attentions of scavenging animals. What does your critical thinking analysis say about that ?



"Later in the geological record, in the last few hundred thousand years, when we do get crania approaching modern capacity,.."


And her is our problem.. You just post begging the question epithets about "100s of thousands of years" as if it were a scientific fact without even realizing that you are doing so.. You have been thoroughly programmed, indoctrinated, and brainwashed into believing that the "Deep Time" paradigm is a somehow certain when it forces you to also believe that red blood cells can last 100 MILLION years without batting an eye.. Critical thinking, logic, reason, and common sense are shown the door..

You are shown TWO CORROBORATING EXAMPLES OF HARD DATA that REFUTE the Myth and you just close your eyes, hold your nose, and plug your ears as you dont WANT to know the truth..

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

http://www.smithsoni...cker-115306469/



We have an old expression here in the states..

"Ignorance is bliss"


"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."

(Dr. Johnathan Wells,

#195 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 13 September 2017 - 12:53 AM

"Later in the geological record, in the last few hundred thousand years, when we do get crania approaching modern capacity,.."


And her is our problem.. You just post begging the question epithets about "100s of thousands of years" as if it were a scientific fact without even realizing that you are doing so.. You have been thoroughly programmed, indoctrinated, and brainwashed into believing that the "Deep Time" paradigm is a somehow certain when it forces you to also believe that red blood cells can last 100 MILLION years without batting an eye.. Critical thinking, logic, reason, and common sense are shown the door..

You are shown TWO CORROBORATING EXAMPLES OF HARD DATA that REFUTE the Myth and you just close your eyes, hold your nose, and plug your ears as you dont WANT to know the truth..

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

http://www.smithsoni...cker-115306469/



We have an old expression here in the states..

"Ignorance is bliss"


Yeah we have that expression here as well.

Why don't you dispense with the empty rhetoric for once and explain in your own words how red blood cells are a valid dating method, and why multiple radiometric dating methods are inferior to your red blood cell method. You can also explain why we frequently date bones (mammoth, bison etc.) that produce infinite dates (which means C14 below detection limits of the AMS machine).



#196 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:02 PM

 

"Later in the geological record, in the last few hundred thousand years, when we do get crania approaching modern capacity,.."


And her is our problem.. You just post begging the question epithets about "100s of thousands of years" as if it were a scientific fact without even realizing that you are doing so.. You have been thoroughly programmed, indoctrinated, and brainwashed into believing that the "Deep Time" paradigm is a somehow certain when it forces you to also believe that red blood cells can last 100 MILLION years without batting an eye.. Critical thinking, logic, reason, and common sense are shown the door..

You are shown TWO CORROBORATING EXAMPLES OF HARD DATA that REFUTE the Myth and you just close your eyes, hold your nose, and plug your ears as you dont WANT to know the truth..

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

http://www.smithsoni...cker-115306469/



We have an old expression here in the states..

"Ignorance is bliss"


Yeah we have that expression here as well.

Why don't you dispense with the empty rhetoric for once and explain in your own words how red blood cells are a valid dating method, and why multiple radiometric dating methods are inferior to your red blood cell method. You can also explain why we frequently date bones (mammoth, bison etc.) that produce infinite dates (which means C14 below detection limits of the AMS machine).

 

 

Which radiometric dating methods are good and within what age spans. We had a discussion on this in the beginning of this year, and as far as I could tell you really did not know that much about radiometric dating methods. Have that changed?



#197 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:46 PM

Welcome back, Tirian.  Nice to see ya again.

 

 

"Later in the geological record, in the last few hundred thousand years, when we do get crania approaching modern capacity,.."


And her is our problem.. You just post begging the question epithets about "100s of thousands of years" as if it were a scientific fact without even realizing that you are doing so.. You have been thoroughly programmed, indoctrinated, and brainwashed into believing that the "Deep Time" paradigm is a somehow certain when it forces you to also believe that red blood cells can last 100 MILLION years without batting an eye.. Critical thinking, logic, reason, and common sense are shown the door..

You are shown TWO CORROBORATING EXAMPLES OF HARD DATA that REFUTE the Myth and you just close your eyes, hold your nose, and plug your ears as you dont WANT to know the truth..

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

http://www.smithsoni...cker-115306469/

Why don't you dispense with the empty rhetoric for once and explain in your own words how red blood cells are a valid dating method, and why multiple radiometric dating methods are inferior to your red blood cell method. You can also explain why we frequently date bones (mammoth, bison etc.) that produce infinite dates (which means C14 below detection limits of the AMS machine).

Which radiometric dating methods are good and within what age spans. We had a discussion on this in the beginning of this year, and as far as I could tell you really did not know that much about radiometric dating methods. Have that changed?

Yes, I remember that discussion well.  We have very different opinions of the outcome.

 

Pretty much all the methods yield statistically valid results when properly used on an appropriate sample.

 

Like Wibble, I would like to know why a process that can vary by a half dozen orders of magnitude is a better age indicator than one demonstrated to be stable except in the most extreme conditions.

 

BTW, I think I had committed to a discussion of another topic during our exchanges on radiometric dating, but can't recall what the other subject was.



#198 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 14 September 2017 - 12:29 AM

Welcome back, Tirian.  Nice to see ya again.


Thanks.

Yes, I remember that discussion well. We have very different opinions of the outcome.


Yes we might have very different opinions of the outcome. But if I remember correctly wibble didn't really give an impression on knowing much about radiometric daring, that's why I asked. You on the other hand is a different story :-)

Pretty much all the methods yield statistically valid results when properly used on an appropriate sample. Like Wibble, I would like to know why a process that can vary by a half dozen orders of magnitude is a better age indicator than one demonstrated to be stable except in the most extreme conditions.


Since I (and perhaps Blitzking) don't share your enthusiasm regarding the radiometric dating game. Why not start to respond to the hard data questions first, and after that we can discuss the reliability of the methods of interpretation.

1 - Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones dated to 22,000 - 39,000 years old
2 - Blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside a T. rex bone

These are facts, but how do you and wibble explain them?

BTW, I think I had committed to a discussion of another topic during our exchanges on radiometric dating, but can't recall what the other subject was.


Perhaps methodological naturalism, I really don't remember ...
  • Gneiss girl likes this

#199 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 14 September 2017 - 07:37 AM

 

 

"Later in the geological record, in the last few hundred thousand years, when we do get crania approaching modern capacity,.."


And her is our problem.. You just post begging the question epithets about "100s of thousands of years" as if it were a scientific fact without even realizing that you are doing so.. You have been thoroughly programmed, indoctrinated, and brainwashed into believing that the "Deep Time" paradigm is a somehow certain when it forces you to also believe that red blood cells can last 100 MILLION years without batting an eye.. Critical thinking, logic, reason, and common sense are shown the door..

You are shown TWO CORROBORATING EXAMPLES OF HARD DATA that REFUTE the Myth and you just close your eyes, hold your nose, and plug your ears as you dont WANT to know the truth..

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

http://www.smithsoni...cker-115306469/



We have an old expression here in the states..

"Ignorance is bliss"


Yeah we have that expression here as well.

Why don't you dispense with the empty rhetoric for once and explain in your own words how red blood cells are a valid dating method, and why multiple radiometric dating methods are inferior to your red blood cell method. You can also explain why we frequently date bones (mammoth, bison etc.) that produce infinite dates (which means C14 below detection limits of the AMS machine).

 

 

Which radiometric dating methods are good and within what age spans. We had a discussion on this in the beginning of this year, and as far as I could tell you really did not know that much about radiometric dating methods. Have that changed?

 

 

Most of the rock methods have bounds that range from ~100,000 years to several billion years due to the long half-lives of the parent isotopes; carbon dating on organic tissue ranges from ~ 100 years to maybe 70,000 years (I believe) due to the relatively short half-life of the parent isotope, C-14.  I've read that more modern and sensitive equipment may extend these bounds to some degree....



#200 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 14 September 2017 - 02:14 PM

To quantify evolution whether it be micro or macro, you need to look at populations and not at individuals.  What I mean, Mike, is that say you consider Trait X in Species Y.  If the mean and variance of Trait X changes over time, that's evolution (micro or macro depending on the degree of change)...

i disagree.
true evolution is the crossing of animal phyla, where one phyla actually descends from another different phyla.
science has no evidence of this in the fossil record.
there is indirect evidence in the fact that DNA is comnmon to all life.

A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is
unlikely to be feasible in principle.
- Koonin and Wolf Biology Direct 2010, 5:64
http://www.biology-d.../content/5/1/64

about your "population genetics analysis":
The more genetic research has gone forward, the
more genomes are seen to “respond in a flexible manner to signals
from a massive regulatory architecture that is ,increasingly, the
real focus of research in ‘genetics’” (Griffiths and Stotz, 2013: 2;
see also Barnes and Dupré, 2008; Dupré, 2012).
As Michael Meaney (2001a: 52,58)wrote more than a decade
ago: “There are no genetic factors that can be studied indepen-
dently of the environment, and there are no environmental factors
that function independently of the genome: :: . At no point in
life is the operation of the genome independent of the context in
which it functions.”Moreover,“environmental events occurring
at a later stage of development : :: can alter a developmental
trajectory” making meaningless any linear regression studies of
nature and nurture. Genes are always “genes in context”,“context-
dependent catalysts of cellular changes, rather “controllers” of
developmental progress anddirection”
- doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00309




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 1 anonymous users