Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,626 Year: 4,883/9,624 Month: 231/427 Week: 41/103 Day: 10/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 884 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 196 of 286 (656927)
03-23-2012 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Percy
03-23-2012 8:00 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Percy writes:
Whether the elderly regenerate teeth or how long people can live was not your original point.
No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans.
My point was that the evidence that RAZD provided was unacceptable. If he has some real evidence perhaps he could share it with us. Perhaps he would like to start by giving us the full range of variation amongst the present human population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 03-23-2012 8:00 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Wounded King, posted 03-23-2012 9:00 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2012 10:44 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 199 by Taq, posted 03-23-2012 11:45 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 200 by Coyote, posted 03-23-2012 12:48 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 201 by Meddle, posted 03-23-2012 1:02 PM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 207 by frako, posted 03-24-2012 11:43 AM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 227 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2012 12:55 AM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 197 of 286 (656928)
03-23-2012 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Big_Al35
03-23-2012 8:50 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
My point was that the evidence that RAZD provided was unacceptable.
You haven't given any coherent rationale why this should be so. I understand that you personally refuse to accept it but you haven't really provided any reason why well characterised fossils which have been studied by professional paleontologists and are part of the Smithsonian collection should be discounted as not being 'real' evidence. for a good overview of the sort of criteria that are used to identify new fossil hominin species have a look at "The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades" (Wood and Lonergan, 2008)
Presumably you would accept that some of those skulls fall outside the range of modern human variation. And RAZD's entire point is that there is a gradual cline of morphological features so we would expect a number of the non modern Homo skulls to also fall within that range of variation for some features.
So what do you consider would constitute 'real' evidence? Which skulls do you think should be entirely outside the range of human variation?
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : Added Wood and Lonergan paper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Big_Al35, posted 03-23-2012 8:50 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 198 of 286 (656931)
03-23-2012 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Big_Al35
03-23-2012 8:50 AM


really?
Hi again Big_Al35,
No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans.
Curiously that is not at all what you said. If you had started with this comment then we wouldn't have had the rather silly, imho, discussion about extra teeth, and your amusing assertion that it only occurred in old people.
So you now admit that supernumerary teeth are not evidence of any belief you happen to have regarding people. Good. Now you waffle on to another point.
No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans.
So you are now saying that ALL the skulls in the picture repeated below are for modern humans?
Message 162: A much better picture is this one:
quote:
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Put that together with full (or as full as possible) skeletons for Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalis, Homo erectus (Turkana boy), Australopithicus afarensis (Lucy) and Ardipithicus ramidus (ardi), and you have a much better picture.
And you also agree that all the skeletons shown in that post are also for modern humans?
Here are Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon (sapiens) and Turkana boy adjust to be the same height:
Most everybody is familiar with "Lucy" but here is how she appears as a standing skeleton (completed with mirrored elements or parts from other Australopithicus afarensis fossils):
Here is ardi drawn as a full skeleton:
Because these also "fall well within the range of modern humans" yes?
Is this the skeleton of a modern human?
quote:
http://www.boneroom.com/casts/bcloneprimate.html

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Big_Al35, posted 03-23-2012 8:50 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 199 of 286 (656939)
03-23-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Big_Al35
03-23-2012 8:50 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans.
You are definitely going to need evidence to back up this assertion.
My point was that the evidence that RAZD provided was unacceptable.
Then you need to supply something to back up this claim. As far as I can tell, fossils with a mixture of modern human and primitive ape characteristics is exactly the kind of evidence we should see if evolution is true. If you are looking for a different type of evidence then please tell us what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Big_Al35, posted 03-23-2012 8:50 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 200 of 286 (656944)
03-23-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Big_Al35
03-23-2012 8:50 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans.
While single dimensions from fossils usually fall within the range of modern humans, that means nothing. Skulls and bones are three-dimensional shapes, and single dimensions simply can't describe their complex shapes.
For that you need multivariate statistics, and that's what the professionals use. I started using those statistics in the mid-70s in graduate school, and successfully differentiated among several closely related Native American groups.
Here are a few random article titles from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that include multiple discriminant function analysis:
--The Maka femur and its bearing on the antiquity of human walking: Applying contemporary concepts of morphogenesis to the human fossil record
--Discriminant function analysis of the central portion of the innominate
--Morphological and taxonomic affinities of the Olduvai ulna (OH 36)
--Is Central Asia the eastern outpost of the Neandertal range? A reassessment of the Teshik-Tash child
--Cranial shape in fruit, nectar, and exudate feeders: Implications for interpreting the fossil record
My point was that the evidence that RAZD provided was unacceptable. If he has some real evidence perhaps he could share it with us. Perhaps he would like to start by giving us the full range of variation amongst the present human population.
Here is more evidence that you could ever want. This is the online link to the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. (It is one of many hundred such journals.)
Just a moment...
You can examine the titles and abstracts of all issues to get an idea of what is really going on in the evolution field.
So don't tell us we have no evidence!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Big_Al35, posted 03-23-2012 8:50 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1354 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(2)
Message 201 of 286 (656945)
03-23-2012 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Big_Al35
03-23-2012 8:50 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Perhaps he would like to start by giving us the full range of variation amongst the present human population.
I'm no RAZD, but how about looking at the range of variation in cranial capacity as an example?
The image below plots the cranial capacity of all fossil Hominins and compares them to the range of variation in cranial capacity of modern humans, as shown on the far left. Also shown is variation in cranial capacity of modern Chimpanzees, and as you can see the further back you go the cranial capacity of these fossils tend towards the range seen in chimps.
Source including references

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Big_Al35, posted 03-23-2012 8:50 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 8:12 AM Meddle has not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 884 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 202 of 286 (656979)
03-24-2012 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Meddle
03-23-2012 1:02 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Malcolm writes:
I'm no RAZD, but how about looking at the range of variation in cranial capacity as an example?
When your data refers to Cro Magnon or Homo Sapiens Sapiens,
It is not clear if this data includes the following groups;
Cranial capacity for: northern and southern europeans, tribes of africa including masai, zulu, pygmy etc, northern and southern indians, chinese, japanese, phillipeno, thai, native northern and southern americans. Maybe we should assess the variance in cranial capacity for modern races today?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Meddle, posted 03-23-2012 1:02 PM Meddle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2012 8:49 AM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 03-24-2012 8:57 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 203 of 286 (656981)
03-24-2012 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 8:12 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Hi again Big_Al35,
When your data refers to Cro Magnon or Homo Sapiens Sapiens,
It is not clear if this data includes the following groups; ...
... Maybe we should assess the variance in cranial capacity for modern races today?
You mean not all of them are Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Would you like to point out which ones are not included?
Meanwhile there are some other questions you have not answered:
Message 198:
No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans.
So you are now saying that ALL the skulls in the picture repeated below are for modern humans?
Message 162: A much better picture is this one:
quote:
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Put that together with full (or as full as possible) skeletons for Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalis, Homo erectus (Turkana boy), Australopithicus afarensis (Lucy) and Ardipithicus ramidus (ardi), and you have a much better picture.
And you also agree that all the skeletons shown in that post are also for modern humans?
Here are Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon (sapiens) and Turkana boy adjust to be the same height:
Most everybody is familiar with "Lucy" but here is how she appears as a standing skeleton (completed with mirrored elements or parts from other Australopithicus afarensis fossils):
Here is ardi drawn as a full skeleton:
Because these also "fall well within the range of modern humans" yes?
Is this the skeleton of a modern human?
quote:
http://www.boneroom.com/casts/bcloneprimate.html

If they are not all modern humans then where do you draw the line?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 8:12 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 10:55 AM RAZD has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 204 of 286 (656982)
03-24-2012 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 8:12 AM


Cranial Capacity Data
Hi Big Al,
This is from the Wikipedia article on Cranial Capacity:
Examples of early hominids:

Taxon Size (cc) Number of specimens Age (megannum)
Australopithecus afarensis 438 4 3.6—2.9
Australopithecus africanus 452 7 3.0—2.4
Paranthropus boisei 521 1 2.3—1.4
Paranthropus robustus 530 1 1.9—1.4
Homo habilis 612 6 1.9—1.6
Homo rudolfensis 700 1 2.4—1.6
Homo ergaster 871 3 1.9—1.7
It provides these ranges for existing species:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 8:12 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 884 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 205 of 286 (656987)
03-24-2012 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by RAZD
03-24-2012 8:49 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
RAZD writes:
You mean not all of them are Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Would you like to point out which ones are not included?
I never said that. I asked you for the average cranial capacities of the peoples identified. A simple question. Why avoid it with claims of discrimination?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2012 8:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 03-24-2012 11:31 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2012 8:39 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2012 9:05 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 206 of 286 (656989)
03-24-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 10:55 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Big_Al35 writes:
I never said that. I asked you for the average cranial capacities of the peoples identified. A simple question. Why avoid it with claims of discrimination?
I think the point everyone is making is that you're not addressing any information provided to you. All you do is ask for more information. That's why RAZD keeps repeating his question.
You haven't explicitly stated your position, but your questions make clear that you believe hominid fossils all fit within the range of modern human variation. Clearly this cannot be true, e.g., this image of an Australopithicus africanus skull:
This skull is clearly outside the range of modern human variation, so RAZD is asking where you draw the line.
Also, cranial capacity information has now been presented to you. Are you going to discuss the data, or will you just continue asking more questions?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 10:55 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 389 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 207 of 286 (656990)
03-24-2012 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Big_Al35
03-23-2012 8:50 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans.
My point was that the evidence that RAZD provided was unacceptable. If he has some real evidence perhaps he could share it with us. Perhaps he would like to start by giving us the full range of variation amongst the present human population.
White mans skull
Black mans skull
Asian man skull
Homo erectus Skull
Yea its just normal variation you can plainly see rofl

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Click if you dare!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Big_Al35, posted 03-23-2012 8:50 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 1:18 PM frako has replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 884 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 208 of 286 (656997)
03-24-2012 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by frako
03-24-2012 11:43 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Look at the erectus skull provided by RAZD and yours frako they are completely different. One of you must be wrong.
Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by frako, posted 03-24-2012 11:43 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by frako, posted 03-24-2012 1:38 PM Big_Al35 has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 389 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 209 of 286 (656998)
03-24-2012 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 1:18 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
U sure? What post?
A noter H erectus for you
So what do you think does this account for you variation within kinds theory?
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Click if you dare!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 1:18 PM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:01 PM frako has replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 884 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 210 of 286 (656999)
03-24-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by frako
03-24-2012 1:38 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
frako writes:
U sure? What post?
Here is one for you. As you can see homo erectus looks nothing like your image.
Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by frako, posted 03-24-2012 1:38 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by frako, posted 03-24-2012 2:25 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 212 by Wounded King, posted 03-24-2012 2:47 PM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 213 by Percy, posted 03-24-2012 2:52 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 219 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2012 3:36 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 221 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2012 3:52 PM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024