The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans

It's one thing to look at charts of descent, it's another to look at the actual bones of actual fossils. Let's start with a short comparison to dog variations. Creationists like to point to dogs and say that they show plenty of variation without becoming a new species. Dog variation indeed shows how much phenotypes can vary within a species and still remain a species. Dog variation is achieved through artificial (man-made) selection, but it can show us what is possible in nature when we look at the evolution of species. We can use the variation observed in dogs as a metric for how much can occur within a species, and then look at the difference between species to see if that shows more or less variation than seen in dogs.If we look at the variation in skeletons between Humans and Chimps (note skeletons not scaled the same): Is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?If we add Gorillas to the mix (note skeletons not scaled the same): Is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?Now let's add a composite Australopithicus, based mostly on Lucy, but with parts added from other fossils, such as skull and feet (note skeletons not scaled the same): Is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?Lets look at the first three with size appropriate scaled skeletons: Again, is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?Let's compare human to Homo habilis and Australopithicus (note skeletons not scaled the same): Again, is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?And then we have Ardipiticus ramidus (Ardi), incomplete but we have enough to compare them to those above: A reconstruction is also available: Where the known bones are in place and the probable reconstruction is sketched in.Let's put Ardi in a line-up with Humans, Australopithicus and Chimps (note skeletons not scaled the same): Is the variation in traits seen in the bones between modern humans and Ardi more or less than the variation seen in dogs?Inquiring minds want to know.If the variation between species seen in the fossil record is less than that seen in dogs, then it is logical and reasonable that the younger species can have evolved from the older species, especially if found in close proximity within the spacial-temporal matrix.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.Edited by RAZD, : picEdited by Admin, : Rerender to make mobile friendly.

Thread copied here from the The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

As we go further back in time the story of the bones gets more difficult, as many things conspire against finding fossils. Forests are poor hunting grounds due to acidic soils eating the calcium away, small populations in small localized areas make it a needle and haystack enterprise, and sheer age means less ability to find specimens.What we can see however is this timeline for the fossils found to date:

quote:

---

Ardipithicus is a genus of an extinct hominine that lived during Late Miocene and Early Pliocene in Afar Depression, Ethiopia. Originally described as one of the earliest ancestors of humans after they diverged from the main ape lineage, the relation of this genus to human ancestors and whether it is a hominin is now a matter of debate.[1] Two fossil species are described in the literature: A. ramidus, which lived about 4.4 million years ago[2] during the early Pliocene, and A. kadabba, dated to approximately 5.6 million years ago (late Miocene).[3] Behavioral analysis showed that Ardipithicus could be very similar to chimpanzees, indicating that the early human ancestors were very chimpanzee-like in behaviour.[1]

---

We also saw in Message 1 (bottom) that the pelvic structure for Ardipithicus was intermediate between chimps (Pan troglodytes) and Australopithicus (just as Australopithicus was intermediate between Ardipithicus and modern humans), and in fact one could see chimps would also have ancestors closer to our common ancestor, and that they could be more similar to Ardipithicus.Certainly the variation between Ardipithicus and modern chimps (Pan troglodytes) is less than is seen in modern dog varieties.So it would be possible for Ardipithicus to be a common ancestor with chimps, except that we have a better candidate with

quote:

---

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is an extinct homininae species (and is probably the ancestor to Orrorin) that is dated to about 7 million years ago, during the Miocene epoch, possibly very close to the time of the chimpanzee—human divergence. Few specimens are known, other than the partial skull nicknamed Touma ("hope of life").

​

Existing fossils include a relatively small cranium named Touma ("hope of life" in the local Daza language of Chad in central Africa), five pieces of jaw, and some teeth, making up a head that has a mixture of derived and primitive features. The braincase, being only 320 cm to 380 cm in volume, is similar to that of extant chimpanzees and is notably less than the approximate human volume of 1350 cm.[citation needed]

​

The teeth, brow ridges, and facial structure differ markedly from those found in Homo sapiens. Cranial features show a flatter face, u-shaped dental arcade, small canines, an anterior foramen magnum, and heavy brow ridges. No postcranial remains have been recovered. The only known skull suffered a large amount of distortion during the time of fossilisation and discovery, as the cranium is dorsoventrally flattened, and the right side is depressed.[1]

​

Sahelanthropus tchadensis may have walked on two legs.[2] However, because no postcranial remains (i.e., bones below the skull) have been discovered, it is not known definitively whether Sahelanthropus was indeed bipedal, although claims for an anteriorly placed foramen magnum suggests that this may have been the case. Upon examination of the foramen magnum in the primary study, the lead author speculated that a bipedal gait "would not be unreasonable" based on basicranial morphology similar to more recent hominins.[1] Some palaeontologists have disputed this interpretation, stating that the basicranium, as well as dentition and facial features, do not represent adaptations unique to the hominin clade, nor indicative of bipedalism;[3] and stating that canine wear is similar to other Miocene apes.[1] Further, according to recent information, what might be a femur of a hominid was also discovered near the craniumbut which has not been published nor accounted for.[4]

---

Note that the "time of the chimpanzee—human divergence" is based on genetic analysis, and thus subject to a degree of skepticism, but a good ball-park estimate.This is certainly well within the spacial-temporal matrix constraint for evolution to have evolved either or both branches of this part of the hominid tree.Older fossils (Ouranopithecus and Nakalipithecus) are problematic.

quote:

---

Ouranopithecus is an extinct genus of Eurasian great ape represented by two species, Ouranopithecus macedoniensis, a late Miocene (9.6—8.7 mya) hominoid from Greece and Bulgaria,[1][2] and Ouranopithecus turkae, also from the late Miocene (8.7—7.4 mya) of Turkey.[3]

---

Those locations make it difficult to fit the spacial-temporal matrix, imho, so it could be an ape, but not in our lineage.

quote:

---

Nakalipithecus nakayamai is a prehistoric great ape species that lived in today's Kenya region early in the Late Miocene, 10 million years ago (mya).[1][2] It is the type species of the new genus Nakalipithecus. This ape was described from a fossil jawbone and eleven isolated teeth excavated in 2007 by a team of Japanese and Kenyan researchers in mud flow deposits in the Nakali region of northern Kenya's Rift Valley Province,[1][2] giving the genus its scientific name which means "Nakali ape". Fossil remains of several other primate species were also present at the dig site.[3]

​

The evolutionary importance of Nakalipithecus is twofold: first, together with Ouranopithecus it provides evidence that the Homininae lineages of today diverged no earlier than some 8 million years ago. Second, it supports the theory that the closest relatives of humans evolved in Africa. The competing viewthat modern-type Great Apes went extinct in Africa and that the Homininae were originally an Asian lineage which only later recolonized Africais hard to reconcile with the early Late Miocene presence of a basal hominine in Africa.[4]

---

So Nakalipithecus is considered too old to be the common ancestor with chimps, while it is in the proper spacial-temporal location to be ancestral to the common ancestor.Based on this evidence, my money is on Sahelanthropus tchadensis (or something very similar) being the common ancestor for chimps and humans.This fits the spacial-temporal matrix and the dog variation parameter for rational and logical conclusions, however the conclusion remains tentative, as new information/evidence can change things.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

How many times do I have to tell you desperate evolutionists, inbreeding of dogs is not evolution nor proof of evolution.Its such a lie, either you are so desperate for some kind of proof, that you post and repost this lie. Either you do it intentionally for deceit or unintentionally because you dont know genetics or science.Either way its a lie.All dogs are still dogs, they are still the same KIND, and no system changes.Color size, inbreed qualities, and inbreed defiencies and weaknesses remain within the breed. Breeds are still dogs, manipulated in breed dogs by humans, is not a proof of evolution.How stupid to post such a diagram.... how desperate.INBREEDING is not evolution.... color change is not evolution,There are no flow charts in evolution, no transition species, its all a con....Look again at the diagram, look at their desperation in trying to find some evidence for their theory. Ridiculous and a total con and LIE.

So, any creationists want to chip in with something that isn't hysterical halfwitted nonsense?

Evolutionists are inadequate mentally and can only respond with a dumb uneducated attempt at mockery, as they have no answers, and must try to back up their preachers inbreeding graph...Genetic students in first year biology absolutely know that inbreeding is not a proof of evolution. It is isolating, for breeding purposes to bring out a specific trait. It usually makes the dog breed weaker in some ways, and less healthy.Mutes or cross breeding or mixed breeding as in a healthy human racial loving society brings out the best in humanity both mentally spiritually and physically.Evolutionists inbreed too much in their congregations and in their forced indocrinations to their children....

Says the person whining about not being treated with respect.Curiously all the dog variation is used for, is an example of how much variation is possible within a species, so this rant is complaining about a non-existent part of my argument. Furthermore calling things like this "lies" without substantiating the claim with objective empirical evidence is just indulging in rabid opinion. Sadly opinion has been shown to have an extremely poor record at affecting reality in any way.What all those dog variations show is the power of selection for traits, and how much selection controls what results. Denial is not an argument, it's just evidence of a person's failure to cope with reality, whether due to cognitive dissonance or willful ignorance or just plain pretentious lying.Sadly, for you, every fossil is a transitional fossil -- the transition from the breeding population that precedes it to the population that follows. Just like you are a transitional individual between your parents and your offspring. Again, what the diagram in question shows is the age for the fossils, it is not intended as anything else:

quote:

---

What we can see however is this timeline for the fossils found to date:

​

---

These ages are facts, the fossils are facts, their locations in Africa are also facts. These facts paint a picture within the spacial-temporal matrix that is the natural history of life on earth, a picture that is explained by the theory of evolution, and as such they are tests for the theory. No theories are proven, in any field of science. At best they are validated through passing tests, at worst they are invalidated by failing tests. The Theory of Evolution has not yet been invalidated in over 150 years of testing, and it has passed massive numbers of validation tests with flying colors.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Raz says through his posted graph that humans came from
( EvC Forum: Information... Message 328 )Humans came from Homininae, which came from Hominidae which evolved from Hominoidae which evolved from Hominoidea....I win, evolutionist is such a lie and so bogus, to be almsot laughable if it wasnt taken so seriously by the evolutionists.Its just semantics brethren and non brethren, just word manipulation and spelling...Read it again and marvel, that evolutionists actually believe our ancestors followed this spelling lineage......Humans ancestor was Homininae, which came from Hominidae which evolved from Hominoidae which evolved from Hominoidea....More concisely put in a flow chart for clarityHuman-Homininae-Hominidae-Hominoidae-Hominoidea....There it is BREAKING NEWS, we humans evolved from Hominoidea's 20 million years ago..... our ancestors are hominoidea's..I say our ancestors were humans, the same as us.Evolutionists say different, you choose your ancestor, and see if spelling is the defining factor or whether truth and science and common sense prevails.

You've posted exactly the same thing on four threads (so far anyway), which is spamming and a troll trait.Which thread do you want the answer on:This one (The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans Message 8)
or
A good summary of so called human evolution. Message 127
or
Evolution is a racist doctrine Message 347
or
Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' Message 228or do you want me to pick?Inquiring minds want to know.EnjoyUpdate - See A good summary of so called human evolution. Message 131 for replyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : abeEdited by RAZD, : update

Hi Davidjay,You just posted an identical message to three different threads:

• Message 8
  
• Message 127
  
• Message 347

You're being suspended for one week for trollish behavior.

actually 4 threads, see Message 228
make that 5 threads, Message 109Edited by RAZD, : .

Please prove that dog breeds is a proof of evolution. Please show which breed is not a dog ..As mentioned, and as any low level genetic student knows..... inbreeding does not make cats out of dogs, and dogs remain dogs as in the deceptive diagram that started this thread.Its a deception, an untruth or if you like a LIE.All the breeds of dogs depicted in the artists work, are still dogs. They have not evolved into a new species or KIND. They are inbreed dogs who their handlers have selected to inbreed with one another so that certain qualities can come out, but they remain dogs... just a new breed....a weakened breed but a new breed.Come on face it, be real scientists, be honest..... inbreeding is not a proof of evolution.Cotcha again.... in a L**.I hate to use that word as the evolutionists use it way too much, but in this case, its needs to be stated.Inbreeding is not a sign of evolution and not a proof of evolution.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

Which nobody said ... Which nobody said otherwise ... Which nobody said otherwise ... Which nobody said ... And curiously, nobody said it was.You are debating something you made up, not what anyone actually said. Like Don Quixote jousting with windmills, while everyone laughs.Sad

My favourite metaphor

Razz, just delete your dog graphics and change your wording so as not to deceive READERS who would think that dog inbreeding is a proof of evolution. You cant magically mystically make such an outrageous claim using inbreeding as your basis. Thats unscientific and bogus. Prove it...All the dogs remain dogs, and yet you claim that humans came from apes, and then according to your dog analogy, means that apes and us are the same.Ridiculous and DESPERATE...Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.