Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

quote:

---

Originally posted by dents:
it appears that the turkana boy is a transitional form between ape-like common ancestor and modern human ... what is the creationist opinion about this fossil?

​

(should it be a human, why looking so ape-like? should it be a kind of ape, what about its human measures?)

---

I guess there are no creationists interested, so I'll bump it for you. Besides, I'd like to know too.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE][B]
I've seen this topic on MBs before that went no where because the two sides did not agree upon what constitutes a 'transitional form'.
So allow me to pre-emptively state that 'transitional forms' ARE NOT:
partially formed organisms ( one wing & one reptilian claw of a reptile halfway to becoming a bird ). Evidence of such would actually weigh against the ToE.[/QUOTE][/B]sO for real; Jeff, I saw in Mann Libe a an outline reconstructed from some fossil that looked like<---------((()))----------0 with legs and for the herpetologist such as I am I only THOUGHT (within a transition defintion or not) of a turtle+snake. This only weighed aganst my knoweldge of herpetology not evolution. Did you get my point are you only running after the bunny inside?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
sO for real; Jeff, I saw in Mann Libe a an outline reconstructed from some fossil that looked like<---------((()))----------0 with legs and for the herpetologist such as I am I only THOUGHT (within a transition defintion or not) of a turtle+snake. This only weighed aganst my knoweldge of herpetology not evolution. Did you get my point are you only running after the bunny inside?

---

Brad,Is it possible to reference some photo of this specimen online ?
Sounds interesting.regards,------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

Regarding Turkana boy which is a Homo Erectus, the upright skeleton structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. Concerning it, American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human."(Boyce Rensberger, The Washington Post, November 19, 1984)Even evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:"One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time."(Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, London: Sphere Books, 1981, p. 62)The fact that Homo erectus is a superfluous classification, and that fossils assigned to the Homo erectus class are actually not so different to Homo sapiens as to be considered a different species has recently been heard more often in the scientific community. American Scientist magazine summarized the discussions over this issue, and a conference was held on this subject in 2000:Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo Sapiens, with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus didn't exist.(Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi", American Scientist, November- December 2000, p. 491.)Saying "Homo erectus didn't exist" means "Homo erectus is not a different species from Homo sapiens, but a species within Homo sapiens."There is, on the other hand, a huge gap between Homo erectus, a human race, and apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario, (Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo rudolfensis). This means that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and right away without any evolutionary history. There can be no clearer indication of their being created.Regards,
Ahmad

Been there, done that.http://liquid2k.com/traduza/humevol5.htmEven if you think that Homo erectus/ergaster should have been classified as modern Homo sapiens, some of their features still fall outside the modern human range. True, from the neck down H. erectus resembles H. sapiens, but their brains are relatively too small to resemble modern humans.Relative brain size among various hominids:
The dispute over Homo erectus' status as valid species is because paleoanthropologists lump too much fossils into erectus. Personally I think that H. erectus should be split into at least 3 or 4 species (the classic erectus of Java and China, the Georgian erectus, and maybe two species for Africa). Maybe you should do a little looking at the fossils yourself before cutting and pasting from Harunyahya.com.Here:http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2%20.htm
Creationist Arguments: Homo erectus

Differences in cranial capacity does not prove anything. It is a fact that there are modern humans with small brains who are nevertheless of normal intelligence and of full humanity.Evolutionists are also belatedly recognizing the limitations of neuro-anatomical features, although from a different angle:"The Cerebral Rubicon is problematic, because absolute cranial capacity is of questionable biological significance." (Martin, R.D., Human Brain Evolution in an Ecological Context, American Museum of Natural History, New York, 1983.)Likewise there is [/b]"compelling evidence that language function cannot be reliably inferred from the gross appearance of the brain, and that the language-related parts of the brain are not as well localized as earlier studies had implied."[/b] (Galaburda, A.M. and Pandya, D.N., In Primate Brain Evolution, Armstrong, E. and Falk, D., eds., Plenum, New York, pp. 203—216; Gannon, P.J., et al., Asymmetry of chimpanzee planum temporale: humanlike pattern of Wernicke’s brain language area homolog, Science 279(5348):220—222, 1998.)Regarding cranial capacity of Turkana Boy, "As most of the adult cranial capacity is reached by age 10 or 11, it is likely that the adult ECV (EndoCranial Volume) of WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) would be no more than about l000-1050cc, which is still well within the modern human range of about 800- 2000cc."(Jue, D. S., 1990. Cranial capacity and endocranial casts. EN Tech. J., 4:56-65.)"The resemblances between WT 15000 and the two controversial Asian erectus forms are clear and decisive. The Turkana Boy possessed the same heavy supraorbital ridges, the same type of receding forehead, and other cranial features as Java and Peking. With an estimated age of about 11 years old at death, and a cranial capacity (EndoCranial Volume) of about 900cc, WT 15000 is plainly a human being - even in the post-cranial features. Radiodated at about 1.6 mya (million years ago), this lad stood and walked as fully erect as do humans today."(Leakey, R. and Lewin, R., 1992. Origins Reconsidered, Abacus Books, London, pp. 58-64.)Salam,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Differences in cranial capacity does not prove anything. It is a fact that there are modern humans with small brains who are nevertheless of normal intelligence and of full humanity.

---

If you would actually read my post above, you will see that I already covered that. But let's see it again:http://liquid2k.com/traduza/humevol4.htmHarun Yahya said that Pygmies and Homo erectus had the same brain size. Astonishingly, the small-brained Pygmy (estimated brain size from Harun Yahya (2001: 96, quote: 'The primary reason for evolutionists in defining Homo erectus as "primitive", is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1100 cc)However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (for instance the pygmies)'), body mass data (30kg) from McHenry & Berger 1998) is even brainier (30cc/kg) than the average modern human (25cc/kg)!Members of the African pygmy tribe, with brains smaller than Turkana Boy's, do have normal intelligence and full humanity. Because they are on average brainier than me (a Malay) or you (presumably an Arab). In contrast, Turkana Boy, had he lived to adulthood, he'd make a great NBA player but I wouldn't rely on his wits. His brain is small but his body is large, and what directly matters is brain size vs body size, not absolute brain size. Brain size by itself is nothing. An elephant has a brain four times larger than ours but I can safely assume that we are still smarter (no offence to local hairy proboscideans of course ) Your (Harun Yahya) quote of R.D. Martin is correct.Anyway, of course that Turkana Boy is a human being. So are the Neanderthals and the australopiths. The definition of humans, physically, is an upright stance, free hands, broad pelvis, and small canine teeth.[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 11-18-2002]

quote:

---

Harun Yahya said that Pygmies and Homo erectus had the same brain size. Astonishingly, the small-brained Pygmy (estimated brain size from Harun Yahya (2001: 96, quote: 'The primary reason for evolutionists in defining Homo erectus as "primitive", is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1100 cc)However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (for instance the pygmies)'), body mass data (30kg) from McHenry & Berger 1998) is even brainier (30cc/kg) than the average modern human (25cc/kg)!

---

I don't recall mentioning anything about the pygmies. And besides brother Harun Yahya is right.In his book Man and his Ancestors, Beasley cites Broderick who reported a measurement as low as 830cc for a modern Wedda pygmy in Sri Lanka (page 84). Now the Wedda pygmies are human beings, aren't they? Keep in mind that the modern human cranial range is within 800- 2000cc as I pointed out earlier. Both Homo Erectus (turkana boy) and the Wedda pygmies come within this range to be qualified as HUMANS.

quote:

---

Members of the African pygmy tribe, with brains smaller than Turkana Boy's, do have normal intelligence and full humanity. Because they are on average brainier than me (a Malay) or you (presumably an Arab). In contrast, Turkana Boy, had he lived to adulthood, he'd make a great NBA player but I wouldn't rely on his wits. His brain is small but his body is large, and what directly matters is brain size vs body size, not absolute brain size. Brain size by itself is nothing. An elephant has a brain four times larger than ours but I can safely assume that we are still smarter (no offence to local hairy proboscideans of course ) Your (Harun Yahya) quote of R.D. Martin is correct.

---

So what exactly is your argument? Irregular body and cranial size? There are many who have this irregularity but what does that prove? I agree with you that Turkana Boy was close to adulthood. And where in brother Harun Yahya's website does he quote R.D Martin?

quote:

---

Anyway, of course that Turkana Boy is a human being. So are the Neanderthals and the australopiths. The definition of humans, physically, is an upright stance, free hands, broad pelvis, and small canine teeth.

---

Oh so you do admit that Turkana Boy was a human being? I thought you were holding on to the contrary.I agree that Neanderthals were human beings but surely not Australopithecus (AUST). AUST is neither a human being nor a transitional form. AUST is quadripedal ape! Its a fact. Even recent fossil records of AUST proves this:http://www.exn.ca/Templates/Story.cfm?ID=2000032251Did Lucy walk on her knuckles?Excerpt: Richmond's team examined the wrist bones of two Australopithecus species: anamensis and afarensis. They found that the wrist joints of these ancestors were stable and resembled the wrist joints of modern chimpanzees and gorillas, the only living mammals that walk on their knuckles.This contradicts what you said on your website:http://liquid2k.com/traduza/humevol3.htmExcerpt: Can we at least give some sympathy to Harun Yahya? At least he was correct in saying that australopiths were extinct apes. They are, after all, extinct now. But they were not 'typical' apes like the chimpanzee or gorilla of today; they are bipedal, and their spatial and temporal context put them right on the road to humanity.Also see:http://abcnews.go.com/...ce/DailyNews/knucklewalk000322.htmlBrian G. Richmond and David S. Strait, Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776), 23rd March, 2000.Looks like brother Harun Yahya beat you again..... Regards,
Ahmad

Pathetic, Ahmad. You didn't read the article you cite at all!The new study, however, debunks that theory. Richmond's team examined the wrist bones of two Australopithecus species: anamensis and afarensis. They found that the wrist joints of these ancestors were stable and resembled the wrist joints of modern chimpanzees and gorillas, the only living mammals that walk on their knuckles.

​

While they had wrist joints that would have been ideal for knuckle walking, these species, however, walked upright. Some of the best evidence for this came from the famous fossil named Lucy. She had relatively long lower legs compared to chimps, a big toe that did not stick out such as it does in chimps, and she had a curvature in her spine that strongly suggests she walked upright. So the knuckle-walking-type wrist joints were left over from an early ancestor, one that came down from the trees and was adapted to walking on the ground like modern-day chimpanzees.
The second article says exactly the same thing. Lucy was BIPEDAL but retained knuckle walking features from her ancestry. So do we, I understand.You're going to have to do better than that. Like read and find out whether the articles you are citing actually say what you want them to say.

Ahmad, I think we cleared brain-size problem. You don't seem to be interested in the details as much as you want to state that Homo erectus is a human being. So I'll leave the problem.Now, the australopith problem. Given the fact that they are upright and they keep their heads atop their spine, not hanging from it like chimps' heads, their short pelvis, and their human-like foot, is it plausible that they are quadrupedal? Check my website and look at Lucy's skeleton, the best evidence we currently have on how the australopith body form.I cited a study by Crompton et al. (1998) there. The abstract:J Hum Evol 1998 ;35(1):55--74
The mechanical effectiveness of erect and "bent-hip, bent-knee" bipedal walking in Australopithecus afarensis.Crompton RH, Yu L, Weijie W, Gunther M, Savage R.Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Liverpool. rhcromp@liv.ac.ukIt is universally accepted that the postcranial skeleton of the early hominid Australopithecus afarensis shows adaptations, or at least exaptations, towards bipedalism. However, there continues to be a debate concerning the likely form of terrestrial bipedality: whether gait was erect, like our own, or "bent-hip, bent-knee" like the bipedalism of living chimpanzees. In this study we use predictive dynamic modelling to assess the mechanical effectiveness of AL-288-1 under both hypotheses, on the basis of data on segment proportions from the literature. AL-288-1's proportions are incompatible with the kinematics of chimpanzee bipedalism, but compatible with the kinematics of either erect or "bent-hip, bent-knee" human gait. In the latter case, neither the ankle nor the knee joint would have contributed substantial mechanical work to propulsion of the body, and net energy absorption is predicted for these joints, which would have resulted in increased heat load. Such an ineffective gait is unlikely to have lead to selection for "bipedal" features in the postcranial skeleton.PMID: 9680467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Crompton & co. had shown that AL 288-1, aka Lucy, might not walk like chimps, but more like humans.Anyway, Karl's right, you should read the full Richmond & Strait article. You should also read the title (Evidence that humans evolved from knuckle-walking ancestors).And for the R.D. Martin quote, sorry. My mistake. I was assuming that you only get your material from Harun Yahya, but it seems that you found it somewhere else. Mea culpa.

quote:

---

The second article says exactly the same thing. Lucy was BIPEDAL but retained knuckle walking features from her ancestry. So do we, I understand.

---

I don't recall mentioning anything about the quadripedality of Lucy but australopithecines(AUST). So did australopithecines like Lucy walk upright? Careful study of the skeletal anatomy of australopithecine fossils indicates a stooped gait, probably similar to the ‘rolling’ knuckle-walk of chimps. Doesn't sound [/i]humane[/i] to me

quote:

---

You're going to have to do better than that. Like read and find out whether the articles you are citing actually say what you want them to say.

---

I do know the contents of the article I cite. Even though the sites maintain their evolutionary heritage, they prove my point. It's a sort of a paradox. They admit that Lucy had knuckle-walking characteristics but deny she walked on her knuckle. They say that these characteristics were passed down from lucy's knuckle-walking ancestors. But ,as usual, they don't have any evidence for that. Johanson, an evolutionist, too didn't have any evidence to show that Lucy was bipedal. Same goes for AUST.Regards,
Ahmad

Erm - are you confused? You seem to be dividing Lucy from other Australopithecines. Lucy was an Australopithecine.A quick search on Google reveals the reasons Australopithecines, including Lucy, are considered to be bipedal. I'm not a hominid evolution expert, so I'd rather leave it to those who are.

[QUOTE][B]). So did australopithecines like Lucy walk upright? Careful study of the skeletal anatomy of australopithecine fossils indicates a stooped gait, probably similar to the ‘rolling’ knuckle-walk of chimps. Doesn't sound humane to me[/QUOTE][/B]Web sites I've checked indicate that Australopithecines have foramen magnums in the base of the skull. This means that they would have had to walk upright in order to look forward (knuckle-walker FM's are in the rear of the skull). If the creature were to crawl on its knuckles it would have been very awkward because it would have had to stare at the ground all of the time.http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aafricanus.html

quote:

---

I don't recall mentioning anything about the quadripedality of Lucy but australopithecines(AUST). So did australopithecines like Lucy walk upright? Careful study of the skeletal anatomy of australopithecine fossils indicates a stooped gait, probably similar to the ‘rolling’ knuckle-walk of chimps. Doesn't sound humane to me.

---

1. Lucy is an Australopithecus afarensis, an AUST if you wish.2. 'Stooped gait'? You mean stooped posture? Cite please. Or check this out.

Left to right: Bruce Latimer's reconstruction of Australopithecus vertebral column, silhouette of human skeleton, silhouette of chimpanzee skeleton. Photograph by K. Garrett, from Gore (1997, National Geograpic at http://liquid2k.com/traduza/humevol3.htm

quote:

---

They admit that Lucy had knuckle-walking characteristics but deny she walked on her knuckle. They say that these characteristics were passed down from lucy's knuckle-walking ancestors. But ,as usual, they don't have any evidence for that. Johanson, an evolutionist, too didn't have any evidence to show that Lucy was bipedal. Same goes for AUST.

---

3. Where did Johanson say that? Cite source please.[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 11-27-2002][Testing bug fix by repairing posts. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 11-28-2002]

quote:

---

Now, the australopith problem. Given the fact that they are upright and they keep their heads atop their spine, not hanging from it like chimps' heads, their short pelvis, and their human-like foot, is it plausible that they are quadrupedal?

---

Firstly, they are not upright. They walked like chimps of today because of their knuckle-walking characteristics. Secondly, multivariate analysis show that that the fossil australopithecine pelvis is not intermediate between the pelves of ape and Man but is in fact uniquely different from the pelves of both living forms (J.T. Robinson, Nature, Vol. 205, p. 121). And besides naturalist Alberto Angela who worked with Johanson at Hadar, wrote that the reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis was based on supposition.(The Extraordinary Story of Human Origins, p.62). Thirdly, multivariate analysis (done by Oxnard) also show that the big toe of the so-called the "human-like" foot actually sticks out as in chimpanzees. There is no evidence that their foot resembled the foot of humans.Furthermore, Brian Richmond & David Strait discovered that Lucy's distal radii (the ends of the arm bones nearest to the wrist) had traits analogous to ones found in chimpanzees and gorillas associated with knuckle-walking (as I indicated by the sites).Now you tell me: Does it make sense to say that Lucy (an australopith) had two separate ways of moving on the ground (bipedalism and knuckle-walking)??

quote:

---

Crompton & co. had shown that AL 288-1, aka Lucy, might not walk like chimps, but more like humans.

---

Crompton's essay is dated (1998). The latest discovery by Richmond and Strait blows away this myth (2000).

quote:

---

Anyway, Karl's right, you should read the full Richmond & Strait article. You should also read the title (Evidence that humans evolved from knuckle-walking ancestors).

---

I have read the article. No doubt Richmond and Strait are evolutionists. I cited them to lend credence to my point, i.e, Lucy was a knucke-walker, even though evolutionists might not acknowledge this.Regards,
Ahmad