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

Originally posted by Peter:
Sorry, just re-read this ... are you looking for
a transitional between, say, a reptile and a bird ?***Though I realize it has been forever since this was posted, I chose to reply. What I hope for is an example of any living species that the Evos may choose to use where the fossil record shows transition after transition after transition, etc., back to its' most simple form. If the species does not show a complete transition fossil record then please offer a species that has the most complete transitional record.***I've noticed that many anti-evo's accept speciation,
do you ? (BTW - I thought creationists came up with the term
micro-evolution, not evolutionists).***I accept speciation for what it is...special adaption of a given species to its' environment while remaining true to its kind and not being in the process of evolving from one species into another totally different and unique species. Speciation is not evolution.***You'll probably discount it as speculation, but comparitive
anatomy is one of the areas of evidence in favour of evolution
and within that there is the 'evolution of the ear oscicle(sp?)'.***Comparitive anatomy can also be accepted as one of the areas of evidence in favor of a common Creator.***Is that not even feasible, in your opinion?***At present, the only feasible explanation for life on this planet, considering the enormous complexities of even the most simple of life forms, is a common Creator who designed everything with a function and a purpose, with man having the greatest purpose of all, that being, to know his Creator intimately.***ShalomJet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstein

Jet - your question was answered in the first post on this thread. For an even more complete answer, see the whale evolution discussion (post #114 on this thread). Care to address those, or at least explain your reasoning as to why they aren't "transitional" in your lexicon?

ROTHLMFAOUIPIMNBJ!!!------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstein

And yet another substantive, highly detailed and crushing reply from our resident Christian exemplar.

Originally posted by Peter:
So, correct me if I'm wrong here, you don't object to
the ToE, but to claims that it is scientific and undeniable
fact.***I do not object to any theory being presented for what it truly is.......a theory!***You have stated that you are NOT a YEC, so could you elaborate
some of your views .. it would help debate issues. For example,
perhaps you do not hold the Bible as inerrant, or perhaps you
do but allow that it can be interpreted in different ways, or
perhaps you beleive in intelligent design, or ... etc.***TC's objections aside, I am an OEC and have concluded that scripture confirms this. While the average YEC concludes that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old, the average OEC makes no attempt to place an age upon the earth. Mans' existance upon this earth is a different topic of discussion. I do hold the Bible as inerrant, though I do not argue this point in the light of numerous neo-translations. There are sufficient numbers of ancient texts from which one can verify the validity of a translation. While not a true oxymoron, Intelligent Design comes close to fitting into that category due to the obvious need of intelligence to comprehend the concept of design.***ShalomJet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstein

Originally posted by Percipient:
All evidence is axiomatically consistent with the premise that the universe is the product of "creation by an Intelligent Creator" since a creator can presumably create in any way he chooses. By what evidence and line of argument do you distinguish between a universe created as described in the Bible, and a universe created 15 seconds ago. Once you leave the realm of physical laws, all becomes possible.--Percy***Surely you accept the notion that the Creator of physical laws, being perceived and understood as existing as a Spiritual being, is therefore not subjected to said physical laws. Mans perception of reality is based on flawed reasoning when it is constrained by the acceptance of the physical world alone. Ignorance may be blissful to some, but I doubt few true scientists would embrace such illogical reason.***ShalomJet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstein

Your subsequent post is echoed here!ShalomJet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstein

Wow! Hope you got an "A" when you presented this. I must remember to question Percival as to how he graded this post, and why. Sycophantal Kudos!ShalomJet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstein

Assalamu 'alaikum brother Ahmad, and minal aidin wal faidzin, Happy Idul-Fitri,

quote:

---

"Kidd, R.S., P. O'Higgins, and C.E. Oxnard 1996. The OH8 foot: a reappraisal of the functional morphology of the hindfoot utilizing a multivariate approach. Journal of Human Evolution 31:269-291."

---

Abstract:(emphasis mine)
The Olduvai Hominid 8 (OH8) foot has long been the centre of investigation in considering the locomotor adaptations of early Homo, the original interpretation reporting it as having "... principal affinities ... with that of Homo sapiens" and having "... the structural requirements of an upright stance and a fully bipedal gait" (Day * Napier, 1964). These conclusions have since proved to be controversial. The ape foot and that of the modern human differ in many areas, two of which are the divergence of the first ray found in apes but not humans, and the decreased, but alterable, range of motion at the midtarsal joint. The modifications required to reduce the range of motion at the midtarsal joint to that of the human are principally twofold, one at each of the talonavicular and calcaneocuboid joints. A univariate analysis of the four bones involved in the midtarsal joint of OH8 reveals that, although the calcaneocuboid articulation has assumed an essentially human-like state, the talonavicular joint has not. A series of multivariate investigations have been undertaken in order to identify patterns of morphological variation in biomechanically relevant features of the four hindmost tarsal elements among humans, selected apes and OH8. The results confirm the earlier univariate findings and firmly indicate the functional affinities of the four bones to be mosaic, in some respects being human-like while in others being essentially ape-like, suggesting the presence of a divergent first ray. These findings shed some doubt upon the original interpretation of the gait of this hominid and support a hypothesis of mixed locomotor adaptation, possibly arboreal and terrestrial. Sounds harmless enough to me. Habilis was an australopith (I'm with Bernard Wood's opinion) and australopiths walk and climb.
Maybe you can access the actual article?
oladieta.com.brI have a picture of Schmid's reconstruction of Lucy but I cannot upload it to my website today (liquid2k has problems). I will address the pelvis questions later.[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 12-12-2002]

Would a good translation (for the benefit of any laymen who may have wandered in, as Tom Lehrer would say) be "The foot is transitional between ape and human"?Not particularly good evidence against evolution, then, methinks.

quote:

---

Assalamu 'alaikum brother Ahmad, and minal aidin wal faidzin, Happy Idul-Fitri,

---

Walaikum salam wr wb and same to you too brother

quote:

---

Sounds harmless enough to me. Habilis was an australopith (I'm with Bernard Wood's opinion) and australopiths walk and climb.

---

Hey if that's harmless, its fine with me also bro. But I thought you denied OH8 having arboreal adaptations when the data specifically mentions "arboreal and terrestrial" and not completely bipedal. Do you contend with that?Regards
Ahmad

Well, the DNA recovered from Neandertals was 34,000 years old. The first identified hominid ancestors of humans are, I believe, about 4.2 million years old -- over 1,000 times older. Their bones have been replaced by minerals and I can not see how we can hope to recover DNA. However, the similarities and changes from one kind of hominid fossil to another enables us to see relationships.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkwusa:
i was thinking somethink along dna test to compare them to modern humans like they have done with the Neandeatal http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/dna.html here is a link to the finding to the neanderthal study... i was wondering if there was any possibility they did the same with the other found fossils...

---

I am sure glacial epoch existed, and that it took about 2 million years.
The so called Homo erectus type of anatomical morphology was found both in Africa and Asia during almost all this period.
This kind of morphology indicates a much more developed masticatory system, than the morphology of the holocene (since the last glacial period)races. Their brain was also statistically smaller than the brain of holocene people.To me all that "evolution" of the masticatory system is just a gradual reduction of this system, probably because of the use of fire and other means to make food more easy to swallow.
The development of technology which is evident in the successive generations of Homo erectus demonstrates that this creature was intelectually undistinguishable from the anatomical Homo sapiens.
The same - mutatis mutandis - applies to the "australopithecinae" kind.
Human paleoraces were as distinct biologically from apes as we are. They were smaller, so their brains were smaller too.
Regards
Piotr Lenartowicz SJ

So you're conjecture is that the pre hominid (australopithicines for example) were just as smart as we are?You seem to be saying that the ratio of brain to body mass would be the same across australopithicines and early homo species. Have you a reference backing this up. Or are you a "maker-up-of-factoids"
(mouf)(factoid --- something that looks like a fact but is not)
(contrast with factino -- is a fact but a small one)

Greetings, Krakowite! The Homo erectus species persisted for over a million years, and it's Acheulian technology changed little over this period. The Homo sapien species has existed for perhaps only 150,000 years but brought incredible and rapid technological innovation. Combined with the fact that the Homo erectus body size was roughly the same as Homo sapien but with a brain little more than half as large, how do you support your conclusion that Homo erectus was "intellectually indistinguishable" from Homo sapiens?--Percy