Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2018 11:39 PM
252 online now:
DrJones*, edge, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (4 members, 248 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,395 Year: 10,218/29,783 Month: 882/1,583 Week: 351/291 Day: 59/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3!
pop 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 121 of 128 (403384)
06-02-2007 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by AdminModulous
06-02-2007 8:12 AM


Re: when plagiarists attack
cos omak ya ibn el metnaka ya ibn el ars

well australopithecus are similar to apes in many things and I will post a letter including a very important subject and comparing between australopithecus and great apes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by AdminModulous, posted 06-02-2007 8:12 AM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by AdminModulous, posted 06-02-2007 10:06 AM pop has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 122 of 128 (403386)
06-02-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by pop
06-02-2007 9:37 AM


Re: when plagiarists attack
cos omak ya ibn el metnaka ya ibn el ars

Not going to be tolerated here. You won't be posting any letters here for 48 hours while you read the forum guidelines and decide if you can abide by them. Particularly note:

quote:
Follow all moderator requests.

Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes.

Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.

Always treat other members with respect.


In three posts its a fairly dire record to have. Your next suspension will be for longer.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Thread Style Guides for EvC and Thread Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by pop, posted 06-02-2007 9:37 AM pop has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6437
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 123 of 128 (403405)
06-02-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by pop
06-02-2007 6:26 AM


Re: australopithecus werent bipedal
Hello again, modi.

Well, I read your post (using the "peek" function), but since the content is officially hidden I won't respond to it in depth. I'll wait until your suspension is over and you rewrite the post as per the moderator's suggestions.

But I will say that of course Australopithecus shares features found in non-human apes. That is what makes them transitional species. They have some non-human ape features and also some human features. That is why Australopithecus has something to tell us about human evolution. If Australopithecus had no ape features at all, then it would just be a human fossil and no one would care about it. If it had no distinctly human features, then it would be just another ape, and it wouldn't be as exciting. It is precisely because Australopithecus has both non-human ape features and distinctly human features that makes this a very interesting taxon.

You might want to think about that while you compose your reply.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by pop, posted 06-02-2007 6:26 AM pop has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19524
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 124 of 128 (403432)
06-02-2007 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by pop
06-01-2007 12:17 PM


Re: australopithecus werent bipedal
The australopithicus foot exactly fits the Laetoli footprints:

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/laetoli.htm
(Photo is copyrighted)

The tracks involve two individuals that walked across fresh ash (which later solidified forming the fossils), and there are several steps by each individual and not a single knuckle print.

They also date to the same age: 3.6 million years ago.

Science deals with all the evidence not just the bits and pieces that fit a hypothesis.

6/A discovery by dr Robin crompton : that apes in our modern time can walk upright . he discovered a group of apes living in uganda walking on 2 legs.

Do you mean this "Dr Compton"? It's the ONLY result for {"Dr. Robin Compton" upright walking apes}:

http://www.highbeam.com/search.aspx?RelatedId=1O87%3Aventral&ref_id=ency_MALT

quote:
Humans walked earlier than we thought.(News)
Liverpool Echo (Liverpool, England); Nov 20, 2001; 120 Words THE first humans learned to walk while still treedwelling apes ... why prehistoric apemen adapted to standing upright. But now the Liverpool research team suggests humans began walking upright ... years earlier than previously thought. Dr Robin Compton, of the department of primate morphology and evolution,...

I can't be bothered sighing up for some source to check further without some kind of evidence that your Robin Compton is the same. Especially if "earlier than previously thought means humans walked upright prior to australopithicus .... I smell a quote mine here.

Like most urban myths, creationist falsehoods also lack details of the actual finds and actual references to the actual papers where findings are published and peer reviewed. This total lack of references from your cut and paste list show the same disregard for reality.

5/A study was done in 2000 by BG Richmond and DS strait on lucys fore arms concluded that she walked like knuckel walkers.

They also reference matierial that is years out of date rather than the most current researtch. You also posted this before "BOB,POP, gogo, modi, mohammed etc etc)" and refused to substantiate your claim then: {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal

An honest poster would take up where they left off eh?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : last link, quote


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by pop, posted 06-01-2007 12:17 PM pop has not yet responded

  
Refpunk
Member (Idle past 3885 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 125 of 128 (419163)
09-01-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
09-29-2005 7:13 PM


Lions and tigers are much closer in appearance and purpose than humans are to apes. So does that make a lion a tiger? Do evolutionists even think???
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-29-2005 7:13 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2007 8:13 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19524
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 126 of 128 (419249)
09-01-2007 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Refpunk
09-01-2007 11:54 AM


Trolling again?
Bouncing to another thread to avoid answering the questions you have been asked is dishonest and typical of disruptive troll behavior as opposed to honest debate.

Lions and tigers are much closer in appearance and purpose than humans are to apes. So does that make a lion a tiger? Do evolutionists even think???

No it makes them both members of the genus Panthera.

Apparently evolutionists think a lot more than you do, for they do not rely on superficial resemblances to gauge the degree of relationship between species, but study the complete morphology and development, and they also actually look at the information available from easy to find sources before making wild assertions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion

quote:
(sidebar)
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Panthera
Species: P. leo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger

quote:
(sidebar)
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Panthera
Species: P. tigris

So we see tigers and lions in the same genus, but not the same species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

quote:
(sidebar)
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee

quote:
(sidebar)
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Panina
Genus: Pan

Species:
Pan troglodytes
Pan paniscus


Oh look, different genus for humans and chimps (although there is talk of moving chimps into the Homo genus).

Thus we have lions and tigers related by a common ancestor (Panthera) that is relatively recent compared to the common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees (Hominidae). Guess that blows your silly assertion out of the water eh?

Now how about going back to finish posting the substantiation for your positions on other threads?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Refpunk, posted 09-01-2007 11:54 AM Refpunk has not yet responded

  
Grashnak
Junior Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 5
From: Finland
Joined: 12-19-2007


Message 127 of 128 (442049)
12-19-2007 8:16 PM


Sorry to bumb into this thread like this but I'm new to these forums and wanted to ask some questions about this matter.

I have always thought about our tale bone, where does that come from and for what it is? Would sound logical to have a tail bone if we are evolved from apes.

Is human only race that has body parts wich doesent have any meaning?
I haven't thought about it but I dont think animals have "extra" body parts without purpose.


Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Granny Magda, posted 12-24-2007 3:07 PM Grashnak has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 128 of 128 (443332)
12-24-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Grashnak
12-19-2007 8:16 PM


Vestigial Features
Hi Grashnak, and welcome to EvC. I haven't been here long myself, hope you enjoy the debate as much as I have.
You asked for examples of body parts in the animal kingdom that have no purpose. My pleasure. There are many examples and they are known as vestigial features.
Blue whales, being evolved from land-based, four-legged mammals, have remnants of hind legs, hidden inside their bodies. They serve no purpose to the whale, but are a good example of how evolution works.
Here is an excerpt from the website of the University of Aberdeen's zoology museum;
quote:

The main propulsive force in whales comes, not from the hind limbs, from the spinal musculature and the tail fluke. The hind limbs, although still present, have become much reduced in size, are fully enclosed within the skin and are invisible from the outside.
In 1881 [Sir John] Struthers published, "On the Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of The Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale (Balaena mysticetus). J. Anat. and Physiol. XV: 141-321."
In the paper he wrote:
Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments [in the Right Whale] really are femur and tibia.

Full link here - http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/treasures/bluewhale.php
The page on vestigiality on Wikipedia has plenty more examples, including the wings of ostriches, the eyes of blind mole rats and the wings of certain flightless moths.
Link here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial
Hope this helps and Merry Christmas!


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Grashnak, posted 12-19-2007 8:16 PM Grashnak has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018