Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 706 of 1075 (623064)
07-08-2011 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 701 by Taq
07-08-2011 12:03 AM


Re: Dating and evolution
How about a feathered T Rex dinosaur atop evidence from your own that suggests birds may not have evolved from dinos after all. So if this proves correct wha happens to feathers..Oh yeah...convergent or parallel evolution, which would bring TOE back to life?
How about this for a chuckle.....Myllokunmingia is meant to be the first 'unproven' vertabae. Oh yeah...and it looks like it..NOT! just another straw grabbing extravaganza.
Page has gone | New Scientist
All you have as support for your TOE are vertebraes suddenly appearing in the Cambrain explosion and nothing at all to link them to any life form previously. That again is 'the fact' which supports creation. The unproven theory that the first vertabraed organism evolved from a precambrian invertabrae is a theory with no support past your predetermined assumptions, as usual.....
Hagfish were classed as vertebrata and have no vertabrae and now align as a 'proposed' clade of Craniata. They are also monophyletic which adds support to their being 'a kind'.
Agnathans are still here today from the Cambrian explosion just as any creationist would expect to see of the many kinds initially created. They have not evolved into anything else.
Pehensile tails must now have evolved twice to fit in with your other stuff you've found...How convenient! ...between parrallel evolution, convergent evolution, excuses to explain homoplasy, I'd say your TOE is as unfalsifiable as your own Dawkins alluded to. I doubt a precambrian mammal would disprove creation let alone provide support for creation to evolutionists.
Just a moment...
How did vertabraes land? Ahha....Tiktaalic did I hear you say. Tiktaalic is just another sad story amongst many where tetrapod footprints were found to predate it...so sorry...that's gone as well....You and your researchers believe this just because it had to be with nothing remotely resembling support or more than hand waving to back it.
Your vertabrae evidence demonstrate nothing more than all life appeared suddenly spines and all. So again the FACTS support creation. Theory is all that supports evolution. It is just the way it is!
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by Taq, posted 07-08-2011 12:03 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 708 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2011 1:21 AM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 709 by hooah212002, posted 07-08-2011 1:30 AM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 710 by Taq, posted 07-08-2011 1:42 AM Mazzy has replied
 Message 715 by Nuggin, posted 07-08-2011 5:07 AM Mazzy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 707 of 1075 (623065)
07-08-2011 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 12:04 AM


Re: Try again Mazzy
I have supported everrything I have said with scientific backing.
No you haven't.
For example, where is your scientific backing for your claim (post #431) that "most of your Homo Erectus fossils are nothing more than a variety of gorilla"?
Put up or shut up.
TOE is unfalsifiable just like creation and is a faith.
I had to coach you on that falsehood, but you're finally reciting it correctly.
It is, of course, not true.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 12:04 AM Mazzy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 708 of 1075 (623066)
07-08-2011 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 706 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 1:14 AM


Re: Dating and evolution
How about a feathered T Rex dinosaur atop evidence from your own that suggests birds may not have evolved from dinos after all. So if this proves correct wha happens to feathers..Oh yeah...convergent or parallel evolution, which would bring TOE back to life?
How about this for a chuckle.....Myllokunmingia is meant to be the first 'unproven' vertabae. Oh yeah...and it looks like it..NOT! just another straw grabbing extravaganza.
Page not found | New Scientist
All you have as support for your TOE are vertebraes suddenly appearing in the Cambrain explosion and nothing at all to link them to any life form previously. That again is 'the fact' which supports creation. The unproven theory that the first vertabraed organism evolved from a precambrian invertabrae is a theory with no support past your predetermined assumptions, as usual.....
Hagfish were classed as vertebrata and have no vertabrae and now align as a 'proposed' clade of Craniata. They are also monophyletic which adds support to their being 'a kind'.
Agnathans are still here today from the Cambrian explosion just as any creationist would expect to see of the many kinds initially created. They have not evolved into anything else.
Pehensile tails must now have evolved twice to fit in with your other stuff you've found...How convenient! ...between parrallel evolution, convergent evolution, excuses to explain homoplasy, I'd say your TOE is as unfalsifiable as your own Dawkins alluded to. I doubt a precambrian mammal would disprove creation let alone provide support for creation to evolutionists.
Just a moment...
How did vertabraes land? Ahha....Tiktaalic did I hear you say. Tiktaalic is just another sad story amongst many where tetrapod fossils were found to predate it...so sorry...that's gone as well....You and your researchers believe this just because it had to be with nothing remotely resembling support or more than hand waving to back it.
Your vertabrae evidence demonstrate nothing more than all life appeared suddenly spines and all. So again the FACTS support creation. Theory is all that supports evolution. It is just the way it is!
The details of your fantasy world are somewhat obscured by your tendency to describe it in a made-up language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 1:14 AM Mazzy has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 709 of 1075 (623070)
07-08-2011 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 706 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 1:14 AM


Re: Dating and evolution
I checked your first link.....what does it have to do with anything you said?

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 1:14 AM Mazzy has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 710 of 1075 (623072)
07-08-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 706 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 1:14 AM


Re: Dating and evolution
How about a feathered T Rex dinosaur atop evidence from your own that suggests birds may not have evolved from dinos after all.
Birds are dinosaurs just as bears are mammals. But please, go on. Keep pointing to your ignorance of how taxonomy and biology works.
ow about this for a chuckle.....Myllokunmingia is meant to be the first 'unproven' vertabae. Oh yeah...and it looks like it..NOT! just another straw grabbing extravaganza.
You are the one who thinks that neanderthals look more like gorillas than modern humans. I remember something in the Bible about removing planks . . .
All you have as support for your TOE are vertebraes suddenly appearing in the Cambrain explosion and nothing at all to link them to any life form previously.
What characteristics must a fossil have in order to link it to other life?
Hagfish were classed as vertebrata and have no vertabrae and now align as a 'proposed' clade of Craniata. They are also monophyletic which adds support to their being 'a kind'.
They do have a notochord and spinal column (plus other features) which is needed to be classified as a chordate.
quote:
They are united by having, for at least some period of their life cycle, a notochord, a hollow dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, and a post-anal tail.
Chordate - Wikipedia
Like I said before, please keep talking. You are proving our point.
Agnathans are still here today from the Cambrian explosion just as any creationist would expect to see of the many kinds initially created. They have not evolved into anything else.
Please show us a cambrian fossil of a modern hagfish. Please, we are waiting.
How did vertabraes land? Ahha....Tiktaalic did I hear you say. Tiktaalic is just another sad story amongst many where tetrapod footprints were found to predate it...so sorry...that's gone as well....
Ready to get owned by Darwin?
quote:
In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.--Origin of Species
In Tiktaalik we see preserved transitional features just as Darwin said we should find.
Your vertabrae evidence demonstrate nothing more than all life appeared suddenly spines and all. So again the FACTS support creation. Theory is all that supports evolution. It is just the way it is!
So I asked for a feathered bat. What did you present instead? A feathered dinosaur. See the problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 1:14 AM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:53 AM Taq has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 711 of 1075 (623091)
07-08-2011 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by Nuggin
07-07-2011 10:57 PM


Restate the obvious.....
I can make as many blanket statements as I want.
What is obvious is your choosing one little aside as some token gesture of an attempt to feel you have refuted me.
I am telling you there is a metatarsal bone that is human and 3myo which makes Lucy with ape traits plainly just an ape and you want to dispute asides.
That says it all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Nuggin, posted 07-07-2011 10:57 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by Nuggin, posted 07-08-2011 5:04 AM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 716 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2011 5:46 AM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 712 of 1075 (623092)
07-08-2011 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 710 by Taq
07-08-2011 1:42 AM


Re: Dating and evolution
Birds are warm blooded like mammals, and not like reptiles. It is easier for you to not acknowledge warm bloodedness as a clade because it throws the whole thing out of whack.
Rather you would rather invent a story about warm bloodedness evolving twice that admit yoiur cladistics is whacky science.
"This incompatibility with the Linnaean taxonomy model led to an initial rift, not entirely healed, between the cladistic and Linnean schools of thought. Extreme cladists challenged the validity of Linnean taxa such as the Reptilia. Because birds, although descended from reptiles, are not themselves considered to be reptiles, cladists demanded that the taxon Reptilia be dismantled: a request that taxonomists were unwilling to heed.[7] This stand-off was eventually resolved to a degree by the construction of the term 'paraphyletic' to describe closely related groups which included most but not all of the descendants of a common ancestor.[4]"
Monophyly - Wikipedia
What characheteristics must a fossil have to link it to other life is yoiur problem pal. All I know is that you have zilch, squat, zero evidence that any creature poofed into a lungfish or anything else in the Cambrian.
Again these are the facts..the sudden appearance of vertabrae. The cover stories that are meant to turn the obvious evidence for a creative day into an evolutionary mystery are your theories and basically that's all you've got, because the facts support creation as demonstrated.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 710 by Taq, posted 07-08-2011 1:42 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by Nuggin, posted 07-08-2011 5:05 AM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 717 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2011 6:00 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 713 of 1075 (623097)
07-08-2011 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 711 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 3:44 AM


So much blah blah, so little time
What is obvious is your choosing one little aside as some token gesture of an attempt to feel you have refuted me.
Well, what is "obvious" to you is in fact, once again, wrong.
As I and OTHERS have pointed out in MULTIPLE POSTS, your arguments are nothing more than Gish Gallop.
Rather than respond to actual points people are raising, you just vomit up an endless and ever changing list of unbacked assertions.
I've SPECIFICALLY asked you to pick just ONE THING to be wrong about rather than trying to be wrong about everything all at once.
You've refused.
So, I've decided I'm only going to respond to ONE THING and ignore the rest.
It's apparent that you are either unwilling or unable to handle all (perhaps any) of the information which has been coming you way, so I'm flunking you down to a remedial level of discussion.
Until you show us that you have the ability to handle ONE THING, there's really no reason to believe you can handle more.
So, let's get back on point.
Earlier made a claim that no humans made it to Australia before ~200 years ago.
Did you mean that Aborigines are not human? Or were you just woefully wrong about Australian history?
It's been something like 3 weeks, and you still haven't been able to settle this ONE POINT.
Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:44 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 714 of 1075 (623099)
07-08-2011 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 712 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 3:53 AM


Re: Dating and evolution
Birds are warm blooded like mammals, and not like reptiles.
Wonderful. You've learned something. Good for you. Gold star.
Now, more importantly, WHY are you saying this? No one on this side of the debate is claiming that birds are reptiles.
Are you just saying things at random?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:53 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 715 of 1075 (623100)
07-08-2011 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 706 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 1:14 AM


Re: Dating and evolution
How about a feathered T Rex
Now you are arguing that T-Rex was a bat? You're going to have a hell of a time proving that one.
Let's hear your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 1:14 AM Mazzy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 716 of 1075 (623102)
07-08-2011 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 711 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 3:44 AM


Re: Restate the obvious.....
I can make as many blanket statements as I want.
No-one doubts your ability to say dumb things; it's your ability to justify them that is problematic.
What is obvious is your choosing one little aside as some token gesture of an attempt to feel you have refuted me.
Actually, you hav been shown to be wrong about many things.
I am telling you there is a metatarsal bone that is human and 3myo which makes Lucy with ape traits plainly just an ape and you want to dispute asides.
Actually, you telling us things does not change the anatomy of Lucy.
That says it all.
Bye then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:44 AM Mazzy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 717 of 1075 (623104)
07-08-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 712 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 3:53 AM


Re: Dating and evolution
Birds are warm blooded like mammals, and not like reptiles. It is easier for you to not acknowledge warm bloodedness as a clade because it throws the whole thing out of whack.
Are you claiming that warm-blooded animals constitute a clade?
Rather you would rather invent a story about warm bloodedness evolving twice that admit yoiur cladistics is whacky science.
Translated from Creationist into English, we would rather follow the evidence where it leads than talk fatuous nonsense.
"This incompatibility with the Linnaean taxonomy model led to an initial rift, not entirely healed, between the cladistic and Linnean schools of thought. Extreme cladists challenged the validity of Linnean taxa such as the Reptilia. Because birds, although descended from reptiles, are not themselves considered to be reptiles, cladists demanded that the taxon Reptilia be dismantled: a request that taxonomists were unwilling to heed.[7] This stand-off was eventually resolved to a degree by the construction of the term 'paraphyletic' to describe closely related groups which included most but not all of the descendants of a common ancestor.[4]"
Monophyly - Wikipedia
Another entirely random C&P. Did this serve any function except to guarantee that one paragraph in your post would be written in proper English?
All I know is that you have zilch, squat, zero evidence that any creature poofed into a lungfish or anything else in the Cambrian.
Indeed, we have no evidence of anything contrary to the theory of evolution. But that is your problem and not ours.
Again these are the facts..the sudden appearance of vertabrae.
Please demonstrrate this imaginary "fact" with reference to actual evidence.
The cover stories that are meant to turn the obvious evidence for a creative day into an evolutionary mystery are your theories and basically that's all you've got, because the facts support creation as demonstrated.
We're familiar with your dogma. If only you could justify it instead of merely reciting it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:53 AM Mazzy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 718 of 1075 (623108)
07-08-2011 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 700 by Mazzy
07-07-2011 11:52 PM


Re: Dating and evolution
Mazzy writes:
Many of you keep going on about my not presenting evidence to support my position. Do you think if you say it enough times it may actually deny the science I have put behind my claims. Well it won't!
Actually, what I'm going to do is demonstrate that you have once again simply asserted a position rather than supported it with evidence. I will also show that you selectively ignored key passages in the New Scientist article (The twist that shows Lucy wasn't flat-footed). Here's your statement of your position:
I say it is evidence of modern mankind being alive and well 3mya, by your dating methods anyway, and living around apes that were arboreal as well as many other non human primates.
Now let's examine the evidence and rationale you submitted for this position.
I say the 3myo metatarsal your researchers found is human because your own researchers suggest it is like a modern human 4th metatarsal.
This is how the article describes it:
New Scientist writes:
The head of the new fossil bone is twisted laterally in a distinctive way, similar to that seen in modern humans but quite unlike the untwisted metatarsals of apes.
The article uses the word "similar," so your argument is that similar bones mean same species. The human body has around 200 bones, and I'm sure that you could find at least a few that are similar to bones in the chimpanzee, and so by your logic each similar bone is evidence that chimps are human. Obviously you need more rigorous criteria.
Also helpful in making an assessment are these images of the 4th metatarsal of chimps, gorillas, humans and A. afarensis (click to grow the image):
Notice that the human and A. afarensis tarsals are much more similar to each other than to the chimp and gorilla tarsals, but they're only similar. The A. afarensis tarsal is not a match for the human tarsal. And as I said before, if this degree of similarity in a single bone is all you're going to require to judge two specimens to be the same species then humans must be the same species as chimps, and probably the same as many other creatures, too.
You have not found colocated feet. Therefore I have scientific support to suggest my assertion that LUCY and other Australopithecus were a variety of flat footed or arboreal ape and nothing more than that.
Can you explain your logic that concludes that the absence of evidence constitutes "scientific support" for your position? Drawing conclusions in the absence of evidence seems the very opposite of any scientific logic. You're also ignoring that A. afarensis was, in the words of the article, "the only hominin known to have been present in the area at the time."
So you see I can use science to back my theory just like you guys can put up your interpretations.
On the contrary, you have used the very opposite of science to reach your conclusions, relying primarily upon illogic and the absence of evidence.
Your post goes on to introduce yet another argument about FOX2P genes, but as many have suggested in this thread, it would be better to keep the focus on one thing at a time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by Mazzy, posted 07-07-2011 11:52 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2011 8:57 AM Percy has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 719 of 1075 (623125)
07-08-2011 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 718 by Percy
07-08-2011 7:58 AM


Because I'm a picky sod
Hi Percy,
I'm not really sure where you are getting this ...
Notice that the human and A. afarensis tarsals are much more similar to each other than to the chimp and gorilla tarsals, but they're only similar. The A. afarensis tarsal is not a match for the human tarsal.
From that figure, certainly the two samples they show for illustration aren't identical but the graphs suggest that for the 3 morphometric measures they use the A. afarensis sample falls within the range of human variability for all of them, making it as similar as another human 4th metatarsal might be. In fact looking at the supplemental data from the original paper (Ward et al., 2011) there is only one measurement they make, out of 11, where the A. afarensis sample is outwith the human margins, and only by 1mm at that, two measurements if you separate the humans by sex.
species/sex Length DP prox end ML prox end DP
midshaft
ML
midshaft
DP dist
end
ML dist
end
Al 333-160 59.9 17.1 13.1 9.1 6.1 13.4 8.5
Human Male (n=13) 60.8-81.9 14.4-19.7 10.5-15.1 8-12.1 5.4-8.3 13.8-16.3 8.3-11.6
Human Female (n=6) 65.1-76.4 15.3-18.1 10.7-12.9 9.3-11.1 6.1-7.6 12.3-14.8 8.1-10.1
I've left out the 4 angular measurements from the data as the A. afarensis sample was within the margins for all of those and they are essentially summarised in the figure you posted.
Given that n for the human samples was 19 in total I think it is reasonable to suggest they didn't encompass the full spectrum of human variability and that the AL 333-160 4th metatarsal specimen probably falls within that spectrum.
That aside your point is well made that even if they are identical it in no way means that the skeletons they came from, let alone the whole organisms, were identical or even of the same species.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by Percy, posted 07-08-2011 7:58 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 720 by Percy, posted 07-08-2011 9:45 AM Wounded King has replied
 Message 721 by Percy, posted 07-08-2011 9:48 AM Wounded King has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 720 of 1075 (623134)
07-08-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 719 by Wounded King
07-08-2011 8:57 AM


Re: Because I'm a picky sod
Hi WK,
Probably wasn't clear, but I did try to say that I was looking at the images. That was the only metatarsal comparison I could find, and it included the table of measurements. I did notice that two of the three measurements were within the human range, and that the one that wasn't was extremely close. That the authors thought these measurements important must mean there is evidence that they are critical for a foot to have a high arch.
But there are many shapes that can produce the same measurements. That the measurements are close says nothing about the actual appearance, and I didn't think the appearance of the images of the human and A. afarensis tarsals were the same, only similar, just as the article said.
I cannot dispute your subtitle.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 719 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2011 8:57 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 722 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2011 10:24 AM Percy 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