|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
you did not descend from an ape ,man was created by gods, apes were made different,but they learned just enough to stay alive, that's why they are still here Do you have any evidence to support that belief?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
You must admit though that the first image has an uncanny resemblance to a chimpanzee? I would swear that someone had modeled or fashioned that image from what they know about modern chimpanzees. This is what is so misleading about it all. If the images are pure fiction why don't the scientists admit it. If that picture were changed so that the first critter looked more like Lucy or one of the other early fossils would you be happy?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Not sure if all these fossils look all that different. On what basis are you determining that these fossils are all different from modern man?
Paleontologists, physical anthropologists and several other specialties deal with this topic. Both fossil man and human osteology were subjects I studied for my Ph.D. exams. I can assure you that your cursory look at those pictures differs drastically from what specialists do when they look at these skulls. Specialists have detailed knowledge of the anatomy and morphology involved, and will have looked at thousands of skulls and skull fragments of a wide range of species. Believe it or not, experts in these fields actually know something!
If you took the fossil of a 19 year old man and compared it with the fossil of a 60 year old man what differences would you see?
I'll not detail the kinds of things you would expect, but between those two ages you give you would expect to see differences in dentition (3rd molar), suture closure, and age-related degeneration. These changes are all well known and can be found in standard text books.
If you were to extrapolate that difference to people who could potentially live till they were 800 years old what might you see? Extrapolating the age-related changes we are familiar with, by age 800 you would have something approximating a jellyfish.
I am not suggesting that anyone could live 800 years but you never know what happened in the past right?
No that is not right. By studying ancient bones and fossils, archaeologists and paleontologists have a good idea of what happened in the past.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans.
While single dimensions from fossils usually fall within the range of modern humans, that means nothing. Skulls and bones are three-dimensional shapes, and single dimensions simply can't describe their complex shapes. For that you need multivariate statistics, and that's what the professionals use. I started using those statistics in the mid-70s in graduate school, and successfully differentiated among several closely related Native American groups. Here are a few random article titles from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that include multiple discriminant function analysis: --The Maka femur and its bearing on the antiquity of human walking: Applying contemporary concepts of morphogenesis to the human fossil record My point was that the evidence that RAZD provided was unacceptable. If he has some real evidence perhaps he could share it with us. Perhaps he would like to start by giving us the full range of variation amongst the present human population. Here is more evidence that you could ever want. This is the online link to the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. (It is one of many hundred such journals.) Just a moment... You can examine the titles and abstracts of all issues to get an idea of what is really going on in the evolution field. So don't tell us we have no evidence!Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Big Al has yet to respond to my post showing that linear dimensions are not a proper criteria for describing and differentiating skulls.
For that you need multivariate statistics which deal with complex shapes. I'm beginning to think he has no answer to that point. Nor to the various articles that I cited showing that research in paleoanthropology is done using multivariate statistics. Nor to my point that I used such statistics to differentiate several Native American cranial series in the mid-70s. Big Al is trying to apply a freshman understanding to a graduate school problem, and trying to tell those who are more learned how to go about their research. Big Al is sadly mistaken in this.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I think you should think carefully about making judgements about these fossils and before submitting your next post. Good luck. Are you ignoring me deliberately? I have posted to you twice about methods used in differentiating skulls and you have yet to even respond. Multivariate statistics, remember? Please address this issue, or admit that your comments are baseless. The only value I have found in your comments is that they have convinced me you know nothing of the subject.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Coyote writes: Are you ignoring me deliberately? Yes, I am ignoring you deliberately. I have posted politely, presented solid evidence concerning the topic, and have firsthand experience with fossil man and the statistical treatments used to analyze the various skulls, and those are the posts you choose to ignore? I would be interested in your reasons for ignoring my posts.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
You have shown complete ignorance of the subject, and refused to engage me in a debate because I exhibit some real knowledge of the subject.
You should be banned for that--that's trolling behavior.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024