Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo naledi
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 92 of 163 (768624)
09-12-2015 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
09-12-2015 12:47 PM


I was OBVIOUSLY talking about the hands with the skeleton Mr. Obfuscator. They do not have short thumbs.
And nor do modern humans, as you can see from the x-ray.
Let's look at some more bones.
On the left, a chimp, in the middle, a human, on the right, an australopithecine for good measure. Which one has the short thumb?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 12:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 1:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 93 of 163 (768625)
09-12-2015 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Faith
09-12-2015 12:57 PM


Re: Time
Sorry, I don't accept your dating methods. Lot of "adjusting" goes on to make things fit the theory.
[citation needed]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 12:57 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 95 of 163 (768627)
09-12-2015 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
09-12-2015 12:45 PM


Obviously I'm talking about those that ARE human.
So when you say they're human, you're only talking about the ones that are human. Good, good, glad we sorted that out.
Now, would you please answer the frickin' question and tell us which one are in fact human. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 12:45 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 97 of 163 (768629)
09-12-2015 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
09-12-2015 1:23 PM


THE SKELETON DOES NOT HAVE A SHORT THUMB. PERIOD.
No, it doesn't. It has a long thumb. Like a modern human.
H. naledi:
H. sapiens:
See?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 1:23 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 102 of 163 (768657)
09-12-2015 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
09-12-2015 6:36 PM


Re: Moderator Attempt at Clarification
I understand all that. The hand does not have a short thumb, as clearly shown in the pictures by Dr. A despite his ridiculous attempt to pretend otherwise..
Have you gone completely insane? I say it has a long thumb. I have said so clearly and distinctly. I have said so in so many words. In post #97 for example, I say: "It has a long thumb." I have also produced pictures. What the fuck is the matter with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 6:36 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 106 of 163 (768665)
09-12-2015 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
09-12-2015 8:43 PM


Dem Bones
The skeleton shows no difference in the length of the thumb from the fingers.
Once more. Here is the paper describing the find.
It contains this photograph of an H. naledi hand:
They describe it as follows: "Palmar view on left; dorsal view on right. This hand was discovered in articulation and all bones are represented except for the pisiform. The proportions of digits are humanlike and visually apparent ..."
It has a long thumb, like a modern human or like Australopithicus sediba, and unlike a chimp. It is not, however, as long as the fingers.
What it seems you are trying to do is gauge the length of the thumb by looking at a photograph where the bones of the hand have been taken apart and scattered on a table. (Close-up below.)
But obviously this has nothing to do with the actual proportions of the hand. If you dismembered my hand, then you could send the distal phalange of my thumb through the mail until it was thousands of miles from my trapezium, and yet this would not prove anything about my anatomy.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 8:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by NosyNed, posted 09-12-2015 9:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 9:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 110 of 163 (768672)
09-12-2015 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
09-12-2015 9:38 PM


Re: Dem Bones
Put it this way: THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WHAT SORT OF HAND THAT IS FROM THE WAY THE BONES ARE ARRANGED.
But in this picture, there is a way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 9:38 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 140 of 163 (769323)
09-19-2015 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Faith
09-19-2015 12:09 PM


Skull B doesn't look very human either, or C either really, but the only one I'm really sure isn't human is A so I left it at that.
So B and C might be apes or human, you're not sure which?
Ooh, sounds to me like we have some intermediate forms here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 09-19-2015 12:09 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 142 of 163 (769346)
09-19-2015 6:27 PM


Creationist Analysis
The creationists have spoken. H. naledi is an animal. According to leading creationist Ken Ham: "The preponderance of the evidence suggests they were animals, one of the variations that developed among apes."
In other news, the creationists have spoken. H. naledi is a human. According to leading creationist Kurt Wise: "I think the case is very strong that these fossils are not just of the genus Homo, but are actually fully human (meaning they are descendants of Adam and Eve)."
Well, creationist taxonomy is not an exact pseudoscience. It's essential to creationism that there is a great yawning unbridgeable abyss between ape and human ... but identifying which fossils are on which side of this unbridgeable gap is evidently a matter of hairsbreadth distinctions of infinitesimal subtlety. I guess in the end the important thing is not to know whether the new fossil is totally human or completely animal, but to know that it's definitely one or the other.

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by lasthero, posted 09-19-2015 6:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 144 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2015 7:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 146 by dwise1, posted 09-19-2015 8:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024