|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo naledi | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Some kind of semantic nonsense is going on here. The skeleton shows no difference in the length of the thumb from the fingers. My own hand shows a large difference. I have a much shorter thumb relative to my fingers than the one belonging to the skeleton has. The pictures of hands Dr. A and others have been posting show various versions of thumbs that are shorter than the fingers. The skeleton does not have a thumb that is shorter than the fingers. I don't know what everybody's problem is but the skeleton does not show a human type hand because the thumb is as long as the fingers. It doesn't show any kind of hand, not ape either. But certainly not a human hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I see my hand as like the radiograph of a human hand.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Put it this way: THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WHAT SORT OF HAND THAT IS FROM THE WAY THE BONES ARE ARRANGED.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yeah, I knew you couldn't tell one from another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Thank you for being polite.
Essentially then the hand is a human hand, even though the bones as arranged on the skeleton are indecipherable. Human hands differ from one another just as everything else about us differs from one to another, and such a small difference doesn't make this skeleton anything other than a human being. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Mostly just want to say thanks for treating my thoughts as intelligent. I think that makes you unique at EvC. But I don't really want to continue the debate here, just add a couple more thoughts and be gone.
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. Pod Mrcaru shows that microevolution doesn't require millions of years, which is what a creationist would expect from a built-in set of genetic possibilities. To find out if the lizards have enough genetic diversity left for a further change you could isolate another set of pairs and see what happens. You need genetic diversity for evolution and evolution itself uses up genetic diversity. But I don't want to go down that trail again. Thanks again. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
True, I change my mind a lot. Sorry to be so difficult.
ABE: OK, SORRY, YES I'M CHANGING MY MIND AGAIN, IN TIME TO STAY ON THE THREAD I HOPE. Yes I sincerely thought there was no point in being here and I had nothing more to say and I've been involved in a completely different project that's been taking a lot of time and didn't want to deal with the things at EvC right now in any depth. But then dwise came along and posted something I keep thinking about in spite of myself. I will try to keep from saying I'm leaving from now on since I so often don't. Please forgive. Thanks.' Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
...
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
MOVED THIS POST TO THE OTHER THREAD AS PER RAZD'S REQUEST. Hid this one.
Yes I was going to leave the thread but then dwise posted this story of a creationist who converted to an evolutionist on the basis of a specific experience with a scientific journal, and I found myself pondering it and objecting to it, and I have questions I just HAVE to raise about it. It's convincing enough as presented:
I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligent... The part I put in small type, about the medical students who might operate on him is just irrelevant emotional puff. Knowledge of human anatomy they certainly need, but there's no way reptile-mammal evolution could help them in the slightest to operate on a human being. Anyway, I find myself having the same sorts of questions I had about Dr. A's skulls. The supposed evolutionary sequence is just too pat, too "just so" to be realistic. Where are the "errors," or at least the deviations from the too-too perfect path from the reptilian to the mammalian adaptation? Doesn't evolution ever make mistakes? But of course you'll say it does, all the time, and yet this sort of perfect sequence is what you give for evidence. How did we get this neat progression of skulls from small cranial capacity to large human cranial capacity with such plausible morphological gradations from one to another of the skulls? How did we get this neat progression of types of middle ear bones as described by Mr. Hertzler, in what sounds like a similarly smooth gradation from one type to another, each perfectly fitted to its reptilian or reptilian-mammalian or mammalian host? Malcolm agreed in Message 138* that the skull sequence IS artificial in the sense that "many" of the types are not considered to be in the genetic line suggested by the linear arrangement of the skulls, but thought to be separate lines of development. That alone should raise an eyebrow because the presentation obviously implies a direct line of genetic descent from one skull type to the next. Without those particular types in the genetic line, how then do you get from chimp to human skull or type to type within the human line? You've got no ladder without those. Isn't there some degree of self-delusion going on here? First, reality produces variations, not gradatons. Microevolution creates variations, not smooth gradations. I say more about this in my footnote below. There is no gradation from one trilobite type to another in the fossil record, for instance, there are only populations of different types that happen to have been buried at different levels of the strata. So why should there be gradations between skulls or ear bones rather than just many different variations? There is an enormous variety within some species of living plants for instance, each with its own qualities and characteristics, but no clear gradation. The Pod Mrcaru lizards really should have been followed up with further experiments. Other groups of pairs from the original population should also have been isolated for thirty years. Then groups of pairs from those new populations again isolated. My guess is you'd get lots of variations on lizards, assuming there was sufficient genetic diversity in the original population for that to occur. I'd guess that the chance f a similar large-headed type evolving from another random set is very low, because any particular phenotype that develops from a small isolated population is the result of the pecular gene frequencies of that small population, and those are not going to be identical from population to population. You should end up with a whole bunch of different types of lizards all from that original population. THAT is genetic reality. Linear gradation in genetic descent doesn't happen in nature, so why should it be expected in the fossil record? Yes, it sure LOOKS like it happened according to those skulls and that journal full of supposed transitional types of ear bones. I don't know the explanation but I have to doubt it all. Second, microevolution does not need the millions of years supposedly objectively dated between fossil skulls and reptile-to-mammal ear bones. As the Pod Mrcaru example shows, thirty years is plenty when you have an isolated small population, and nature should create such isolated populations frequently enough to be the explanation for the different breeds of fossils too. Dates. Sure seems open-and-shut when you've got each skull dated, each example of reptilian or mammalian ear bones dated, and they all so nicely follow one from another just as evolution says they should. It's the dating of the specimens that seals the deal, right, so unless one wants to accuse all researchers in the area of outright fraud the dates have to be accepted don't they? How can one answer that? First, I'm not accusing anyone of fraud, but there is certainly something odd about how this all fits together that ought not to be taken at face value. Microevolution does NOT take millions of years, as I say above. The few thousand years since the Flood is plenty of time for the variation of all those saved on the ark to have developed into the races and varieties and breeds we see today, especially given that they all had to have spread out to populate the earth from one single location, which would have involved series after series of populations splitting off from other populations and subsequently developing its own set of gene/allele frequencies. On that same thread with the Pod Mrcaru lizards Percy posted information about breeds of Jutland cattle: Our results further demonstrate the rapid diversification of the Jutland breed herds due to limited gene flow and genetic drift. The only point I'm making is that rapid diversification is not rare and it's an example not only of rapid microevolution but of the VARIETY within species that is the reality those fossil arrangements of skulls and ear bones defy. Also, if millions of years even occurred every living thing would long since have become extinct because evolution DOES "use up" genetic diversity and mutation isn't orderly enough or rapid enough to replace that diversity, especially if rapid microevolution due to changed gene frequencies with population isolation is as common as I think it is. You run out of genetic diversity and that is the end of evolution for any particular line of genetic microevolution. There is no evolution from one species to another, it is all within species. =================* Malcolm writes: Well for the most part it is an artificial arrangement, since our current understanding of human evolution indicates that many of the species which these skulls represent branched off from our line of descent from a common ancestor we shared with Chimps. This I've addressed above, but Malcolm goes on:
The reasoning we have for this common ancestor is the genetic evidence that Humans and Chimps are related, from simplistic DNA hybridisation to full genome sequencing, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes etc. Now to some, including yourself, a direct comparison between Humans and Chimps would suggest too many differences for the two species to be related, or to put it another way, for them to be related would require some ‘macroevolutionary’ change. No, I don't think this quite reflects my thinking, right now I'm absorbed with questions about the skulls which he goes on to:
The arrangement of hominin skulls illustrates the much smaller ‘microevolutionary’ changes that have occurred between populations leading up towards our own population. You did agree with this by stating that the skulls represented normal human variation, the only exception being skull A, the modern Chimp. However, when you look at skull B it has a lot more in common with skull A then it does with skull N. True, and as I did say somewhere I'm not sure if B and C are human or not. But I have problems with the arrangement of those that are most clearly human anyway. I did say they represent normal human variations, but in saying that I meant that in living reality you wouldn't find them in the just-so arrangement that implies line of descent from one to another that Dr. A's chart presents. What you would find in reality is differences between individuals but probably most clearly differences between racial groups, at least in general. One group would generally have broad faces for instance, another long faces, one prominent large teeth, another small crooked teeth, one would have short noses, another long noses, one high set prominent cheekbones, another hardly any clear cheekbones at all. GENETIC REALITY SHOWS VARIATION, IT DOES NOT SHOW LINEAR DESCENT FROM ONE TYPE TO ANOTHER. Even in isolated populations where genetic inbreeding has developed a distinctive racial appearance what you find is variation between individuals, not some gradation from individual to another or parent to child to child etc. Since this is the case with living things, why should we expect such neat linearity in the fossils that are found all over the planet that are unlikely to have any close genetic relation between them? AGAIN, WHERE ARE THE DEVIANTS IN YOUR JUST-SO SEQUENCE Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024