|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1055 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I mean the SHAPE of the flesh is different. Then see above. The process of changing the shape and orientation of the bones will also change the shape and orientation of the flesh - it's not a separate matter. I feel like I'm missing the point you're trying to make, but have no idea what it could be.
They are all trilobites, all with the same basic parts to them. I'm a creationist, I don't divide anything into separate species if its got all the same basic parts to it. Yes, you do - humans and chimps. What does one have that the other does not?
Goats are not horses, they don't have the same basic parts. Four legs isn't what I'm talking about. What makes a goat a goat and a horse a horse is what makes them two separate species. Well, I would agree that what makes a goat a goat and a horse a horse is what makes them separate species. I'd have several species of goats, but that's not the point here. They still have the same basic parts. That's how I would describe the differences between horses and goats, by listing the ways in which those same parts differ. I mean, there are some things goats have that horses don't - horns are an obvious one - but that's not really the key difference. Not all goats have horns, but that doesn't make them look like horses. Some things one of the other has more or less of - goats have more vertebrae, and more digits. They have canine teeth, but so do some horses. Horses have upper incisors, which goats don't. Most things are present in both, but sometimes differ in shape. Goats have more complicated digestive tracts; horses have three trochanters on the femur, goats only two. Horses have a channel running through their alisphenoid bone; it's fused shut in goats. But it's all the same basic parts. That's what enables us to talk about things like an 'alisphenoid' bone. I couldn't talk about the alisphenoid of a trilobite, but goats and horses clearly both have them.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They are all trilobites, all with the same basic parts to them. I'm a creationist, I don't divide anything into separate species if its got all the same basic parts to it. Yes, you do - humans and chimps. What does one have that the other does not? That's why I brought up goats and horses as two separate species. What makes a goat clearly a goat.... Same as "what makes a chimp clearly a chimp..." You look at the similarities in the basic body design, but the goat and the horse are even more similar to each other in that way and yet different in the ways they are different. Yes it's hard to get this said. Remove all the chimp's hair/fur, give it human type skin, and it will still be a chimp and not a human being. No, what I mean by having all the same basic parts does not put a chimp and a human in the same category, same as it does not put goats and horses in the same category. I wish I COULD say this as clearly I would like to. I've pointed to various differences to try to make the point but I need an overall way of saying it I don't have except for "what makes a chimp a chimp and not a human..."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I mean the SHAPE of the flesh is different. Then see above. The process of changing the shape and orientation of the bones will also change the shape and orientation of the flesh - it's not a separate matter. But the bones in the case of the chimp vs. human are much more similar to each other than the flesh is, that's why I brought up the flesh differences which seem enormous to me.
I feel like I'm missing the point you're trying to make, but have no idea what it could be. Hard to get it said.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: But a horse and a goat they are more different at the level of parts than a chimp and a human. Although they do have the same basic parts.
quote: It’s hard to find a sensible criterion that gives the result you want. Because there isn’t one.
quote: Because having the same basic parts is NOT a sensible criterion for identifying species. You just chose that because you want to put all trilobites in the same species. But to do that you have to choose a criterion that is too broad - as we can see.
quote: It’s quite clear. It is just that you are obviously wrong. There is no sensible criterion that makes trilobites all one species but also makes humans and chimps separate species. That is WHY trilobites are classified as an Order.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, I would agree that what makes a goat a goat and a horse a horse is what makes them separate species. I'd have several species of goats, but that's not the point here. Yes, if it's a goat variety it would be a goat to me, not a separate species, the way the trilobites are all trilobites.
They still have the same basic parts. That's how I would describe the differences between horses and goats, by listing the ways in which those same parts differ. I mean, there are some things goats have that horses don't - horns are an obvious one - but that's not really the key difference. Not all goats have horns, but that doesn't make them look like horses. Although listing separate parts might be necessary, my focus is more on the general appearance as what makes separate species or not. Yes I know there are exceptions, including in trilobites, so this definition isn't perfect yet. But the goat just LOOKS like a goat and not like a horse. Proportions? Muscle distribution? I don't know how to pin it down but those two factors seem relevant. Certainly relevant in the case of chimp vs. human.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Please show picture of intermediate hominid feet. From Message 20 in {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal quote: This is from 2008, and there have been several additional fossil discoveries since then that have filled in more intermediates. You will note that the big toe skeletal structure is still quite similar to the chimp foot, which leads to the concept that australopithicus was still adept at tree climbing. That foot was also compared with the laetoli footprints and it fit, with the footprints showing preferred bipedal walking. Again here are the chimp and human foot skeletons from Message 336 and "Little Foot"
Note the relative lengths of the heel bones, ~1/3rd the footprint, between the lengths seen in the chimp (~1/4th) and human feet (~1/2) of their footprints, while the toe bones shrink in size. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : stby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Please show picture of intermediate hominid feet. We also have Ardipithecus ramidus ("Ardi")
quote: Again the heel bones show slightly more of the footprint than we see in chimps, but less than Austrlopithicus, ie intermediate. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Please show picture of intermediate hominid feet. And we have Homo habilis feet
quote: Again, the amount of the footprint occupied by the tarsal bones would be intermediate between chimp and human (comparing the length of the middle metatarsil to the rest of the heel length). Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm afraid I'm sorry I asked. Too much information and most of the pictures are hard for me to make out. And I'm not even sure what the point of it all is supposed to be any more. I'm sorry RAZD, you do tend to overwhelm with your posts.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm going to get lambasted as usual of course, but those are not very convincing pictures of "intermediate" or hominid feet. When I see a bunch of bones laid out like that as if they all belong to the same skeleton though there is nothing to prove that they do, I take it as the usual evo wishfulness.
You want to believe there is such a thing as a hominid, you want to believe there is such a thing as feet or any other body parts showing transitional forms between apes and humans, so you get a bunch of bones laid out that seem to show that. Perhaps you actually believe it, I won't say you don't, but I certainly don't believe it. I thought maybe there's a genuine human foot somewhere that shows a somewhat splayed-out big toe that could suggest something transitional, but all I see is the usual definitely ape type of big toe that's completely designed for grasping. A bit smaller a bit tighter but otherwise nothing intermediate at all. I admit that since my eyes are getting worse all the time maybe I missed something in that array of pictures, so if I did please select and repost the specific photo I missed. Thanks. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And I'm not even sure what the point of it all is supposed to be any more. The point is that there are intermediate hominid fossils that show intermediate development of the human foot compared to the chimp foot. As a way of actually measuring this we can compare the length of the middle metatarsal to the length of the heel portion of the foot from the end of the heel bone to the joint with the metatarsal, this is the foot pad bone structure and includes the tarsal bones, and is the main weight bearing area of the foot. This picture shows them labeled for reference:
Here you can see the middle tarsal bone is about 2/3rds of the heel/metatarsal pad length. In the human foot it is less than that, and in the chimp foot it is more than that. The three hominid feet that I found were various intermediate lengths between the chimp foot and the human foot with the older metatarsals being comparatively longer than the later ones. Clearly evolution can make these changes. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : finished Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I can't see that picture at all, RAZD, barely make out parts of some of the words. I don't think I can do anything to improve it for my visual problems. Can you?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm going to get lambasted as usual of course, but those are not very convincing pictures of "intermediate" or hominid feet. When I see a bunch of bones laid out like that as if they all belong to the same skeleton though there is nothing to prove that they do, I take it as the usual evo wishfulness. Yes you are going to get lambasted for you blind denial and evasiveness.
You want to believe there is such a thing as a hominid, you want to believe there is such a thing as feet or any other body parts showing transitional forms between apes and humans, so you get a bunch of bones laid out that seem to show that. Perhaps you actually believe it, I won't say you don't, but I certainly don't believe it. Bones that all came from the same location in a carefully detailed archeological dig, in close proximity to one another. Bones that fit together at the joints just like your bones fit together at the joints. Bones not mixed with any other bones. You want to believe they were carefully selected from many different digs and artfully constructed into a fake skeleton, by people who are intentionally making a fraudulent skeleton, because you can't accept reality.
I thought maybe there's a genuine human foot somewhere that shows a somewhat splayed-out big toe that could suggest something transitional, ... What you expect has no bearing on reality. Anything between A and B is intermediate -- ie transitionsal.
... but all I see is the usual definitely ape type of big toe that's completely designed for grasping. A bit smaller a bit tighter but otherwise nothing intermediate at all. "A bit smaller a bit tighter" IS intermediate, as the human foot is "A bit smaller a bit tighter" than the chimp foot:
The changes in the relative lengths of the foot pad structure of heel bone and tarsal bones to the lengths of the metatarsal and the phalanges shows steady change from similar to chimp to similar to human. Each stage is "A bit smaller a bit tighter" than the previous stage. That's what intermediate means. Again it seems that you can't handle the truth. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
See if this image helps for bone definitions:
What I have been calling the foot pad area is the hindfoot plus the midfoot. The forefoot is composed of the metatarsals and the phalanges. Phalanges are not always found with fossils, so metatarsal lengths compared to the lengths of hindfoot plus midfoot are a useful metric. Comparing this foot to a chimp foot, the most striking differences are that midfoot is longer, the phalanges are shorter and the metatarsals and phalanges are straighter. Also the big toe bones are more robust on the human foot compared to the chimp foot. Note that these differences are relatively minor and easily within the realm of evolutionary changes, such as the differences seen in dog bones for instance. We can see intermediate lengths and curvature in the "little foot" fossil (Australopithicus)
And in this 3-way comparison of chimp, Australopithicus and human:
which also shows intermediate hip bones. We also have Homo naledi (another hominid) feet which are very similar to Homo sapiens And we have this direct comparison of phalange curvature:
There are more if one digs for them. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added 3way picby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1055 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
That's why I brought up goats and horses as two separate species. What makes a goat clearly a goat.... Same as "what makes a chimp clearly a chimp..." You look at the similarities in the basic body design, but the goat and the horse are even more similar to each other in that way and yet different in the ways they are different. Horses and goats are, of course, much more dissimilar from one another than humans and chimps are. I'm struggling to decide if there's any point in going into detail on this.
Yes it's hard to get this said. Remove all the chimp's hair/fur, give it human type skin, and it will still be a chimp and not a human being. No, what I mean by having all the same basic parts does not put a chimp and a human in the same category, same as it does not put goats and horses in the same category. I wish I COULD say this as clearly I would like to. I've pointed to various differences to try to make the point but I need an overall way of saying it I don't have except for "what makes a chimp a chimp and not a human..." Of course a chimp with human skin would not look like a human! Because it would have chimp bones and chimp muscles. Bones and muscles which are clearly the same parts in humans and chimps, just slightly different shape and slightly different composition.
But the bones in the case of the chimp vs. human are much more similar to each other than the flesh is, that's why I brought up the flesh differences which seem enormous to me. I would disagree - the flesh doesn't that look different at all.
I think what you're referring to is simply the fact that the metatarsals are obscured by skin and muscle, which makes the difference in orientation seem more dramatic and obscures how similar the digits are to one another. And since you said something about soles, earlier - you're probably also focusing on the crease lines (not sure if there's a proper word for that) in the chimp foot. But these are simply a result of the shape and orientation of the foot - the fact that it's shaped to grasp like a hand. It's not something extra, separate from the shape of the bones - it's simply a consequence of their shape.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024