Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2017 6:45 AM
332 online now:
PaulK, Pressie, Son Goku (3 members, 329 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,888 Year: 25,494/21,208 Month: 1,121/2,338 Week: 242/450 Day: 7/55 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19085
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1 of 2 (809437)
05-18-2017 11:56 AM


It's one thing to look at charts of descent, it's another to look at the actual bones of actual fossils. Let's start with a short comparison to dog variations. Creationists like to point to dogs and say that they show plenty of variation without becoming a new species.

Dog variation indeed shows how much phenotypes can vary within a species and still remain a species. Dog variation is achieved through artificial (man-made) selection, but it can show us what is possible in nature when we look at the evolution of species. We can use the variation observed in dogs as a metric for how much can occur within a species, and then look at the difference between species to see if that shows more or less variation than seen in dogs.

If we look at the variation in skeletons between Humans and Chimps (note skeletons not scaled the same):

Is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

If we add Gorillas to the mix (note skeletons not scaled the same):

Is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

Now let's add a composite Australopithicus, based mostly on Lucy, but with parts added from other fossils, such as skull and feet (note skeletons not scaled the same):

Is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

Lets look at the first three with size appropriate scaled skeletons:

Again, is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

Let's compare human to Homo habilis and Australopithicus (note skeletons not scaled the same):

Again, is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

And then we have Ardipiticus ramidus (Ardi), incomplete but we have enough to compare them to those above:

A reconstruction is also available:

Where the known bones are in place and the probable reconstruction is sketched in.

Let's put Ardi in a line-up with Humans, Australopithicus and Chimps (note skeletons not scaled the same):

Is the variation in traits seen in the bones between modern humans and Ardi more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

Inquiring minds want to know.

If the variation between species seen in the fossil record is less than that seen in dogs, then it is logical and reasonable that the younger species can have evolved from the older species, especially if found in close proximity within the spacial-temporal matrix.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... 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)

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4753
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 2 (809469)
05-18-2017 1:00 PM


Thread Copied to Human Origins and Evolution Forum
Thread copied to the The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans thread in the Human Origins and Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017