Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2017 10:07 AM
259 online now:
Coyote, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 254 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,325 Year: 28,931/21,208 Month: 997/1,847 Week: 372/475 Day: 35/102 Hour: 1/7

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
20Next
Author Topic:   "If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"
frako
Member
Posts: 2716
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 211 of 286 (657000)
03-24-2012 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:01 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
look again

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:01 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 212 of 286 (657003)
03-24-2012 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:01 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Apart from some differences with the teeth I don't see the distinction you wish to draw either, perhaps if you actually told us what your reasons were rather than expecting us to guess we could address them more readily.

It is worth noting that both your image and the one in RAZD's line up of skulls are from the Dmanisi site finds, the authors of one paper (Vekua, et al. 2002) describing some of the finds (specifically the skull in RAZD's line up) make these observations in the abstract ...

Vekua, et al. 2002 writes:

Although there are certain anatomical differences among the Dmanisi specimens, the hominids do not clearly represent more than one taxon. We assign the new skull provisionally to Homo erectus (=ergaster). The Dmanisi specimens are the most primitive and small-brained fossils to be grouped with this species or any taxon linked unequivocally with genus Homo and also the ones most similar to the presumed habilis-like stem.

So we might expect to see some more primitive features in the Dmanisi skulls than in other examples of Homo erectus.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:01 PM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:54 PM Wounded King has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16330
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 213 of 286 (657004)
03-24-2012 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:01 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Hi Big Al,

The shared characteristics of the Homo erectus skulls are prominent brow ridges and cheek bones, and there must be others that are less obvious, but I'm not an anthropologist. The skull you presented is actually a subspecies known as Homo erectus georgicus, you can find it described in the Wikipedia article on Homo erectus.

What people are wondering is not only if the differences between Homo erectus and modern humans are apparent to you, but also if you accept that it is far outside the range of variation of modern humans.

And are you going to respond to the cranial capacity data you requested?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:01 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 8 days)
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 214 of 286 (657006)
03-24-2012 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Wounded King
03-24-2012 2:47 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
WK writes:

Apart from some differences with the teeth I don't see the distinction you wish to draw either

Ahhh...so you do see some differences then. It appears anyone can just dig up any old set of bones and within limits claim that it is homo erectus. Not very scientific!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Wounded King, posted 03-24-2012 2:47 PM Wounded King has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by frako, posted 03-24-2012 3:13 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 216 by jar, posted 03-24-2012 3:24 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 217 by Percy, posted 03-24-2012 3:34 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 218 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2012 3:34 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 220 by frako, posted 03-24-2012 3:36 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2012 9:01 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2716
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 215 of 286 (657007)
03-24-2012 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:54 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Not very scientific!

Says the creationist hehehe


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:54 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29793
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 216 of 286 (657010)
03-24-2012 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:54 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
It appears anyone can just dig up any old set of bones and within limits claim that it is homo erectus.

No, that only happens in the Christian Cult of ********* {Unenlightenment} {Unintelligence} {Unknowledgable}.

In science they must supply evidence to support their position.

But again, what does any of your rabbit hole bullshit have to do with the topic?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:54 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16330
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 217 of 286 (657012)
03-24-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:54 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Hi Big Al,

You're not really addressing anything in any of the responding messages. You're not responding to what people say, and you're not describing what it is in the images that you find different or similar. I'm reduced to doing what RAZD has been doing, cut-n-pasting my previous post and hoping you respond someday:

The shared characteristics of the Homo erectus skulls are prominent brow ridges and cheek bones, and there must be others that are less obvious, but I'm not an anthropologist. The skull you presented is actually a subspecies known as Homo erectus georgicus, you can find it described in the Wikipedia article on Homo erectus.

What people are wondering is not only if the differences between Homo erectus and modern humans are apparent to you, but also if you accept that it is far outside the range of variation of modern humans.

And are you going to respond to the cranial capacity data you requested?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:54 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 218 of 286 (657013)
03-24-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:54 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Ahhh...so you do see some differences then. It appears anyone can just dig up any old set of bones and within limits claim that it is homo erectus.

Within limits you can look at any animal and claim that it's a giraffe. The limits would be that it's actually a giraffe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:54 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 219 of 286 (657014)
03-24-2012 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:01 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Here is one for you. As you can see homo erectus looks nothing like your image.

You realize, don't you, that the color of the fossils and the fact that the first specimen has no jawbone are not morphologically diagnostic characteristics?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:01 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2716
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 220 of 286 (657015)
03-24-2012 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:54 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
It appears anyone can just dig up any old set of bones and within limits claim that it is homo erectus

Thing is nature and evolution does not work the way you think it does it does not put things in neat little boxes.

Say you see someone that has skin webbing between his fingers is he still human or is he alredy homo sapiens natator (swimmer)

Say that this child is born on an island and slowly this trait of webbed fingers becomes domminant in the population because it allows them to swimm better and collect more food thus having more wives and more children....

Are they now homo sapiens natator

Say a noter child is borne whitin this population that has gills or gill like organs allowing him to breathe under water

Is he now homo sapiens natator

And when the population of this island all have gills or gill like organs are they now homo sapiens natator?

And if a group of these people decide to rather stay under watter because its more productive or whatever and evolve under the same pressure of better swimming more offspring at what point do they cease to be homo sapiens and become homo sapiens natator


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:54 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5255
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 221 of 286 (657016)
03-24-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:01 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Big Al writes:

Here is one for you. As you can see homo erectus looks nothing like your image.

Do you really think that going to an online shop that sells replicas of fossils, then copy and pasting an image of a random skull you find there is any substitute at all for actual knowledge?

There are real scientists that spend their entire lives working on these things; there's an enormous body of scientific study supporting what is said about human evolution and you think that you can google a single image and form a reasoned opinion that they're all wrong?

I can see you nodding and grinning right now.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:01 PM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 5:02 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 8 days)
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 222 of 286 (657022)
03-24-2012 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Tangle
03-24-2012 3:52 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Tangle writes:

you think that you can google a single image and form a reasoned opinion that they're all wrong?

It wasn't me who googled the first image, it was RAZD. If you can't see the differences between the two images (frako and RAZD) then I can't really help you. You need an optician!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2012 3:52 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 03-24-2012 5:23 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 224 by Panda, posted 03-24-2012 8:26 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16330
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(6)
Message 223 of 286 (657023)
03-24-2012 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 5:02 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Hi Big Al,

Let's put the three Homo erectus skulls alongside the human skull:

The three Homo erectus skulls have a great deal in common, most notably the large brow ridges, prominent cheekbones and small chin. The one with the large canines is a subspecies of Homo erectus, but it still has large brow ridges, prominent cheekbones and small chin. None of these qualities are possessed by the human skull.

The question on everyone's mind is whether you can see the differences between the Homo erectus skulls and the human skull.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 5:02 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1328 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 224 of 286 (657026)
03-24-2012 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 5:02 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Big_Al writes:

If you can't see the differences between the two images (frako and RAZD) then I can't really help you. You need an optician!


And if your ability to use English is so feeble that you are unable to describe the differences that you see then we really can't help you. You need an education!

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 5:02 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19316
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 225 of 286 (657028)
03-24-2012 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 10:55 AM


moving the goal posts again
Hi once again Big_Al35,

One wonders how many times you will dodge the issues that you raise when they are answered.

RAZD writes:

You mean not all of them are Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Would you like to point out which ones are not included?

I never said that. I asked you for the average cranial capacities of the peoples identified. A simple question. ...

What you asked was:

Message 202: When your data refers to Cro Magnon or Homo Sapiens Sapiens,
It is not clear if this data includes the following groups;

Cranial capacity for: northern and southern europeans, tribes of africa including masai, zulu, pygmy etc, northern and southern indians, chinese, japanese, phillipeno, thai, native northern and southern americans. Maybe we should assess the variance in cranial capacity for modern races today?

Now clearly you either think (a) that they are all Homo sapiens sapiens and thus ALL were already covered in the chart provided -- in which case your question is simply pointless -- or (b) that some of them were omitted from the categtory Homo Sapiens Sapiens -- in which case I've asked you to identify which ones would not fall under the Homo Sapiens Sapiens category on the chart.

It is a simple question, trying to clarify your position.

... Why avoid it with claims of discrimination?

Aw playing the persecuted Christian card already?

All I asked was a simple question: which ones you did not consider to be Homo Sapiens Sapiens, -- ie which ones you felt were omitted from that category on the chart (implying discrimination by the chart makers) -- and if you simply reply that they are all Homo sapiens sapiens then we can look at that category on the chart and see the range of skull capacities involved, without needing to discriminate.

Of course we also see that your question was pointless and just another attempt to avoid dealing with the information provided to you.

Message 208 to frako:

Look at the erectus skull provided by RAZD and yours frako they are completely different. One of you must be wrong.

Can you point out those differences? Is one of them human and one not? Or are both within the range of modern humans as you claimed of the skulls in the picture (in which case your reply to frako is also pointless)?

Message 1 to frako again:

Here is one for you. As you can see homo erectus looks nothing like your image.

So is that a skull you feel is human (within the range of modern humans)?

Where do you think it fits in the picture (once again):

Message 203
Message 162: A much better picture is this one:

quote:

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Please note that your skull is not an actual fossil, but a plastic model with the jaw shown (jaws are all removed from the photos to make comparisons easier). Here's a picture of the fossil:

quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_georgicus

Fossil skull from Dmanisi.

Care to comment on any differences between your picture of the plastic model and mine of the actual fossil?

Are there differences? Nose, jaw, eyebrows, teeth, cranium?

Message 214 to Wounded King:

Ahhh...so you do see some differences then. It appears anyone can just dig up any old set of bones and within limits claim that it is homo erectus. Not very scientific!

Curiously, we have Wounded King saying that there is some variation in the teeth between two specimens and you taking this to mean that they are arbitrarily combined into one species, while at the same time claiming that ALL the skulls on the picture are within the range of modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens (seeing as you have not yet told us which ones you think are not in that category -- where you draw the line).

Where do you think the Homo erectus skull shown by frako fits in the picture?

Message 207:

Is it before or after yours? What features do you use to tell?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : completed

Edited by RAZD, : engls


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 10:55 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017