Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 1:46 AM
434 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), NoNukes (3 members, 431 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,960 Year: 6,566/21,208 Month: 2,327/2,634 Week: 515/572 Day: 1/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
17181920Next
Author Topic:   "If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 226 of 286 (657030)
03-24-2012 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 10:55 AM


having too much fun
...

Edited by RAZD, : delete double post

Edited by RAZD, : .


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

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 227 of 286 (657033)
03-25-2012 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Big_Al35
03-23-2012 8:50 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans.

Whereas your point now would appear to be that there's so much variation in H. erectus alone that the specimens even within that necessarily narrower range shouldn't be classified together:

Look at the erectus skull provided by RAZD and yours frako they are completely different.

The fossil ancestors, apparently, "fall well within the range of modern humans" and they are "completely different". These specimens, it seems, are so very similar to H. sapiens that they should all be considered modern humans, and so completely different from one another that they shouldn't all be considered H. erectus.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Big_Al35, posted 03-23-2012 8:50 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 7:55 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 228 of 286 (657034)
03-25-2012 1:07 AM


No response yet
Big Al has yet to respond to my post showing that linear dimensions are not a proper criteria for describing and differentiating skulls.

For that you need multivariate statistics which deal with complex shapes.

I'm beginning to think he has no answer to that point.

Nor to the various articles that I cited showing that research in paleoanthropology is done using multivariate statistics.

Nor to my point that I used such statistics to differentiate several Native American cranial series in the mid-70s.

Big Al is trying to apply a freshman understanding to a graduate school problem, and trying to tell those who are more learned how to go about their research.

Big Al is sadly mistaken in this.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 229 of 286 (657037)
03-25-2012 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2012 12:55 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Dr A writes:

Whereas your point now would appear to be that there's so much variation in H. erectus alone that the specimens even within that necessarily narrower range shouldn't be classified together:

Well the images are now available for all to see. Individuals can make up their own judgements about the differences and merits of classification. I won't explain what I can see as I presume you have eyes.

Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2012 12:55 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 03-25-2012 8:03 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2012 8:14 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15490
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 230 of 286 (657038)
03-25-2012 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Big_Al35
03-25-2012 7:55 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Hi Big Al,

This is a copy of my Message 223:

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 7:55 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 11:19 AM Percy has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 231 of 286 (657039)
03-25-2012 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Big_Al35
03-25-2012 7:55 AM


Running away from the Topic
Hi again Big_Al35

Well the images are now available for all to see. Individuals can make up their own judgements about the differences and merits of classification. I won't explain what I can see as I presume you have eyes.

In other words, no you cannot describe in detail the differences you find are so definite, and choose instead the old creationist gambit of running away from the issue.

Let's take it a step at a time: can you tell me what the obvious differences are between these two pictures:

It is a simple question, yes?

Enjoy.


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 229 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 7:55 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 232 of 286 (657040)
03-25-2012 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Big_Al35
03-24-2012 2:54 PM


Getting back to shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features
And hi again, Big_Al35.

Going back a little:

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!

Curiously, what the scientists actually do is compare similarities as well as differences when classifying fossils. As Coyote (who has actually done this) points out you need a matrix of measurements to do a proper study, not just look at photographs.

It may also interest you to learn (hopefully) about the degree of variation within the Homo erectus classification, especially as you were so hot to point out the degree of variation in Homo sapiens sapiens (and we can also talk about variations within Homo sapiens if you want).

quote:
Homo erectus remains one of the most successful and long-lived species of Homo. As a distinct Asian species, however, no consensus has been reached as to whether it is ancestral to H. sapiens or any later hominids.

• Homo erectus


Here are some pictures for you to study:

The last one is the Dmanisi Homo erectus georgicus fossil again, and the one on the red table is a composite of "Peking Man" and we see that they are (a) grouped together under Homo erectus by their shared (synapomorphies) characteristics and (b) divided into subspecies by their derived (apomorphies) features. This is done by comparing their overall matrix of characteristics of skull and skeletal features.

Enjoy.


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 214 by Big_Al35, posted 03-24-2012 2:54 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 233 of 286 (657050)
03-25-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Percy
03-25-2012 8:03 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Percy writes:

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

WK has already identified the teeth difference between pics 1 and 3, furthermore he claims that pic 3 has the lowest cranial capacity. This is WK's comments not mine. After having done my own research I am dubious about the latter comment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 03-25-2012 8:03 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Tangle, posted 03-25-2012 11:51 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2012 1:39 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 03-25-2012 2:13 PM Big_Al35 has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4405
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 234 of 286 (657054)
03-25-2012 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Big_Al35
03-25-2012 11:19 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Big Al writes:

After having done my own research

Care to share? (It's what we do here.)

Or have you just looked at another picture in the bone shop?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 11:19 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 235 of 286 (657065)
03-25-2012 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Big_Al35
03-25-2012 11:19 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Hi Big_Al35,

WK has already identified the teeth difference between pics 1 and 3, ...

What about the differences between 1 and 2:

Message 230: Let's put the three Homo erectus skulls alongside the human skull:

Other that pic 1 having a lower jaw and being a plastic model while pic 2 is an actual fossil ...

Also you have not answered this yet:

Message 231: Let's take it a step at a time: can you tell me what the obvious differences are between these two pictures:

It is a simple question, yes?

I'm still waiting for an answer.

... furthermore he claims that pic 3 has the lowest cranial capacity. This is WK's comments not mine. ...

Indeed:

quote:
wikipedia Homo erectus article:

At around 600 cubic centimetres (37 cu in) brain volume, the skull D2700 is dated to 1.77 million years old and in good condition offering insights in comparison to the modern human cranial morphology. At the time of discovery the cranium was the smallest and most primitive Hominina skull ever discovered outside of Africa. ...

Subsequently, four fossil skeletons were found, showing a species primitive in its skull and upper body but with relatively advanced spines and lower limbs, providing greater mobility. They are now thought not to be a separate species, but to represent a stage soon after the transition between Homo habilis and H. erectus, ...


When we look at the chart provided by Malcolm in Message 201 ...

... we see that 600cc is right about the middle of the Homo habilis range (as is the age, at 1.77 mys), and the low early end of the H. erectus range.

Based on these criteria alone you might ask why it is not classified as Homo habilis.

quote:
wikipedia Homo habilis article:

KNM ER 1813 is a relatively complete cranium which dates 1.9 million years old, discovered at Koobi Fora, Kenya by Kamoya Kimeu in 1973. The brain capacity is 510 cm³, not as impressive as other early specimen and forms of Homo habilis discovered.


Would you care to point out the obvious differences between these:

Note that I've sorted them roughly by cranial capacity ...

After having done my own research I am dubious about the latter comment.

Really? What did you find? Where did you find it? What did it say?

Enjoy.

Edited by Admin, : Narrow the images.


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 233 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 11:19 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15490
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 236 of 286 (657069)
03-25-2012 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Big_Al35
03-25-2012 11:19 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Hi Big Al,

Well, whatever it is you're seeing, whatever your reasons, whatever your answers to our questions, I guess you're not willing to share them. Here's you:

[Groucho]
I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it.

Your proposition may be good,
But let's have one thing understood,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it.

I'm opposed to it,
On general principle, I'm opposed to it.

[chorus] He's opposed to it.
In fact, indeed, that he's opposed to it!

[Groucho]
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
I'm against it!

Why don't you wait until you're ready to explain what you're seeing in the images before posting again.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 11:19 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 3:44 PM Percy has responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 237 of 286 (657080)
03-25-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Percy
03-25-2012 2:13 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Percy writes:

Well, whatever it is you're seeing


It's not me, it's your colleagues doing most of the seeing. You have already showed me two pictures of homo erectus which you now admit are different. You also now admit that one of the erectus images might be better classified as habilis. You claim to see no differences and yet you admit these differences. You now claim that shop replicas are virtually fraudulent copies. You claim that the lower jaw is a key difference when assessing fossils against modern man but show me a bunch of images where the lower jaw is missing. I think you should think carefully about making judgements about these fossils and before submitting your next post. Good luck.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 03-25-2012 2:13 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Coyote, posted 03-25-2012 4:58 PM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 03-25-2012 5:23 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2012 8:51 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 249 by Nuggin, posted 03-27-2012 2:31 AM Big_Al35 has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 238 of 286 (657084)
03-25-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Big_Al35
03-25-2012 3:44 PM


Ducking?
I think you should think carefully about making judgements about these fossils and before submitting your next post. Good luck.

Are you ignoring me deliberately?

I have posted to you twice about methods used in differentiating skulls and you have yet to even respond. Multivariate statistics, remember?

Please address this issue, or admit that your comments are baseless.

The only value I have found in your comments is that they have convinced me you know nothing of the subject.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 3:44 PM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Big_Al35, posted 03-26-2012 4:37 PM Coyote has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15490
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 239 of 286 (657086)
03-25-2012 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Big_Al35
03-25-2012 3:44 PM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
Hi Big Al,

There seems to be some confusion. I think if we just focus on one thing at a time, and if you actually tell us what you see in the images, then we should be able to make some progress. Here are three homo erectus skulls and one human skull:

Can you see how similar the homo erectus skulls are to one another, including the one that is actually thought to be a subpecies of homo erectus (third from the left)? Can you see how different they are from a modern human skull?

Notice I didn't have to tell you which one was the modern human skull. Kind of stands out, doesn't it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 3:44 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 240 of 286 (657105)
03-25-2012 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Big_Al35
03-25-2012 3:44 PM


coraling cats and chasing rainbows
Hi Big_Al35, what's up with the non-responses? Feeling boxed in? Piled on?

... You have already showed me two pictures of homo erectus which you now admit are different. ...

But why would you expect two different fossils to be exactly the same -- particularly after going on at length about variations within modern humans.

We expect variations through evolution, and the more time and distance between fossils the more variation is possible.

WE would be surprised if there was NO difference. What we are curious about is what differences YOU see from looking at pictures. For instance ...

Message 231: Let's take it a step at a time: can you tell me what the obvious differences are between these two pictures:

It is a simple question, yes?

... was a bit of a trick question: these are pictures of exactly the same fossil (one is an accurate, detailed plastic model of the other), and any apparent differences are due to camera angle. If you doubt me look at the crack lines on the nose bridge, the cheekbones, the top of the right eye, the teeth and the teeth sockets.

Now I expect that the "obvious differences" you mentioned are also due in part to these camera angles -- especially when you compare pictures from different sources.

This is why Coyote stresses using a matrix of data obtained from detailed measurements of the skulls, not cursory glances at photos.

... You also now admit that one of the erectus images might be better classified as habilis. ...

BZZT!!! WRONG AGAIN. What I said was:

Message 235: Based on these criteria alone you might ask why it is not classified as Homo habilis.

Note that I specifically said that YOU might ask ... based on only two pieces of information (age and cranial capacity) ... and this is because you apparently are not very well informed about how fossils are classified, and think that you looking at pictures can tell as much as Coyote can from looking at the actual fossil and the complete set of data that has been collected regarding this fossil when this is his particular field of study. Rather than bluster on you should pay attention to Coyote and ask questions about aspects that you do not understand.

That chart is not used to classify fossils, but to catalog the variations in cranial capacity of the fossil specimens.

The fact is that when you compare ALL the features, the similarities as well as the differences, this fossil is a better match to Homo erectus than to Homo habilis, yet different enough from the main group of Homo erectus fossils to be classed as a subspecies -- Homo erectus georgicus.

See Message 232 for a list of other subspecies.

quote:
Wiki article on Homo erectus again:

... an extinct species of hominid that lived from the end of the Pliocene epoch to the later Pleistocene, about 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago. ...


That's ~500,000 years, while Homo sapiens (including subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens and other subspecies) have only existed ~200,000 years. It would be astonishing if they did not have some variations between early samples and late sample and between african samples and asian samples.

Again, we expect variations through evolution, and the more time and distance between fossils the more variation is possible. We also expect similarities between late Homo habilis and early Homo erectus when one evolves into the other. The chart also shows this kind of blending between all species on the chart.

... You claim to see no differences and yet you admit these differences. ...

Who has said that? What we have asked you is what differences YOU see between them and what differences you see between them and Homo sapiens.

You were the one that claimed that they fell under the range of variation seen in modern humans.

... You now claim that shop replicas are virtually fraudulent copies. ...

Not at all: those copies are very accurate right down to the break lines in the skulls. The only obvious difference between the photos is camera angle, so that the size of the cranium appears different.

... You claim that the lower jaw is a key difference when assessing fossils against modern man ...

Again, this is incorrect. The lower jaw provides information certainly (when available - same with the teeth), but the major information comes from the parts that can be compared 1 to 1, and not from how complete the image is or how you look at it in a photo.

... but show me a bunch of images where the lower jaw is missing. ...

The picture in question:

... has intentionally deleted jaws (not all fossils have them), and presented the fossils from the same point of view for the frontal and profile views, so that people like you will not be distracted from comparing actual differences.

Look at them carefully: can you pick out Homo erectus georgicus? Put your hand over the jaw on the second picture above, look at the teeth, eyebrows, etc.

... I think you should think carefully about making judgements about these fossils and before submitting your next post. Good luck.

Curiously, what this really shows is that you are not properly equipped -- either by education or personal investigation -- to understand what people have been saying, what they have been showing you, and what they have been asking you about. You need to do more than just make a couple of cursory observations and make some unspecified internet research (presumably of creationist websites).

Now I suggest you go ask Coyote, humbly, for some advice on what you need to study in order to learn some basic understanding of this field.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : trick question


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 237 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 3:44 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Wounded King, posted 03-26-2012 6:27 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
17181920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017