As I said before the only clear differences I can see from the pictures are in the teeth, and it wouldn't surprise me if that was principally a matter of wear on the skull prior to fossilisation. It looks like a lot of the bone surrounding the roots of the teeth has been eroded away making them look much bigger.
According to the paper on D2700 the skull has suffered some damage which may account for some of the differences Al is seeing (Vekua et al., 2002) ...
Vekua et al. writes:
The maxillae are slightly damaged anteriorly, the zygomatic arches are broken, and both mastoid processes are heavily abraded. There is damage also to the orbital walls and to the elements of the interorbital region and the nasal cavity. The condyles are missing from the mandible.
The damage to the maxilla is what I was describing as wear. There is actually a side view in the paper which makes the degree of erosion around the teeth much clearer, you can easily appreciate that a large amount of the tooth roots are exposed (That image can be found here).
To emphasise Coyote's point about multivariate analysis here are some of the measurement's the authors use to compare their new find to previously discovered specimens ...
Curiously, Coyote is probably the best person on this thread to discuss fossils and the comparisons of shared (synapomorphies) and derived (apomorphies) features and how they are used to categorize fossils in a scientific process, rather than just looking at pictures.
I have posted politely, presented solid evidence concerning the topic, and have firsthand experience with fossil man and the statistical treatments used to analyze the various skulls, and those are the posts you choose to ignore?
I would be interested in your reasons for ignoring my posts.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
You've heard the phrase, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing?" Big Al is playing it as safe as possible and avoiding all knowledge.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
Alright, I see that a lot of people have been trying a lot of different tactics.
I'm not going to go back an read all 250 posts to see what's been posted. Clearly you are not convinced.
I'll simply ask you two questions:
#1) What do you feel is the best explanation for the fossils that exist? #2) What would you expect/need to see to be convinced that fossils represent changes over time from one set of features to a different set of features?
#1) What do you feel is the best explanation for the fossils that exist? #2) What would you expect/need to see to be convinced that fossils represent changes over time from one set of features to a different set of features?
My concern is that you appear to have only one explanation for how these fossils might have come about. Issues such as the effects of weathering, diet change, environmental factors, and medicine seem to be completely ignored. I am not even convinced by your dating arguments. And yes I am being honest!
My concern is that you appear to have only one explanation for how these fossils might have come about. Issues such as the effects of weathering, diet change, environmental factors, and medicine seem to be completely ignored.
Do you have any evidence that actual paleontologists are ignoring these things, or is this just your latest straw to grasp at in an attempt to not face known facts?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
#1) What do you feel is the best explanation for the fossils that exist? #2) What would you expect/need to see to be convinced that fossils represent changes over time from one set of features to a different set of features?
My concern is that you appear to have only one explanation for how these fossils might have come about. Issues such as the effects of weathering, diet change, environmental factors, and medicine seem to be completely ignored. I am not even convinced by your dating arguments. And yes I am being honest!
Why didn't you answer the questions?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
... Issues such as the effects of weathering, diet change, environmental factors, and medicine seem to be completely ignored. ...
Curiously, diet change and environmental factors are what drive evolutionary changes over many generations, but these changes are slow.
Weathering could account for erosion of bones in various areas, but it doesn't rebuild bone inside what is worn away, and this is why some teeth look longer than others, but this does not change the overall dimensions of the teeth.
And medicine cannot alter skulls in a way that.
... I am not even convinced by your dating arguments. ...
Issues such as the effects of weathering, diet change, environmental factors, and medicine seem to be completely ignored.
Is it possible that issues which you think "seem to be completely ignored" are actually issues about which you have not researched?
Have you bothered to look up what paleontologists have studies in regards to weather on fossils? Or about the effects of the various kinds of earth where they are found?
As for "diet change" and "medicine", I fail to understand exactly what your objection is?
Are you saying that paleontologists haven't studied T-Rex fossils to determine which medicines they were or were not taking?
On that you've got us. We also haven't studied to see if they liked Cheers episodes with or without Diane.
At a certain point, you restrict the research to only those things which are plausible.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
