Summations Only

And not just a nested hierarchy in traits, but one locked in the spacio-temporal matrix of the distribution of populations around the world -- no evolution occurred without being preceded by a similar less derived species living nearby. (a point observed by Darwin).No ID/creationist hypothesis explains this observation either. Special creation has no need for such a limitation\restriction to this time-space matrix.Enjoy

I believe you meant 1859. And Natural Philosophy.Enjoy

Hi KyleConno, and welcome to the forum. and in their interactions within the ecological niches they occupy.Enjoy

quibble One of the grandfathers. Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography: Wallace came to the same basic conclusions at virtually the same time and if not for Huxley urging Darwin to publish we would be seeing his name instead of Darwin in creationist posts, and they would call it Wallacism.Science builds on science, and ideas accumulate and then some one -- or as has happened many times -- many people come to a new concept that provides the explanatory structure. What this shows is that science does not depend on any one individual, as someone else will unravel the reality that the evidence reveals.In The Law of Sarawak Wallace laid out the constraints on new species to the temporo-spacial matrix, in 1855.Enjoy

In other words, they are members of a clade that descended from a common ancestor population, which you guess/assume/wish was on a (no evidence) fantasy ark.Is the Okapi also a member of the Giraffidae clade, and is it descended from the same common ancestor population?Enjoy

Hi FaithI assume you are replying to the subthread title, as it doesn't relate to my question on Okapi and the Giraffidae clade, and descent from their common ancestor population. This is an old argument of yours that has been much replied to ... Good idea. Can I suggest resurrecting your old Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread? I believe this thesis of yours was discussed in great detail there.Enjoy

But you didn't answer my question (highlighted below) which is on topic. Let me repeat my post:

quote:

---

Message 105: In other words, they are members of a clade that descended from a common ancestor population, which you guess/assume/wish was on a (no evidence) fantasy ark.

​

Is the Okapi also a member of the Giraffidae clade, and is it descended from the same common ancestor population?

---

Is the Samotherium? their common ancestor?Inquiring minds want to know.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added Samotherium reference from bluegenes in msg 93

Links to messages are easy: [mid=807989] becomes Message 756, where 807989 is that gray number right after "Message 756 of 759" in the message header

quote:

---

RAZD asks:
Is the Okapi also a member of the Giraffidae clade, and is it descended from the same common ancestor population?

​

What about the Samotherium?

​

Okapi. Yes. However like all scientific questions this may have to be revised if contradictory information comes to light.

​

Samotherium? I don't know.

---

As I'm talking about evolution explaining the evidence rather than a fantasy flood scenario, I choose to reply here.There's more ... what about Sivatherium:

quote:

---

Modern, giraffe-like restoration in the MEPAN

​

Sivatherium resembled the modern okapi, but was far larger, and more heavily built, being about 2.2 m (7.2 ft) tall at the shoulder, 3 m (9.8 ft) in total height with a weight up to 400—500 kg (880—1,100 lb).[6] A newer estimate has come up with an estimated body mass of about 1,250 kg (2,760 lb).[3] This would make Sivatherium the largest ruminant in history. This weight estimate is thought to be an underestimate, as it does not take into account the large horns possessed by males of the species. Sivatherium had a wide, antler-like pair of ossicones on its head, and a second pair of ossicones above its eyes. Its shoulders were very powerful to support the neck muscles required to lift the heavy skull.[4]

---

The skin rendering is immaterial (it could just as easily been similar to the Okapi) the the skeletal structure is accurate and the stance and musculature are probably appropriate.Then there other Hydaspitherium clade, also classified as members of the Giraffidae Clade, Bramatherium, Helladotherium, and Hydaspitherium.Interesting that there are 4 species in that genus, just as there are currently 4 species of giraffe.Of course evolution and nested hierarchies from common ancestors explain these as all members of the same Giraffidae Clade and we can easily trace the family traits (such as ossicones rather than horns on the heads).Enjoy

In your opinion. Of course opinions incompatible with reality are delusions ... if you want to discuss this further you can join me at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.So let's start with Message 1 on that thread and see where reality leads us: I'm betting you won't, because the last thing YEC's want to do is see how badly their opinions are invalidated by the preponderance of objective empirical reality.Enjoyps -- if you don't participate on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 then any comments you make from here on are just you blowing smoke.Edited by RAZD, : ps

Because they know they are wrong?Enjoy

My apologies. So you agree that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old and that life on earth has been around for over 3 billion of those years?Enjoy

See Life before 5778 years ago, Message 487 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 as this is off topic for this thread.Enjoy

The majority of Christians have. You are talking about fundamentalist sects, not all of Christianity.But it's not just Christians that need adapt to reality, anyone that believes something that is at odds with the objective empirical evidence of reality, is delusional if they think reality will change magically to match their belief.When the world went from the center of the universe to a planet orbiting a star in the far reaches of a galaxy in a universe filled with galaxies, with no discernible center ... Christianity adapted, the world didn't end.Enjoy

Actually the big toe is a little longer and the footprints show a little variation in positions, indicating some lateral control that would facilitate tree climbing. Says the person sitting in a chair looking at pictures, as compared to the scientists that measured and compared footprints to feet.The issue of footprints is discussed on {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal along with several other aspects of Lucy and Australopithicines:

quote:

---

Message 1: from
http://www.geocities.com/...anaveral/Hangar/2437/hominid.htm

​

Confirmation that the early Australopithecines were efficient bipedal walkers came when Mary Leaky discovered a set of hominid footprints pressed into a layer of wet volcanic ash some three and a half million years ago near Laetoli in Africa. Three individual bipeds left their prints, apparently a male, a female and a juvenile. The outlines of their footprints, sharply preserved in the hardened ash, clearly showed that the animal that left these prints was an efficient bipedal walker, like a human--there was not a trace of a divergent big toe such as found in apes, and a very humanlike arch was present. A composite A. afarensis foot, assembled from recovered fossil bones, fits the Laetoli footprints exactly.

​

(bold mine for empHASis)

---

The foot for this composite skeleton comes from "Little Foot" and is discussed in detail on Message 20 on that thread:

quote:

---

But if you think "little foot" was an unexpected find, then compare this 1935 prediction with "little foot" (same article):

​

quote:

---

---

​

A find that matches a prediction based on evolution.

​

The clearest pictures of the Laetoli footprints that I could find are:

​

​

The (12 year old) article on "little foot" (stw 573) also says that more bones were found (including the rest of the foot? with the skull and forearm still in the rock but exposed) but I can't find anything more about any recent results of excavations..

​

Other foot bones for Australopithecus afarensis that I know of include heel and toe bones from the "first family" group:

​

PBS "how did they move":

​

quote:

---

First Family: heel bones
The broad heels of this creature could withstand the pressure of walking upright. Like human heels, they are filled with shock-absorbing "spongy" bone, rather than the more solid bone found in the heels of other apes.

​

First Family: toe bones
Toe bones found among the First Family are long compared to those of humans, but they don't curve forward toward the heel as they do in modern tree-climbing primates.

---

​

Not fully human, not fully ape -- intermediate.

---

Some variation in big toe position in the footprints was noted, and that would indicate mobility of the toe that would facilitate climbing ability was still retained to some degree.Footprints and feet found in the same general area and the same time era within the spacio-temporal matrix. When we take out your obviously biased inference the obvious answer is obviously what the scientists concluded, not the armchair detective.Because no modern human fossils are found in the spacio-temporal matrix that the footprints are found in.But I'm glad you recognize how similar Australopithicine feet are to modern human feet.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

Not "indistinguishable" and not according to scientists, but lay people. I would say that they look similar to modern human footprints, and this is because they show derived traits similar to modern humans.see {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal or Message 213 here (it excerpts pertinent parts from the thread).The distinguishing difference is a slightly longer gap between big toe and the others, and the tracks also show more variation in placement than modern footprints. The stride length was also compared with the Lucy/Australopithicus skeleton, and surprise, matched the skeleton stride length when modeled in a walking position. The spacing is short for a modern human. The heel/toe depressions also match Lucy's stride. Conclusion the spacing is correct for an Austalopithicine walking.Scientists matched an Australopithicine foot skeleton to the footprints and said "A composite A. afarensis foot, assembled from recovered fossil bones, fits the Laetoli footprints exactly. Again size matters here, because the modern human foot is bigger (details, details, details).abe: Here is a picture showing comparative sizes of Human, Australopithicus and Chimp The foot is smaller and a walking stride (footprint spacing) would be smaller. The track size and spacing match Australopithicus. /abe And if they saw an Australopithicine foot today they would likely say it was indistinguishable from "modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot" ... because they are similar. Another creationist lie.

quote:

---

quote:

---

First Family: heel bones
The broad heels of this creature could withstand the pressure of walking upright. Like human heels, they are filled with shock-absorbing "spongy" bone, rather than the more solid bone found in the heels of other apes.

​

First Family: toe bones
Toe bones found among the First Family are long compared to those of humans, but they don't curve forward toward the heel as they do in modern tree-climbing primates.

---

​

Not fully human, not fully ape -- intermediate.

---

That the Australopithicine foot is intermediate between ape and modern human is just what evolution predicts.Lucy (Australopithicine) was still able to climb trees (with a flexible big toe and curved finger bones) but the leg (hip, knee, ankles, etc) show fully developed for obligate upright walking when on the ground. Of course she was, just as you and I are. That's why so many of her bones are very similar to ours, and why her transitional bones (hips, toes, fingers, etc) are somewhere between human and chimp because we share an ape ancestor with them. Again the temporal-spacial matrix shows that the hominids living in the area at the time match Australopithicines and completely rule our modern humans.Only a desperate creationist would assume modern humans made the prints, because they ignore the fine detail in the footprints that show longer big toes and they ignore the constraints of time on their relation to modern humans.That's okay, the facts won't change no matter how much they twist and dance.Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : picture