Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-24-2017 5:48 AM
392 online now:
edge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 389 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,934 Year: 13,540/21,208 Month: 3,022/3,605 Week: 364/933 Day: 9/97 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
27NextFF
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
CRR
Member
Posts: 228
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 211 of 391 (809211)
05-17-2017 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by jar
05-17-2017 6:44 AM


Re: Laetoli Footprints
They are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot. They can be distinguished from tracks of Western people who usually wear shoes.

The human footprints exist.
The Australopithecine fossils exist.
They were found in the same general area.
The Australopithecines did not make the footprints.

What made a trail of human footprints?

This question is only difficult for people who don't like the obvious answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 05-17-2017 6:44 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by PaulK, posted 05-17-2017 7:51 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2017 7:55 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 214 by jar, posted 05-17-2017 8:06 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12686
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 212 of 391 (809213)
05-17-2017 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by CRR
05-17-2017 7:10 AM


Re: Laetoli Footprints
Why do you think that the local australopithecines did not make the footprints? All the scientific sources I've looked at agree that they could.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 7:10 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18455
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 213 of 391 (809215)
05-17-2017 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by CRR
05-17-2017 7:10 AM


Re: Laetoli Footprints
They are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot. They can be distinguished from tracks of Western people who usually wear shoes.

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.

The human footprints exist.
The Australopithecine fossils exist.
They were found in the same general area.
The Australopithecines did not make the footprints.

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.

What made a trail of ... footprints?

This question is only difficult for people who don't like the obvious answer.

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.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 7:10 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28834
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 214 of 391 (809217)
05-17-2017 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by CRR
05-17-2017 7:10 AM


Re: Laetoli Footprints
CRR writes:

The human footprints exist.
The Australopithecine fossils exist.
They were found in the same general area.
The Australopithecines did not make the footprints.

What made a trail of human footprints?

Again, your post is a classic example of the utter dishonesty of Creationism.

The footprints exist.

The fossils exist.

Australopithecines are humans.

The footprints are human.

Whether the footprints were made by Australopithecines or not really is irrelevant.

Science understands that Australopithecine are human just as Homo Sapiens sapiens is human just as Science understands both are primates and mammals and chordates and animals.

The point is that both the footprints and the fossils predate the Garden of Eden or Modern Humans or Homo Sapiens sapiens and are over three million years older than modern humans.

The point is that science has a basic tenet of honesty which is utterly missing in Creationism.

This answer is only difficult for people who don't like the obvious answer.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 7:10 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15927
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 215 of 391 (809231)
05-17-2017 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by CRR
05-17-2017 5:54 AM


Re: Laetoli Footprints
I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. Lucy was an ape.

As in a modern human’s skeleton, Lucy's bones are rife with evidence clearly pointing to bipedality. Her distal femur shows several traits unique to bipedality. The shaft is angled relative to the condyles (knee joint surfaces), which allows bipeds to balance on one leg at a time during locomotion. There is a prominent patellar lip to keep the patella (knee cap) from dislocating due to this angle. Her condyles are large and are thus adapted to handling the added weight that results from shifting from four limbs to two. The pelvis exhibits a number of adaptations to bipedality. The entire structure has been remodeled to accommodate an upright stance and the need to balance the trunk on only one limb with each stride. The talus, in her ankle, shows evidence for a convergent big toe, sacrificing manipulative abilities for efficiency in bipedal locomotion. The vertebrae show evidence of the spinal curvatures necessitated by a permanent upright stance.

https://iho.asu.edu/about/lucys-story

What would your argument be? Has God been talking to you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 5:54 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 216 of 391 (809233)
05-17-2017 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dredge
05-16-2017 6:12 PM


Re: a few bones
Dredge writes:

Yes, let's take Lucy ... her feet bones were missing, so she was depicted with human feet ... based solely on the fact that human foot-prints were found nearby! Real scientific, that.

Then ignore the depiction. Why are you so afraid to address the bones they did find?

The truth of the matter is that Lucy has a mixture of ape-like and human-like features, the very definition of a transitional fossil.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Dredge, posted 05-16-2017 6:12 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 5:52 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 217 of 391 (809234)
05-17-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Dredge
05-16-2017 6:28 PM


Re: Bones
Dredge writes:

Yep, and when you get really, really good at it, you can come up with Nebraska Man from a pig's tooth! ... or combine the bones of an orangutan and a human to produce Piltdown Man! That degree of scientific rigour, knowledge and expertise is possessed only by highly qualified Darwinist charlatans.

Which of these is Piltdown man or Nebraska man?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Dredge, posted 05-16-2017 6:28 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 5:17 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 218 of 391 (809235)
05-17-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by CRR
05-17-2017 5:54 AM


Re: Laetoli Footprints
CRR writes:

Yes they do. According to Laetoli Footprints they are in fact "hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans."
Others have said they are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot.

I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. Lucy was an ape.

A track of human footprints strongly suggests the trail was made by humans. Well that's the most logical conclusion.

Yet more dishonesty from creationists. Lucy's pelvis and femur were human-like, not ape-like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 5:54 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18455
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 219 of 391 (809241)
05-17-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by CRR
05-17-2017 5:54 AM


Re: Laetoli Footprints, Australopithicine feet and creationist lies
the [Laetoli] foot prints do not correspond to modern foot prints

Yes they do. According to Laetoli Footprints they are in fact "hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans."

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

Others have said they are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot.

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.

I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. ...

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.

... Lucy was an ape.

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.

A track of human footprints strongly suggests the trail was made by humans. Well that's the most logical conclusion.

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


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 5:54 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 220 of 391 (809243)
05-17-2017 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dredge
05-16-2017 5:59 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:

scientists will continue to employ the theory of evolution as a working theory that explains biological phenomena.

Useless talk amounting to useless science, in other words. Not impressed, but slightly amused.

I don't care if you're impressed or amused.

The only people missing out on the usefulness of this science are people like you who simply deny it without reason.

Well, there's reasons... they're just stupid religious ones.

Without evolution, biology just doesn't make much sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dredge, posted 05-16-2017 5:59 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2017 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 228 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 5:34 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 232 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 5:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18455
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 221 of 391 (809245)
05-17-2017 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2017 11:10 AM


with fundamentalist creationist religions, biology doesn't make sense
Well, there's reasons... they're just stupid religious ones.

Without evolution, biology just doesn't make much sense.

You could also say that with fundamentalist creationist religions, biology doesn't make sense.

Perhaps that's why there are so many confused creationists ...

Enjoy


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2017 11:10 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Coyote, posted 05-17-2017 11:55 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 224 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2017 12:17 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5783
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 222 of 391 (809247)
05-17-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by RAZD
05-17-2017 11:52 AM


Re: with fundamentalist creationist religions, biology doesn't make sense
You could also say that with fundamentalist creationist religions, biology doesn't make sense.

They have to deny, misrepresent, or ignore many other fields as well, particularly dating sciences, geology, paleontology, genetics, etc.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2017 11:52 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 12:01 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(4)
Message 223 of 391 (809249)
05-17-2017 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Coyote
05-17-2017 11:55 AM


Re: with fundamentalist creationist religions, biology doesn't make sense
Coyote writes:

They have to deny, misrepresent, or ignore many other fields as well, particularly dating sciences, geology, paleontology, genetics, etc.

"Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

That is a quote from a devout Christian and famous scientist. I would suggest that creationists give that article a read because it feeds right into this thread.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Coyote, posted 05-17-2017 11:55 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 224 of 391 (809252)
05-17-2017 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by RAZD
05-17-2017 11:52 AM


Re: with fundamentalist creationist religions, biology doesn't make sense
You could also say that with fundamentalist creationist religions, biology doesn't make sense.

For sure.

Perhaps that's why there are so many confused creationists ...

Yeah, maybe one day the Catholic Church will grow up and drop all the nonsense about special human creation - 'cause that shit is confusing as hell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2017 11:52 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 350
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 225 of 391 (809275)
05-17-2017 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by jar
05-16-2017 6:30 PM


Re: a few bones
Forgive my ignorance, but how was the age of the footprints estimated?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by jar, posted 05-16-2017 6:30 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 5:15 PM Dredge has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
27NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017