The Origin of Novelty

Ah, so you acknowledge the similarity. I thought you were claiming the skulls in the hominid sequence weren't even similar when you said, "The AUSTRALOPITHECUS is an ape," as if the entire sequence wasn't apes. So you do understand that Australopithicus was an ape, and Homo Erectus was an ape, and Homo sapien is an ape?And the ordering isn't artificial. They're ordered by time.On a related point, you don't seem to understand the definition of cherry picking. Cherry picking is when you pick a subset that isn't representative of the entire set, and then present that subset as if it *were* representative. If there's some hominid species you'd like to see considered that weren't on the list then just ask. For example, here's a diagram showing one possible reconstruction of our ancestry, and if you're interested we can probably produce skulls and dates for all of them: The indoctrination is all on the religious side. You know, the side who believes in talking snakes and baramins? Science minded folks all believe the same basic things about the universe because their beliefs are founded upon evidence from the real world. Creationists believe in all kinds of different things because their ideas are based upon a variety of religious beliefs, not evidence.Anyway, it would be nice if you could stop the "argument by made up accusations" approach and start dealing with the evidence.--Percy

When you get there (Message 751 is already three weeks old), I'll be expecting you to agree that duplication and point mutations are perfectly plausible ways to increase the number of protein coding genes on genomes over time. I think you must understand that by now. The other stuff (far too much genetic diversity in humans and elephants to fit your model) is best dealt with on my new thread, Message 1, which starts off with a reasonable falsification of your model based on research into diversity on the human Y-chromosome. You'll like it.

True, they are not fully bipedal, I feel you are nitpicking here, rather than just admitting the obvious, gibbons do have a bipedal pelvis, its broader to account for bipedal motion, even if not quite human-like, and even if not as specialized as humans for bipedal motion.Gibbon Tale
"Gibbons closely resemble humans in many features, including having no tail, a semi-erect posture, the shape of their vertebral column, sternum and pelvis, the adaptation of the arm to turn palm-side upwards, similar small intestinal features, and the size of the cerebral hemisphere and number of convolutions." I'm not sure how true your comment is, as listed above, gibbons also have many characteristics similar to humans. Sure, maybe the pelvis is even more bipedal than the gibbon, but that is just one facet. Lucy was fully suited to tree motion, and its pelvis also shows uniqueness as does the human and the gibbon. If there were 100 apes , now we have about 6, yes there would be some unique features in that variety of apes not found in the limited species of today. To cherry pick Lucy based on a wide pelvis is just speculation, not evidence of anything except the discovery of a new species. Lucy's pelvis was even WIDER than humans, which demonstrates its uniqueness as a species, rather than being in any natural progression. It was clearly an ape, as pointed out earlier in this thread, its limb ratios, shoulders suited to trees, brain capacity, brow ridge, jaw shape, all ape-like. There was nothing in the brain capacity that showed any progression:Wikipedia:
"The skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes" Oh yes. I did already deal with the fallacies of logic in that link in my previous post. Yes, evolutionists had to adjust their theory from brain capacity to bipedalism owing to all the apes showing small brain capacity (relative brain capacity as per the EQ ratio), and all humans showing large brain capacity, and some apes showing bipedalism. So due to a lack of missing links, re brain capacity, they had to regard the bipedal apes as the missing link, even though some apes today are bipedal. Lovely logic, its a case of make do with what we got. I just said it has the one human feature of lacking a prominent brow ridge. You could just admit that and move on.
The Evolution Store | Nature, Science and Art africanus lived in East Africa during the Miocene era around 22 million years ago. They inhabited a variety of environments, from rain forests to woodlands, and their teeth indicate that they ate primarily fruit. The skull is characterized by the ABSENCE OF BROW RIDGES and a protruding jaw."Your tendency to disagree with nearly every point, even when I'm right, doesn't make for a constructive discussion. Hmmm you are just emphasizing the strawman argument of the article. Please try to understand what my view is: I am arguing for random mixing of many features of the large apes, including the human, in ancient fossils, and in modern extant apes, including the human. Thus the wording ape-like and human-like are ambiguous concepts, because most of the so-called human-like features are already shared by non-human apes of today. For example, just in the modern gibbon, it shares many features with humans:" it has no tail, a semi-erect posture, the shape of their vertebral column, sternum and pelvis, the adaptation of the arm to turn palm-side upwards, similar small intestinal features, and the size of the cerebral hemisphere and number of convolutions". During periods when 100 apes existed, there would be a larger variety of features (Lucy) than periods when there are only about 6 apes (nowadays)So its a complete grey area what are "human features" and what are "ape features". My logic says the basic difference is tree dweller anatomy (even though gorillas are terrestrial, their anatomy is that of tree dwellers) and brain capacity (as adjusted by the EQ ratio), and use of complex tools at fossil sites. Lucy is an ape, a dumb tree dweller that didn't use complex tools, no matter how you match her features with other apes, including humans, she remains an ape. LOL! You completely missed my point. The dolphin has a relatively large brain, that's all I referred to. If you could find a chimp that has a relatively large brain, that would help your case. Only humans have such large brains, dolphins are more than halfway though if you see a list of EQ ratios. You could have saved yourself a bit of high blood pressure and profanity if you had just tried to understand why I said two features by looking at the section of that link that I quoted. You see , he is using the strawman argument that creationists believe Lucy only had one human like (Gibbon-like??) feature of bipedal motion. Yes, as you so correctly pointed out, this ONE feature entails many anatomical "characters", according to the author precisely twelve of them are related to bipedal motion. The writer then, using his strawman argument, feels that if there are any more human features than the bipedal motion of a gibbon (sorry I meant a human) this would prove that Lucy is in fact an intermediate between gibbons (oh sorry humans) and apes. That is why I mentioned he requires at least two features, because he has the misconception that creationists are only willing to admit the ONE feature of bipedal motion. So of the 22 SO-CALLED human like qualities (of these 22, many are actually gibbon-like, not necessarily human-like but yes they differ from the chimp) only ten are NOT related to bipedal motion, of these remaining ten, many of them resemble a human as much as they resemble a gibbon. ie they are characteristics of non-chimpanzee large apes, yet not exclusively human characteristics. I am referring here to, for example, the molar direction, the relative molar sizes, the shape of the lower jaw, the lack of gap between molar and incisors etc etc. There is no reason to believe this isn't an intermediate gibbon, rather than an intermediate human. I was hoping you would look at the CONTENT with an open mind, but I didn't expect that.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Sorry! Duplicate post.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Well, is it not crucial to the substance of the debate that you should find that out?You can hardly base your argument on the grounds that you personally don't know whether modern humans are more similar to australopithecines or orangutans. Either you should accept the expert views of those who have studied the question, or, if you are still skeptical, you have it open to you to study the question yourself. But instead you seemingly want it to be an open question on the grounds that you personally won't do either. Again, the things you don't know are hardly the basis of an argument.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Wouldn't the wings or antlers get caught on branches as the ape goes swinging through the trees?Neither evolution nor creation predicts mass extinctions. They happened anyway, its the nature of this fragile planet that conditions can change rapidly , and those organisms normally suitable can sometimes die off. The fact that the number of species has dropped, supports neither evolution nor creation.

(a) What's that to the Almighty?(b) Apes don't swing through trees so much, that would be monkeys. On the other hand, the fact that you made that up is surely of some relevance.

Hey I just want some common sense. If the common sense is lacking, I will trust my own judgment rather the the going with theories that lack common sense. If Lucy is more similar to a Gibbon than a human, why compare Lucy/Chimp/Human and leave out Gibbon? Does not make sense, makes the whole link posted by Granny Magda that proves Lucy is not a chimpanzee meaningless. Sure she isn't a chimp, that does not make her an intermediate.And on what basis is a human characteristic human, if that characteristic ALREADY EXISTS in other extant ape species. LOL that does not make sense either. So all the arguments trying to associate Lucy with so-called human characteristics fall badly short. I've seen that graph before. It does not list which species are represented by those dots, neither does it adjust brain capacity according to EQ, which is the significant comparison for brain capacity. ie a male gorilla has the same brain capacity as a human, but not relative to body size. And yet a mouse has a high brain capacity relative to body size, and yet this does not reflect relative intelligence. EQ takes these factors into account, giving a set of relative brain sizes that more readily matches species relative intelligence, with humans and dolphins expectedly having the highest EQ.

He does make logical efficient creatures. They do, except for gorillas. But even gorillas have tree dwelling features. I never made up the fact that this earth goes through rapid mass extinctions through catastrophic events. That is fact. To base a sequence on the mere observance of a reducing number of species, is to cherry pick the convenient fossils among the large original variety of fossil species existing in taxonomic families.

You do. "If"? Well, that was my point. You can't make your case based on ifs and buts about things which are there for us to study. We have the bones. A reference is given. Instead of pursuing it, you sit there complaining about things which you personally don't know. Well, the measure of your personal ignorance is not the measure of our knowledge. Er, no. You just made that up.Why didn't you look it up before saying that? You've got the largest repository of human knowledge ever literally at your fingertips, and instead you came out with nonsense like that.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Patience brother! Its hard work to concentrate, and I have to concentrate when answering your posts. (I'm not sure if this is a veiled dig at a few others here, could be - hehehehe)

What?! Speak for yourself if you like, but my brain is a lot bigger than the largest known gorrilla brain.

Why was it logical and efficient to fill the world with creatures which confirmed the beliefs of evolutionists, but were not quite logical and effecient enough not to go extinct? I don't. What you do in your free time is up to you.But it would surely not be beyond the capacity of the Almighty to make apes with antlers that don't swing through trees. For some reason he withheld his mighty hand from that endeavor and concentrated all his limitless energy on making evolutionists happy. However, you did make up the thing you made up. Like this: Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I've plenty of patience. But, as I pointed out before, there's not much point in you pursuing your young biosphere model when I've effectively falsified it, is there?

I can . An in depth study trying to prove Lucy is more similar to apes than humans, compared Lucy to a chimp and not a gibbon. A cursory glance at gibbons, shows amazing similarities with Lucy, and so I am fully entitled to say IF they had bothered to do a more complete comparison with other ape species, they would have a point. Because they FAILED to compare Lucy with Gibbons, they have no point. Many of those differences with a chimp, show similarities with a gibbon, so I can see that the study fails to prove anything without the gibbon comparison.