Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Show one complete lineage in evolution
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 246 (128155)
07-27-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 5:23 PM


Re: Transitionals
quote:
This is from an evolutionist who believes in the regional theory..
You can look at the scientific paper that the author in Discover was basing his article on (pretty sure anyway). The last author in the paper is A. Thorne, who I am assuming is Alan Thorne. Go here:
Just a moment...
I have found that it is best to get the information straight from the source instead of hearing a filtered version through the media. Anyway, Alan Thorne's group is claiming that there was a branch of anatomically modern humans that were living in Australia as measured by their mitochondrial DNA. This example shows that humans were in Australia before the current mitDNA lineage was created. An interesting note is that this blows the creationist theory of a mitochondrial Eve being the Biblical Eve, since there are now observed instances of humans outside of that mitochondrial lineage. Also, it also states that current ancient Australians are within the current mitDNA lineage, so this probably means that either the lineage died out in Australia through dilution or Australia was repopulated after humans died out in Australia. However, this does put in doubt the "Out of Africa" theory for all living human lineages, but the mitDNA was extracted from anatomically MODERN human fossils and does not put into doubt an African origination for all human lineages, both living and dead. Here is the abstract:
DNA from ancient human remains provides perspectives on the origin of our species and the relationship between molecular and morphological variation. We report analysis of mtDNA from the remains of 10 ancient Australians. These include the morphologically gracile Lake Mungo 3 [60 thousand years (ka) before present] and three other gracile individuals from Holocene deposits at Willandra Lakes (

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:23 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
SkepticToAll
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 246 (128156)
07-27-2004 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by coffee_addict
07-27-2004 1:51 AM


Re: Weak case so far...
quote:
claiming that the theory of evolution is based solely on complete lineages.
Not necessary for you maybe since you just want to believe... but for most others...
quote:
And why is this a problem? The continents used to be connected, drifted apart, came back together, drifted apart again, etc...
To be a complete lineage- it should be roughly around the same place..othewise alternative explanations are easy..
Right now the indian and african elephant are different in different places - similarly you had different horses in different places - that's an alternative explanation.. .
quote:
The fact that there are missing samples doesn't disprove anything.
Therefore this is not a complete lineage either...See the topic title - complete lineage .. Not every generation but every speciman that show some amount of change .....
quote:
Um, no. I don't think you were paying attention in high school biology class.
You think I am a high school student? Believe me most high school students in the US (esp public school) are illiterate..
Don't mistake my hurried misspelled postings for anything else...
And my point was they do not teach evolution like the way it *should* be presented. Here is a hint - they teach the Out of Africa theory
in the context of a topic such as 'Africa is the cradle of civilization..' ..
Again, the kids don't really care about this stuff - I am just concerned about the way evolution is presented...
quote:
The theory of evolution does not depend solely on lineages. Please get this fact straight.
But, it would help immensely .. would it not?
quote:
It is an observable fact.
If you really did work in a genetics lab then you should know what you are observing is NOT agreed to be the evolution that we are discussing right now...
So far I see two lineages with the horse lineage disputed/discredited..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by coffee_addict, posted 07-27-2004 1:51 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2004 5:54 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 94 by RRoman, posted 07-27-2004 6:01 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 96 by Loudmouth, posted 07-27-2004 6:14 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 100 by mark24, posted 07-27-2004 7:02 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 93 of 246 (128159)
07-27-2004 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 5:45 PM


But, it would help immensely .. would it not?
Actually, it wouldn't. if fossilization were so common that entire, complete lineages were likely to be preserved - if there were an abundance of them for every species - then it would probably be evidence against evolutionary timescales, not evidence for the theory.
You're asking for something that the reality of fossilization makes unlikely. That said, a number of lineages have apparently been presented to you, only to have them dismissed by you. So what, exactly, would you accept as a complete lineage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:45 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 246 (128162)
07-27-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 5:45 PM


Re: Weak case so far...
quote:
So far I see two lineages with the horse lineage disputed/discredited..
Whoah, Whoah, Whoah, not so fast! You still haven't responded to my questions in post 59, where I showed that your first site was bunk. It would be nice if you could actually discuss these things instead of just linking to creationist websites.
This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-27-2004 05:01 PM

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:45 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 246 (128166)
07-27-2004 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 5:23 PM


Re: Transitionals
Sorry about two replies, got ahead of myself.
As to H. erectus and H. sapien being the same species, your reference has this picture and claims that the H. erectus skulls on the left and the living human on the right are in fact identical.
However, they fail to show skull to skull comparisons. Extra soft tissue on the modern human example could mask the lack of supraorbital bone mass, and therefore the fossil and modern examples might not be identical. Do you happen to have a source showing examples of human skulls and H. erectus skulls side by side that show the same amount of supra-orbital protrusion? (just being a skeptic as well ).
The next quote from the site you listed is a keeper.
There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus .
So if there is a difference, then there is a gap to fill. If there is no difference then they are the same species. You creationists have a tough time defining what a transitional species should look like. Also, within this statement they also admit that the cranial differences are real, and therefore the post-cranial doesn't matter. That, and the brain capacity of H. erectus is still different than humans.
This is a quote that your site lifted from a Scientific American article:
[qs]Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens , with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus , didn't exist.[/quote]
Which doesn't put into doubt that modern humans are qualitatively different than fossil hominids from prior to 2 million years ago, which means you still have to deal with australopithicenes and homos older than 2 million years old. Also, the fact that even scientists debate on how to classify these fossils should tell you that they are in fact very close to one another, and that there may not be any gaps in the evolution of modern man in the fossil record. So, again, on one hand we have creationists griping because there are large gaps and the next second they claim that the transitional species are too close together to be distinguished. Can they ever be happy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:23 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 246 (128168)
07-27-2004 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 5:45 PM


Re: Weak case so far...
quote:
Not every generation but every speciman that show some amount of change
And that is the problem. Whenever there is any change, creationists want a gradual change with fossils demonstrating every minute difference. For that type of evidence you need not every generation, but about every tenth generation. For example, a transitional fossil is found and they proclaim "Look at the change!" Creationist reply "Now you have two gaps instead of one." Then again, as shown in my post above, they can call small changes as not being indicative of a separate species. For creationists, grey is black, unless it is white.
Added in edit:
quote:
If you really did work in a genetics lab then you should know what you are observing is NOT agreed to be the evolution that we are discussing right now...
Then what type of evolution are you talking about, the kind without genetic heredity? Your genes control the makeup of your skeleton, and hence differences in fossil species represent differences in DNA.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-27-2004 05:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:45 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 246 (128171)
07-27-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 5:23 PM


Re: Transitionals
quote:
There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus
-http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_05.html
quote:
Although nearly modern postcranially there are one or two interesting features. In modern man the spinous processes of the upper vertebrae slope downwards: in apes and in erectus they are horizontal, suggesting powerful arm muscles. The rib cage is also conical or bell shaped, as in apes, rather than barrel shaped as in humans. The pelvis is narrow, and the femur rather australopithicine in the long neck and low angle of the shaft.
-http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anthl_01.html
I think I trust the university of Leeds more than a creationist website.

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:23 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 246 (128178)
07-27-2004 6:34 PM


Just a general remark regarding erectus skulls: The brow ridges aren't the only thing that differentiates erectus skulls from those of modern humans:
quote:
Homo erectus heads were strikingly different from ours in shape. Their foreheads were relatively shallow, sloping back from very prominent brow ridges (i.e., supraorbital tori click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced). Compared to modern humans, the Homo erectus brain case was more elongated from front to back and less spherical.
-http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2%20.htm
Edit: While we're on subject on erectus anatomy, I found a site that refutes the argument that fossils such as Kow Swamp are erectus, and in doing so mentions a few things about erectus' anatomy: Kow Swamp: is it Homo erectus?
Edit2: SkepticToAll, please don't let me pressure you into replying to these posts before my earlier ones. I would like to hear your response to post 59 before we continue to discuss erectus et al.
This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-27-2004 05:47 PM

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 99 of 246 (128185)
07-27-2004 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Robert Byers
07-27-2004 3:40 PM


Robert,
Thanks for the responce but you made my points.
I know there was no transitionals for Darwin. There aren't "really" now any either. Thats the discussion here.
Yes there are. A transitional according to evolutionary theory (as opposed to creationist mirepresentations) is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa. These never existed in Darwins time. They do now.
In post 68 you said the following:
The hypothsesis didn't come first and then the sequences found to confirm it.
The (percieved)sequences were observed and then came a hypothesis.
The claim that someone on a island thought up a hypothesis and then itthe data fit would not be bourne out by history.
All of those statements are demonstrably wrong.
I'll state it again to make it crystal clear. The evolutionary expectations that there should be transitional & intermediate fossil taxa had not been realised in Darwins day, subsequently, data has become available that meet said criteria. Ergo, data has been found that meets the theories predictions.
That PE says it was an error about gradualism and "stasis". The Yanks here are saying there was no error. PE just was added on they say.
You misunderstand. In Darwins day there was only phyletic gradualism, now there is that AND PE, which after all is just gradualism at different rates. What was overturned was the full-on-100%-gradualism-at-the-same-rate-&-nothing-else notion. What you are being told is correct, you are just showing the creationist ability to misunderstand everything.
The "error" that is now corrected, is that we now know that phyletic gradualism isn't the only mode of evolution.
If it was science then PE advocates would of have to disprove test results verifying gradualism 100 years ago. But there were no tests.
PE doesn't replace gradualism, in fact PE is gradualism, just at variable rates. There is evidence of phyletic gradualism as well as variable rates (PE). Therefore, the notion of full-on-100%-gradualism-at-the-same-rate-&-nothing-else has been tested & falsified, contrary to your statement.
It was speculation and finally in these swmall circles someone came up with a new idea to deal with the embarrasment of fossil poverty on gradual change.
Look, I've done you the honour of replying point by point, now you do the same & answer post 4, & post 14, please. It shows conclusively that the fossil record matches evolutionary expectations way, way beyond anything that would be expected by chance, & certainly not a global flood. It therefore stands to reason that since cladograms by & large match stratigraphy, that the inferred lineages are all transitional taxa. There's 300 cladograms originally under study with over a thousand now.
This is your problem, Robert. There aren't just one or two intermediate taxa, they are legion. The fossil record is chock full of taxa that are intermediate to others. This isn't "mere" interpretation, or baseless assumption. The cladograms are independant of stratigraphy, independent of the geologic column, yet match evolutionary expectations rather than diluvial expectations.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 07-27-2004 05:59 PM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2004 3:40 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 2:29 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 100 of 246 (128188)
07-27-2004 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 5:45 PM


Re: Weak case so far...
Skeptic,
You also have yet to respond to post 4, & post 14.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:45 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 101 of 246 (128204)
07-27-2004 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 5:23 PM


H.erectus
From your second reference:
quote:
However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance).
Unfortunately, (for you) this is an example of the kind of deliberatly misleading things that these sites use. This is exactly the kind of erroneous analysis that suggested 150 years ago that women were less intelligent than men.
Is a whale more intelligent than a man, by a large mutliple? Is an elephant? No! Why not?
Because what counts is the ratio between brain size and body mass. That is what needs to be examined. Notice how your reference picks pygmies. That is dishonest!
As for the brow ridges they show skulls and a picture. I don't know the answer to that one. Here is a guess -- show me the skull of individuals that are supposed to have erectus like brows -- you will find the comparison less interesting when done.
Note also that as erectus were evolutionarily much closer to us that to the common ancestor between us and apes you would expect them to be closer to us. You do understand that right? Some of it's features should be very nearly modern. Others will be less so.
Also from your site:
quote:
Java man is composed of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found yards away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature.
In fact, it is now understood that they didn't come from the same creature. It turns out, however, that the authenticated legs bones of erectus aren't all that much different.
This line in your source is basically meaningless "filler". It isn't discussed further. It is just there to try to sow suspicion but can't actually be used to support the point that they are attempting to make. This is intellectual slight-of-hand.
Bad source! Naughty source! Go to the back of the class!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:23 PM SkepticToAll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-28-2004 8:06 PM NosyNed has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 102 of 246 (128346)
07-28-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by nator
07-27-2004 10:40 AM


Re: Weak case so far...
quote:
There is a mystery about the theory of horse evolution. It arises from the fact that the brain of little Hyracotherium was simple and smooth, as indicated by the smooth inner surface of the fossil skulls. The brain of true horse, Equus, has on its outer surface a complex pattern of folds and fissures.35 Cattle brains are quite similar and equally complex and have an almost identical pattern of fissures. Cattle and Hyracotherium supposedly evolved from a common ancestor which had a simpler pattern of fissures. Therefore, it must be assumed that parallel evolution by chance processes produced the same complex brain pattern possessed by both modern cattle and horses. Such a tale is difficult to swallow.
In rereading this bit, I just realized that it is even more wrong than I originally realized. Whoever wrote it really is completely ignorant of what they are trying to criticize.
There is no way to tell how many sulci (brain folds) an animal's brain has by looking at the inside of the skull.
The inside of the human skull, for example, is mostly smooth, only having a few ridges. Humans are second only to dolphins in the prepoderance of sulci on the surface of our brains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by nator, posted 07-27-2004 10:40 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 103 of 246 (128349)
07-28-2004 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 5:23 PM


Re: Transitionals
A reply to posts #84 and #102 in this thread would be much appreciated.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-28-2004 09:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:23 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 246 (128435)
07-28-2004 5:34 PM


As would be a reply to post 59

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog

  
SkepticToAll
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 246 (128469)
07-28-2004 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NosyNed
07-27-2004 8:56 PM


Re: H.erectus
I still maintain that Erectus actually is homo sapiens ..
Even if I am wrong then the evolution of 'Man' is going to become a lot more controversial awaiting new evidence..
You might find this link interesting:
http://home.twmi.rr.com/canovan/kowswamp/kowswamp.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2004 8:56 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by NosyNed, posted 07-28-2004 8:27 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 110 by nator, posted 07-28-2004 9:01 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 114 by RRoman, posted 07-29-2004 6:41 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024