Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 190 (132264)
08-10-2004 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by NOTHINGNESS
08-10-2004 3:07 AM


Re: Monkey Business?
quote:
I personally had books, and field trips to museums, demonstrating that this was factual. Honostly, you cannot tell me that you have never heard this, or read any books during your years in school?
How are you supposed to forget that stuff when it is embedded into our brain?
Your books are creationist material. That museum was a creationist museum. It seems that your education is sooo... creationistic!
quote:
All you need to do is go look up your own Evolutionary Library/site, and I guarantee you will find out where these book,magazines,newspapers, tv, follow up on these sort of facts.
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution
That is an evolutionist website. Sure, it _does_ have references to Nebraska man and Piltdown man, but only acknowledging their status as a mistake and a fraud. Last time I saw ape-men on TV [the 'Walking with Caveman'] series it was depicting australopiths. You do know that scientists have unearthed many apeman bones in Africa and elsewhere, don't you?
quote:
By the way, one interesting thing that you can check up for yourself also. The one thing that a lot of people might miss about the fossil findings, is the fact that the inner structure of the ears plays a major role in determining what the fossil is. This structure helps keep humans in upright position.
Obviously, some monkeys will lift themselves upright on a temporary basis. However, their inner ear structure does not support their ability to walk upright permanently.
Fred Spoor's studies? Of course he also pointed out that this does not imply that the 'ape-men' cannot walk upright. From Creationist Arguments: Semicircular Canals:
Spoor et al. did not say that australopithecines did not walk upright. Rather, they interpreted their results as showing that they were not obligatory bipeds, as we are, but part-time bipeds, and not as accomplished at bipedalism as humans are. Claiming that australopithecines were still partly bipedal is not a desperate attempt to retain an intermediate status for them, as Catchpoole implies, but a recognition of the fact that the evidence for bipedality in australopithecines is extremely strong.
quote:
Everybody checks the arthritic posture of "Lucy' , and found it was just a human being with arthritis, rickets and (calcium deficiency).
You've been deceived. Who told you that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-10-2004 3:07 AM NOTHINGNESS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-11-2004 1:43 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 190 (133116)
08-12-2004 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by NOTHINGNESS
08-11-2004 9:13 PM


Re: Monkey Steps
quote:
2. Are these the steps of Evolution which are claimed as the origins of man?
Steps: Cell/Fish/Reptile/Bird/Monkey/Man
It should be [starting with 'cell' which I will presume as a generic eukaryote]
'Cell'> Primal Vertebrate > Fish > Primal tetrapod > Reptile > Therapsid > Primal Mammal > Primal Primate > Ancient Ape > Man

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-11-2004 9:13 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 190 (135168)
08-19-2004 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by NOTHINGNESS
08-18-2004 3:13 PM


Re: Monkeys do not walk like men
quote:
I'm also sure you are familiar with the computer simulations by Robin Crompton?
Are you? If you are, then please share it here (if possible & legal). I've been trying to get them.
Anyway, if you are aware of Robin Crompton then I am also positive that you knew that Crompton said this...
J Hum Evol. 1998 Jul;35(1):55-74. Related Articles, Links
The mechanical effectiveness of erect and "bent-hip, bent-knee" bipedal walking in Australopithecus afarensis.
Crompton RH, Yu L, Weijie W, Gunther M, Savage R.
Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Liverpool. rhcromp@liv.ac.uk
It is universally accepted that the postcranial skeleton of the early hominid Australopithecus afarensis shows adaptations, or at least exaptations, towards bipedalism. However, there continues to be a debate concerning the likely form of terrestrial bipedality: whether gait was erect, like our own, or "bent-hip, bent-knee" like the bipedalism of living chimpanzees. In this study we use predictive dynamic modelling to assess the mechanical effectiveness of AL-288-1 under both hypotheses, on the basis of data on segment proportions from the literature. AL-288-1's proportions are incompatible with the kinematics of chimpanzee bipedalism, but compatible with the kinematics of either erect or "bent-hip, bent-knee" human gait. In the latter case, neither the ankle nor the knee joint would have contributed substantial mechanical work to propulsion of the body, and net energy absorption is predicted for these joints, which would have resulted in increased heat load. Such an ineffective gait is unlikely to have lead to selection for "bipedal" features in the postcranial skeleton.
PMID: 9680467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
So what are you trying to tell us concerning Crompton's animation?
This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 08-19-2004 03:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-18-2004 3:13 PM NOTHINGNESS 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