Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Adding information to the genome.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 196 of 280 (534813)
11-11-2009 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Kaichos Man
11-11-2009 6:41 AM


Re: Lactose added to genome is added information
Hi Kaichos Man,
You have a long list of misunderstandings about evolution, and it seems to be getting worse. Maybe evolution isn't something you're ever going to grasp.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-11-2009 6:41 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4487 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 197 of 280 (534814)
11-11-2009 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Wounded King
11-11-2009 7:04 AM


Re: Back to square one
Variation is no more the result of drift than it is of natural selection!
Some of the patterns of variation we see in the diverse genomes of organisms are best explained by neutral drift
Let me know when you've finished arguing with yourself.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Wounded King, posted 11-11-2009 7:04 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Wounded King, posted 11-11-2009 7:47 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 199 by JonF, posted 11-11-2009 8:52 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 11-11-2009 10:59 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2009 1:17 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 198 of 280 (534817)
11-11-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Kaichos Man
11-11-2009 7:26 AM


Re: Back to square one
Let me know when you've finished arguing with yourself.
Why not instead try and employ some reading comprehension? There is a vast amount of newly generated genetic variation in the available genomes of living populations, and even more represented in the sperms and ova of those populations, that will never be passed on to subsequent generations. The source of all this genetic variation is mutation.
What we see when we compare genomes is variations that have occurred at vastly different points in those genomes' evolution. Some will have occurred just when this embryo was conceived some it will have inherited from ancestors millenia ago.
There is a major difference between the source of variation and the reason for the particular patterns of variation that we see. Your continuing to conflate them will not change this.
I'll expand a bit on what I meant in my previous post by random selection, it is essentially the same as genetic drift. Random selection is any factor which changes the proportions of alleles passed onto the next generation which is not influenced by those alleles.
An example - we breed 2 mice. These are diploid sexual organisms so their offspring will have roughly a 50 % contribution of genetic material from each parent. Exactly which copy of each parental gene they inherit is the result of random events during meiosis. Similarly exactly which sperm meets which egg is effectively random. Therefore the offspring of this mating will have a set of genomes which does not replicate the allelic proportions of their parents. If we keep breeding the pair for many more litters the proportions should become closer and closer to the parental ones. We could do the same for a whole population of mice, and randomly reassign mates for each new litter.
The converse situation would be if instead we used some selective criteria for the matings. Suppose we only bred the top 10% of mice in terms of running speed. clearly the subsequent generation would have an allelic distribution radiacally skewed from what we see in the random mating scenario. There will be some genes, totally unrelated to running speed, for which this will essentially still seem random, so even while strong selection is being applied to one trait others may still be effectively evolving through drift.
There are any number of factors which can affect the reproductive success of organisms in a population completely independent of that organisms genetic makeup or phenotype, and all of these factors can contribute to genetic drift.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-11-2009 7:26 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-12-2009 8:00 PM Wounded King has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 199 of 280 (534828)
11-11-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Kaichos Man
11-11-2009 7:26 AM


Re: Back to square one
Variation is no more the result of drift than it is of natural selection!
Some of the patterns of variation we see in the diverse genomes of organisms are best explained by neutral drift
Let me know when you've finished arguing with yourself.
His statements are perfectly consistent. Variation is generated by mutations, not drift. Drift produces a pattern of what variations appear in what members of a population. Mutation produces variation, drift produces a pattern. A pattern is not a variation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-11-2009 7:26 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 200 of 280 (534844)
11-11-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Kaichos Man
11-11-2009 7:26 AM


Re: Back to square one
I think maybe the problem is that you've delved into an area that requires a better understanding of basic evolution before you can make some relatively subtle distinctions.
Keeping this simple, the source of variation is mutations.
Some mutations propagate through a population due to drift, causing observable patterns of variation.
And some mutations propagate through a population due to selection, causing other observable patterns of variation.
Some patterns of variation are best explained by drift, others by selection.
The vast majority of biologists, and that includes Kimura, believe that selection plays a significant role in the process of evolutionary change, adaptation in particular. He states it explicitly and without ambiguity in his step iv:
Kimura writes:
  1. Intergroup competition and individual selection lead to extensive adaptive evolution, creating a radically different taxonomic group adapted to a newly opened ecological niche.
"Intergroup competition" is one form of selection. "Individual selection" is another way of saying intragroup competition. Kimura appears to think of the environment as providing the context in which competition for contributing one's genes to the next generation takes place.
We await your next garbling of our explanations.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Improve explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-11-2009 7:26 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 201 of 280 (534936)
11-11-2009 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Kaichos Man
11-10-2009 5:29 AM


Re: moving on ... Foraminifera as a confirming example
Hi Kaichose Man,
I have changed my position on mammalian jaw evolution, as a result of my own research into hox genes Dlx5&6. You can claim some credit for forcing me to undertake this research.
Thanks, but I am more interested in your learning things than in taking credits.
As for lactation, that remains one of the worst examples of an evolutionary "just so" story I've ever come across.
Again, this is just your opinion, and nothing you have said has come close to challenging the explanation provided that covers the facts.
It's not good science, RAZD.
Not all science is top shelf stuff, it just needs to explain the evidence, as this does. No paradigms are shifted by this knowledge, and the conclusion is not even much of a surprise, given what we know about mammal evolution and the common ancestry of the three clades of mammals.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 185 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-10-2009 5:29 AM Kaichos Man has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 202 of 280 (534939)
11-11-2009 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Kaichos Man
11-10-2009 5:44 AM


Re: another example of dodging?
Hi Kaichose Man,
Kimura wrote:"What I want to emphasize is that relaxation of natural selection is the prerequisite for new evolutionary progress'.
-ergo-
If natural selection is not relaxed, evolution will not progress.
First off, your logic is false because evolution proceeds regardless of natural selection. You have equivocated "new evolutionary progress" with ALL evolutionary progress.
Secondarily, "new" evolutionary trends would proceed when new opportunities open up that did not exist before, either by discovery of a new ecology or by extinction of organisms around a species making more opportunities available in the current ecology.
Thirdly, natural selection is not constant, it is in flux as a response to climate change, season change, change in the balance between predator and prey, etc etc etc.
Fourth and finally, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Kimura is an authority on molecular biology, but he is also a person with opinions. The evidence speaks louder that Kimura's words and way louder than your half-informed attempts to wield them into an argument to falsify evolution.
The facts show evolution occurs. The facts show that hereditary traits change in populations from generation to generation, as a result of added variation provided by mutations, the spread of neutral traits by drift, and the selection of traits that benefit individual survival and breeding, changing the frequency of hereditary traits in descendant populations.
The facts show that evolution adds information to the population genome of evolving species. The facts show that traits exist in new populations that did not exist in ancestral populations.
-ergo-
Stasis.
Another invalid conclusion based on poor logic and an uninformed opinion.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 186 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-10-2009 5:44 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-12-2009 8:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 203 of 280 (534953)
11-12-2009 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Kaichos Man
11-11-2009 7:26 AM


Re: Back to square one
Let me know when you've finished arguing with yourself.
Oh, for heaven's sake.
When one observes such gross, shambling stupidity as yours, it is hard not to conclude that it is deliberate. Tell me, when you can't think of something really incredibly stupid to say, do you beat yourself over the head with a brick until you start to bleed into your brain and you can be sufficiently stupid by virtue of actual brain damage?
You are a master of stupidity. Is there even one true proposition in the entire universe so simple, clear and obvious that you couldn't misunderstand it given your boundless ignorance and a large brick?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-11-2009 7:26 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 11-12-2009 9:19 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 204 of 280 (534979)
11-12-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dr Adequate
11-12-2009 1:17 AM


Re: Back to square one
I share your frustration. I've started a subthread over at Message 182 in the Peanut Gallery thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2009 1:17 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4487 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 205 of 280 (535091)
11-12-2009 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Wounded King
11-11-2009 7:47 AM


Re: Back to square one
There is a major difference between the source of variation and the reason for the particular patterns of variation that we see. Your continuing to conflate them will not change this.
Let's take another look at what Kimura said:
"(2) There is a sudden increase or boom of neutral variations under relaxed selection. In this stage, gene duplication in addition
to point mutation must play a very important role in producing
genetic variations. Needless to say, their fate is largely
determined by random drift."
So the variation is created by mutation and decided by drift. Okay, two different processes, granted. But it could be said that variation is the result of both mutation and drift.
Imagine we go to a poker game, WK. We take our seats at the table, along with other people, and the dealer deals the cards. The hand that I get represents the "heritable traits" -or variation- that I will pass on. Likewise for you, of course. The dealer represents mutation. The seat I chose represents drift (obviously if I had sat in another seat I would have received a different hand). Therefore my "variation" was the result of two factors; the dealer and the seat I chose. Mutation and drift.
Thanks for the explanation of random selection, by the way. Most illuminating.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Wounded King, posted 11-11-2009 7:47 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Wounded King, posted 11-13-2009 4:28 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4487 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 206 of 280 (535097)
11-12-2009 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by RAZD
11-11-2009 9:43 PM


Re: another example of dodging?
First off, your logic is false because evolution proceeds regardless of natural selection. You have equivocated "new evolutionary progress" with ALL evolutionary progress.
I don't understand this statement. How can you have evolutionary progress that isn't new? Iterative evolution? Homoplasy? Why would the rules be different for them?
Secondarily, "new" evolutionary trends would proceed when new opportunities open up that did not exist before, either by discovery of a new ecology or by extinction of organisms around a species making more opportunities available in the current ecology.
Which is exactly what Kimura meant by "a relaxation of natural selection". He even used the Cambrian explosion as an example.
Kimura is an authority on molecular biology, but he is also a person with opinions. The evidence speaks louder that Kimura's words
The reason why neo-Darwinism has had to share the stage -very reluctantly and nervously, at times- with Neutral Theory is because the theory is based on observed and documented data.Evidence. Kimura was able to underpin his theory with mathematical formulae that were testable and falsifiable. The use of those formulae is standard procedure with molecular biologists today.
This is real science, RAZD, and it is light years removed from speculative storytelling like the evolution of lactation.
The facts show evolution occurs. The facts show that hereditary traits change in populations from generation to generation, as a result of added variation provided by mutations, the spread of neutral traits by drift, and the selection of traits that benefit individual survival and breeding, changing the frequency of hereditary traits in descendant populations.
All true. No argument from me.
The facts show that evolution adds information to the population genome of evolving species. The facts show that traits exist in new populations that did not exist in ancestral populations.
Decidedly not true. If there were such "facts" (as opposed to guesses, suggestions, hopeful extrapolations and legends disguised with scientific terminology) this forum would not exist.
Edited by Kaichos Man, : typo

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 11-11-2009 9:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2009 9:12 PM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 207 of 280 (535106)
11-12-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Kaichos Man
11-12-2009 8:28 PM


Information is added to the genome
The facts show that evolution adds information to the population genome of evolving species. The facts show that traits exist in new populations that did not exist in ancestral populations.
Decidedly not true. If there were such "facts" (as opposed to guesses, suggestions, hopeful extrapolations and legends disguised with scientific terminology) this forum would not exist.
False!
You would have us believe that no new traits were added to the genome from the Australopithecus level to modern man???!!? That's a ridiculous thing to try to peddle! And it is contradicted by the facts.
Face it, your religious belief in "no new information," based, presumably, on the religious concept of "the fall," just doesn't hold water.
This thread is full of examples of added information, but you just won't accept the evidence. Unfortunately, you have provided an example of "willful ignorance," confirming some comments that I posted in the Peanut Gallery just minutes ago. You also confirm the previous post there by RAZD.
But I guess evidence doesn't matter when you have belief, eh?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-12-2009 8:28 PM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-12-2009 10:23 PM Coyote has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4487 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 208 of 280 (535114)
11-12-2009 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Coyote
11-12-2009 9:12 PM


Re: Information is added to the genome
You would have us believe that no new traits were added to the genome from the Australopithecus level to modern man???!!? That's a ridiculous thing to try to peddle!
Yes, they certainly need the odd new trait...



Cast of the skeleton of Lucy, an Australopithecus afarensis

And it is contradicted by the facts.
Would those facts include a list of transitional hominids linking Australopithecus and Homo Sapiens? I'd be very interested to see it.
So would the scientific community in general, actually.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2009 9:12 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2009 11:03 PM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 210 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2009 11:20 PM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 209 of 280 (535117)
11-12-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Kaichos Man
11-12-2009 10:23 PM


Re: Information is added to the genome
Your picture of Lucy and your comment make no sense.
They certainly do not refute my post that information had been added to the genome of that level of critter to get to modern humans.
Would those facts include a list of transitional hominids linking Australopithecus and Homo Sapiens? I'd be very interested to see it.
So would the scientific community in general, actually.
Nonsense. Willful ignorance again.
Just because you refuse to accept scientific findings does not make them go away. But you want transitionals? See below:
Source: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122/116HominidAges07.jpg

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-12-2009 10:23 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 210 of 280 (535119)
11-12-2009 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Kaichos Man
11-12-2009 10:23 PM


The information on Australopithicus > Lucy
Hi Kaichos Man.
Yes, they certainly need the odd new trait...
Yes, the fact that the Lucy fossil is only ~40% complete means that several parts need to be added to flesh out the full skeleton. When the parts of Lucy are mirrored (bilateral symmetry) this increases to ~60%.
However this is not "adding traits" to the fossil, so you are equivocating on the meaning of adding if that is your intent. Such poor logic is rather humorous (a) as an attempt at an intelligent response, and (b) because once again, the rest of the picture is fairly complete when we add in the bits and pieces from other known fossils of the same species.
Australopithecus afarensis - Wikipedia
quote:
Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. A. afarensis was slenderly built, like the younger Australopithecus africanus. It is thought that A. afarensis was ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo, which includes the modern human species, Homo sapiens. The most famous fossil is the partial skeleton known as Lucy.[1][2]
Cast of the remains of "Lucy"
Compared to the modern and extinct great apes, A. afarensis has reduced canines and molars, although they are still relatively larger than in modern humans. A. afarensis also has a relatively small brain size (~380-430cm) and a prognathic (i.e. projecting anteriorly) face.
The image of a bipedal hominin with a small brain and primitive face was quite a revelation to the paleoanthropological world at the time. This was due to the earlier belief that an increase in brain size was the first major hominin adaptive shift. Before the discoveries of A. afarensis in the 1970s, it was widely thought that an increase in brain size preceded the shift to bipedal locomotion.
However, there are also a number of traits in the A. afarensis skeleton which strongly reflect bipedalism. In overall anatomy, the pelvis is far more human-like than ape-like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and positioned directly behind the hip joint, and there is clear evidence of a strong attachment for the knee extensors. While the pelvis is not wholly human-like (being markedly wide with flared with laterally orientated iliac blades), these features point to a structure that can be considered radically remodeled to accommodate a significant degree of bipedalism in the animals' locomotor repertoire. Importantly, the femur also angles in toward the knee from the hip. This trait would have allowed the foot to have fallen closer to the midline of the body, and is a strong indication of habitual bipedal locomotion. Along with humans, present day orangutans and spider monkeys possess this same feature. The feet also feature adducted big toes, making it difficult if not impossible to grasp branches with the hindlimbs. The loss of a grasping hindlimb also increases the risk of an infant being dropped or falling, as primates typically hold onto their mothers while the mother goes about her daily business. Without the second set of grasping limbs, the infant cannot maintain as strong a grip, and likely had to be held with help from the mother. The problem of holding the infant would be multiplied if the mother also had to climb trees. The ankle joint of A. afarensis is also markedly human-like.
Other finds that are related to Lucy in include:
The well known Hadar knee joint (found before Lucy, NOT part of the Lucy fossil)
... and ...
Page Not Found | Cleveland Museum of Natural History
quote:
The Woranso-Mille site is located in the Central Afar region, about 325 miles northeast of the capital Addis Ababa and 25 miles east of a small town called Mille. The multidisciplinary and multinational team focuses primarily on finding early human fossil remains dating back millions of years. The team has thus far collected more than 40 fossil specimens of early humans, including one partial skeleton and 1,900 fossil specimens of other animals representing more than 30 species useful in reconstructing the ancient environment in which our early ancestors lived.
The fossils collected at Woranso-Mille have been dated to between 3.5 and 3.8 million years ago. Little is known about early human fossils from this time period, sandwiched between two early species of human ancestors known as Australopithecus afarensis (the species of Lucy) and Australopithecus anamensis. New discoveries within this timeframe are critical to understanding both the relationship between these two species and the larger story of human origins. All of the collected fossil specimens from the Woranso-Mille study area are currently being curated for analysis and subsequent publication.
... and more ...
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote:
Inhabiting eastern Africa between four and three million years ago, Australopithecus afarensis was a long-lived species that may have given rise to the several lineages of early human that appeared in both eastern and southern Africa between two and three million years ago. For its antiquity, A. afarensis is one of the better known species of early human, with specimens collected from over 300 individuals. It is a species that exhibits many cranial features which are reminiscent of our ape ancestry, such as a forward protruding (prognathic) face, a "U-shaped" palate (with the cheek teeth parallel in rows to each other similar to an ape) and not the parabolic shape of a modern human, and a small neurocranium (brain case) that averages only 430cc in size (not significantly larger than a modern chimpanzee).
The specimens recovered have given representative examples of almost all of the bones of the A. afarensis skeleton. From this, it is clear that there are many significant difference between A. afarensis and its ape predecessors, one of which is crucial to later human evolution, bipedality.
Putting these many parts all together and mirroring ones missing from one side we obtain this composite Australopithecus afarensis
Notice how few places are not taken by brown (indicates Lucy fossil bones) and white (from other fossils and mirrored parts), and that this shows how complete our knowledge of the composite skeleton is. This then becomes the frame on which a 3-D Full size fleshed out reconstruction is made, using known sinew, muscle and skin patterns, and this is compared to how people walk and how this skeleton matches the evidence of footprints left in stone:
Australopithecus afarensis - Wikipedia
quote:
Computer simulations using dynamic modelling of the skeleton's inertial properties and kinematics have indicated that A. afarensis was able to walk in the same way modern humans walk, with a normal erect gait or with bent hips and knees, but could not walk in the same way as chimpanzees. The upright gait would have been much more efficient than the bent knee and hip walking, which would have taken twice as much energy.[5][6] It appears probable that A. afarensis was quite an efficient bipedal walker over short distances, and the spacing of the footprints at Laetoli indicates that they were walking at 1.0 m/s or above, which matches human small-town walking speeds.[7]
A reconstruction of a female Australopithecus afarensis
Note that this museum display puts the reconstruction with the Laetoli footprints, more fossil evidence of bipedal walking:
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote:
Site G - Laetoli
"The Laetoli Footprints"
Species: Australopithecus afarensis
Age: 3.6 million years
Date of Discovery: 1974-1975
Location: Laetoli, Tanzania
Discovered by: Mary Leakey

The gait and length of stride match the fossil reconstruction, the footprint pattern matches the foot bones of A. afarensis.
Evidence does not lie. Multiple bits of evidence makes mistaken interpretations less and less likely. You are the one who is kidding yourself if you think this reconstruction is a gross misrepresentation of reality, when the validity is demonstrated by many multiple and overlapping fossils from many individuals that have already been uncovered. More evidence will only serve to "flesh-out" the skeleton further.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 208 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-12-2009 10:23 PM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-13-2009 6:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but 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