Cast your Vote Evolutionists

Hmmm, I was going to just say 'no', and mention being unable to see why Apostle would care what we think anyway.Then I thought: why is he asking? Why a yes or no?I can think of two possibilities.1) Maybe this is just an honest question, arising from my request in the Missing Link thread to substantiate, or retract, [his] claim that 'evolutionists' "agree with creationists that these individuals were just ordinary people".I hope that's what this is about. In which case, I (obviously) vote NO. Neanderthals were not (note, were, their lineage is extinct) just like modern people. And Apostle should by now realise this for himself, between my posts and that magnificent one from cjhs above. (Many thans for the refs! I don't recall the PNAS one, though the Cell one is well known of course. I think there was a recent item in Science on this too .)2) But being the cynical old whatsit I am, it occurs to me that this might be the start of a bit of half-baked Socratic questioning. He may be attempting to lead us to all say 'no' -- which is of course correct -- then follow up with a 'how do you explain X, Y and Z about them?' question. (Signs of culture, intelligence, tool use, whatever.)Maybe I am just an old cynic. But arguing with creationists does that. Basically, I wouldn't put anything past 'em.Cheers, DT

Yeah, some bloke called Godel really messed things up there...

Apostle: That's fine, old chap. My 'Option 1', then, as I'd hoped!I do find it odd though that you chose to poll a bunch of folks on an internet bulletin board for this. It's much like pulling people in off the street. What do we know? And what do you know as to whether our opinions are worth having? As it happens, many here do indeed know their stuff, but it's a risky strategy for getting an informed opinion, no?Personally, I'd have gone to PubMed, and my local library, and checked out what the qualified experts think! (But to save you the time, now you've come this far: they agree with us )And sorry if I confused you a bit at the end there. All I meant was, what I've already said: insofar as you can put the label on anything other than modern humans, then Neanderthals were human. But they were not actually us. In the same was as you are not actualy your cousin.Cheers, DT

That's curious. Perhaps, then, you could define what you are meaning by 'primitive'? Is Homo ergaster more 'primitive' than archaic H sapiens? I would have thought so...Perhaps you can explain the presence in neandertalensis of what I was assuming to be) primitive features such as a lack of a mental process, long-and-low cranial shape and heavy brow ridges? I'll look up some others tonight, the ol' memory's not what it was... but you get the idea, I hope. Neanderthals had several features also found in earlier species and not found in modern sapiens. Are these features not 'primitive', and if not, why not?Cheers, DT

Okay, define 'early man'. Which fossil species are you referring to?

You also seem to be under another misconception: that artists’ reconstructions are in some way relevant to how palaeoanthropology works. They are not. They are 'popular' representations, and have very little to do with the actual science.For some real science, I suggest you toddle down to your library and take a look in Klein’s The Human Career, Aiello & Dean’s Human Evolutionary Anatomy, or even the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. While you’re there, try any relevant paper in Science, Nature and the rest. You will be very hard-pressed to find any reconstructions -- stupid expressions, hairy skin, whatever -- in these at all.In other words, if you seek to criticise science, look into the science. Your 'misconceptions' make no more sense than criticising dinosaur palaeontology and palaeobiolgy by reference to the colouration and vocalisations of the critters in Jurassic Park.TTFN, DT[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 11-10-2003]

Hmmm. No, not really. What we see is that in femoral-humeral ratio, as with just about everything else, the older the fossils are, the more ‘ape-like’ they are.However, check out this pdf of Richmond, Aiello & Wood’s article ‘Early hominin limb proportions’, from Journal of Human Evolution (2002) 43, 529—548.One of the creatures there referred to, for instance, is KNM-WT 15000, ‘Turkana Boy’. It had rather human-like limb proportions. You can find out more about it here and here.Could you please tell us whether it is human? Oh deary-dear. That’s no typo, that’s the level of ignorance we seem to be dealing with. The term you were looking for is Cro-Magnon.TTFN, DT

Hmmm. I believe your post speaks for itself.Just a quick point however. I do not mean this insultingly, so please don't take it that way, I just want you to understand something.Sure, Cro-Magnum is a spelling mistake. Obviously. We all make them from time to time. But please ask yourself: is it the sort of spelling mistake that anyone familiar with the subject would make? What would you think of me if, while criticising the bible, I talked about the book of Deuteronimus?On its own it's not much. But put it in context. Remember your other thread? (I hope you've not forgotten it: it'd be a better place to get into details than this one.) Remember how, when cjhs suggested you need to include Homo habilis, you said Note the implication: that you were unaware of habilis prior to then. At the very least it means you were going to discuss human evolution without mentioning it. To continue the bible criticism analogy, that's like me not knowing about (or forgetting, or at least omitting) Exodus.And note the capitalisation (I'll let you off the lack of italics ) of the species name. That too is a major giveaway. (Note that cjhs had given it to you correctly!) Nobody familiar with these things would get that simple point of binomial nomenclature wrong (it takes an extra keystroke to deliberately capitalise something); conversely, I've seen plenty of ignorant folks do just that.And that's notwithstanding your egregious misunderstandings of more specifically palaeoanthropological stuff (see other thread passim), some of which I've pointed out in these threads.See how it looks?Okay, you're an expert, if you say so. But so far you've not exactly inspired confidence, have you?Now, do you want to try for first base again? IOW, are you going to respond to my countless points in this thread and the other, or are you just going to whinge about how nasty I am? Erm, And, no, it's not Julian...TTFN, DT

Accepted. But you're still wrong. The name's Darwinsterrier. As in Darwin's Terrier.T H Huxley was, by contrast, known as Darwin's Bulldog. That's the original source.And Richard Dawkins has been called Darwin's Rottweiller.So when I wanted something other than my usual Oolon Colluphid, I went for terrier. You know, small (as in not necessarily the most knowlegable around, but...), determined and undeterrable, with sharp teeth, and once a creationist is in my teeth, I won't let go.It's the sort of reference that not everyone gets... depends on the circles one moves in and what subjects one is familiar with.So, neither Julian nor T H, I'm afraid. If the reference were specific, it'd be bulldog, wouldn't it?!(I'll refrain from mentioning that this too looks like you're floundering out of your depth... ooh bugger, I just did. Sorry!)Cheers, Darwin's Terrier

Nah, sod it. This is in Free For All, and it's quiet over at Infidels atm... Righty-ho. But, uh... could you, perchance, try not to make the sort of typos that make it appear like you know nothing about human evolution? Don't hide your expertise under a bushel! I have, repeatedly. You however have not yet shown me that same courtesy. Tell you what: you respond to my questions and refutations of your claims, and I'll quit thinking you are ignorant of palaeoanthropology. Y'see, all the time you don't, it looks like you can't. Misspelling a technical word in a technical context suggests the user is not in the habit of spelling that word, does it not? If I were talking of genetics, and spelled transcription factor as 'transcripshun facter', then my ordinary spelling is lousy. But if in the same context I refer to the yeast Saccharomyces as 'Sacceromyces', it'd be clear I'd rarely read or written that word before. Again the need for kid gloves. Are your claims not robust enough to withstand the merest inspection by an amateur such as myself? Are you so emotionally and intellectually frail that you cannot withstand a bit of harsh criticism of your claims? Since you can't stand the heat, you should keep out of the kitchen that is real-world science then! If someone says you don't know what you're talking about, surely the best response is to show -- devastatingly and utterly -- that you do, isn't it?! As must be clear by now, I do indeed think you are as ignorant as I let on. So please, please, pretty please: show me that I'm wrong! Respond to my criticisms of your claims! You little fibber-dibber you! I've been waiting in the other thread since 27th October, and I've been 'playing nice' since the 29th. Seventeen days, and only this thread -- no rebuttals, just a question and a list of more 'misconceptions' (in effect a restatement of your original claim) -- to show for it. Do you work for local government?When, exactly, were you planning to post your devastating demolition of my objections?More curiously, why on earth withold it, simply because I've been less than sweetness and light?For goodness sakes, Apostle. Cut me down to size. Make me regret thinking you're an imbecile. Grind my arguments into the ground. Smash them. Please. I really, really, honestly want you to. It's how science works. Because ignorance is just a lack of knowledge and understanding. It is always possible that you might learn.Or that I will, if you're right.So show me!TTFN, DT[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 11-15-2003]

Ah, I see, sorry Yes, haha. Okay, try Ecclesiasteses. Or Habbakuk. The point remains: if one is familiar with the titles of the books of the bible, one wouldn’t make those mistakes. This is not like knowing whether the Perizzites in Judges have one z or two; I maintain that Deuteronimus is a Cro-Magnum scale mistake. Deuteronimus stands out to you in the way that Cro-Magnum stands out to me -- and I am not even an expert. It is a mistake revealing the level of knowledge of the error-maker. Nope. It is totally obvious and disturbing, because nobody with any familiarity with the hominine fossil record would get it wrong. They may or may not know that Cro-Magnon is the name of the place in France where the first ones were found, but at least they could spell it. Uh-huh... And you've still not got the binomial nomenclature cracked yet. It is Homo habilis. Caps for genus and not for species, and ideally italicised. A species name can be shortened by just using the initial for the genus, eg H habilis. Yes, you’d better. And not just why; please state which fossils are which. No generalisations please, I want to know precise fossils. I'm especially intrigued as to which ones you think are sapiens. I concur .However, neither am I. I seem to know more than the average layman, but I don’t work in this area at all. I do though have a range of reliable sources, including Klein’s The Human Career, Aiello & Dean’s Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy, Lewin’s Human Evolution, the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, Tattersall & Schwartz’s Extinct Humans, Larsen et al’s Human Origins: The Fossil Record; and a bunch of more ‘popular’ titles (Johanson, Leakey, Tattersall again, Swisher Curtis & Lewin, Schick & Toth, Trinkaus & Shipman, Pitts & Roberts, Walker & Shipman, Stringer, etc); plus access to Nature and Science; I’ve many of the important papers from these and others as pdfs if you’d like them.Just out of curiosity, what sources are you using? And this gives you an insight into the hominine fossil record how? In what way is it relevant? Feel free to start doing so! That's okay, so do I. Humans are apes. Please explain the grounds on which you (presumably) disagree. Please name one bone, muscle, protein, enzyme or biochemical pathway possessed by chimpanzees which humans do not have, and vice versa.Suppose -- just suppose -- that evolution were correct. What sort of things should we be finding in the fossil record? I repeat my request for you to define ‘kind’ please. What is the essence of human, and what are the defining elements of ape-ness? The question will ultimately be, why are things like KNM-WT 15000, OH 24, STS 5, say, not precisely what we’d expect if evolution is right?Perhaps you could tell me -- I ask again -- whether WT 1500 is human?TTFN, DT

Yep, I thought so too. At risk of jumping ahead of ourselves, it is mightily curious.There are people who spend their lives studying these things. They can tell at least genus and often species from the shape of a single tooth. They can identify the effects on bipedal walking of the particular curve of a metatarsal bone. These people, the 'experts', can identify an australopithecine bone and tell it apart from a later-Homo bone.Yet they are somehow confused about habilis. So confused that they are muddling up sapiens bones with ape bones.I can see two options here.Maybe they are actually complete anatomical dunces. I don’t recall noting a lack of understanding on the part of Leslie Aiello, for instance, but perhaps they don’t really know what they’re on about. In which case, we can’t be sure they are right in identifying even modern sapiens; we can’t rely on their analysis of erectus or africanus.Alternatively, let’s credit them with some expertise. In which case, why might they be grouping one set of fossils into one species, H habilis? Might it be for the same reasons -- close anatomical similarity -- that they put erectus together (ergaster / African erectus etc notwithstanding)?Note that there is debate about the validity of erectus sensu lato. If palaeoanthropologists can differentiate between these, how come they can’t tell ape from human when it comes to H habilis?Why is it possible to muddle these bones up?It seems to me that the reason they are put together as habilis is that the fossils are similar. It also seems to me that, by saying that some of the habiline fossils are actually a'pith, and others Homo, creationists such as good ol' Apostle here are admitting that the habiline fossils are exactly what 'evolutionists' say they are: a 'transitional' form. For what is a transitional form, if not something with strong similarities to two, now well-separated, groups?If it contains features of both, it's no wonder it might be hard to allocate to one or the other. Evolution predicts there shouldn't be a one-or-the-other distinction to be made. Lo and behold, here's a set of creatures that aren't clearly one-or-the-other! And by saying habilis is a mixture, creationists admit this!I'm also curious about the distinction between Australopithecus and Homo. Perhaps Apostle can explain why there should be fossils of things like Australopithecines -- more ‘ape-like’ than later hominines, but still with many human-like traits. Was the creator just trying these different species out first?TTFN, DT[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 11-17-2003]