Cast your Vote Evolutionists

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

quote:

---

Their weapons didn't advance over the course of their entire history except (possibly) briefly after the encounters with Cro-Magnons. They used only a small fraction of fractions of the variety of tools and other artifacts that Cro-Magnons did. To counter their relative lack of tool sophistication, they had a far more robust, strong build.

---

I'd have thought that was the other way around -- they required
fewer tools because thet we more robust and stronger.Like, a tiger doesn't need a rifle to hunt game, so why would it
develop one?

I'm just finishing "The Wisdom of Bones" by Walker and Shipman. He is the investigator on WT 15k. Very well written, interesting light read.

Once again Julian, if you wish for me to respond you need to be more respectful. I try very hard to offer that same respect to all who disagree with me.
Please take issue with points I bring up. However a word spelled wrong is not evidence of a high level of ignorance. If you feel I am way off in my defensibility, please say so, but dont bother responding to my posts.
If, on the other hand, you feel that I am not as ignorant as you let on, please moderate your language and criticisms. Once that happens then I will do my best to respond to your points. (If I truly am that ignorant why bother having a discussion with me?)
Apostle

Oops, it is not Julian but rather T.H.
My apologies,
The Apostle

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]

DT,
I hope you took the 'Julian. T.H.' shot as a light hearted joke. Indeed that was the intention.
First, there is a fundamental difference between 'Deuteronimus' and Deuteronomy while the difference between 'Cro-Magnum' and Cro-Magnon is less obvious or disturbing.
With regards to my initial attempt to not include Homo Habilis in my peice, that was simply because I do not accept their existence. I believe the majority of H.habilis specimens are either obvious australopithecines (note: this is probably spelt wrong too), or homo sapiens. However because this is not accepted by many it seems I better tell why.
Also I am not a scientific expert. My expertise comes through more obviously in theology. That said, I certainly can hold my own in this field also.
With regards to post 32, I agree: Many older fossils do show ape-like features. Perhaps where we disagree is when I say that these ape-like features belong to an ape.
Apostle

The idea that H. habilis are H. sapiens seems enormously difficult to fathom. Could you give some details for your reasoning?In fact you're combined suggestion that some are australopithecines while other are H. sapien seems to be even weirder.It appears that the only reason you might try to jump to this is to make the gap between australopithecines and Homo as great as possible. In other words, the missing link(s) are found and now you simply want to wish them away.

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]