The Origin of Novelty

They're all apes, including us. You need to pick a different level of classification.Even if you exclude humans and chimps, you still have a group of closely related ape skulls that, when ordered by time, appear to represent a transitional sequence. To deny this is to stare at the sky and declare it not blue.The fossil record includes examples of all magnitudes of differences. Some fossils are barely different at all because they're the same species. Some fossils are a little more different, but still so similar that it isn't possible to know whether they're the same species or closely related species. Other fossils have a greater degree of differences and we can be pretty sure they're different species. (Of course, most fossils are so different that we can be sure they're not only different species, but different genus and class and so forth.)In such a fossil record as we have it would be impossible that there be no orderings that resemble transitional sequences, yet this is what you're asking people to believe. Denying that there are transitional sequences is like denying that water is wet. Gee, I wonder if we can turn this around. Let me give it a try: "And unfortunately you have had a propaganda enriched education. In your early days of education you were told stories of a six day creation and talking snakes and a global flood and an ark, and the mental imprint combined with the threat of eternal damnation for not believing is so strong that creationists have built a massive "mythology based" mountain of misinformation with no foundation at all except a mountain of lies about what science really says and that they want to teach to kids everywhere. It isn't at all funny. It is really sad for us all."Did I forget anything? No, you really didn't. You don't consider any of the details of the fossil sequence, you just declare them not transitional. Well, yes, I think most would agree that fits the concept of a transitional. The small changes in skull shape of the hominid sequence also fits the concept of a transitional. The criteria you seem to be applying for whether something is a transitional or not is whether we have actual examples of it. If we have examples of a transitional sequence, such as the hominid sequence, then it isn't really transitional to you. But if we don't have examples of some hypothetical sequence, such as a transition from scales to fur or vice versa, then it is a transitional to you. Do you have any criteria that aren't so obviously biased and artificial? You were already given a sequence of gradual changes in the hominid sequence. You still haven't given any reasons that make any sense for rejecting the transitional nature of that sequence. You seem to believe you've given a reason, but "Because I said so," which is in effect what you're saying, isn't a reason.Now we shouldn't expect to convince anyone about evolution who believes it means eternal damnation, but we should expect an investment in time and effort to give us answers that make sense.By the way, before you start complaining about the introduction of the religious basis for your position, realize it was you who introduced the effect of mental icons into the discussion. They shouldn't be part of any scientific discussion. What's important is the evidence supporting one's position, and your position seems to require ignoring the evidence before one's very eyes.--Percy

Ah, so you acknowledge the similarity. I thought you were claiming the skulls in the hominid sequence weren't even similar when you said, "The AUSTRALOPITHECUS is an ape," as if the entire sequence wasn't apes. So you do understand that Australopithicus was an ape, and Homo Erectus was an ape, and Homo sapien is an ape?And the ordering isn't artificial. They're ordered by time.On a related point, you don't seem to understand the definition of cherry picking. Cherry picking is when you pick a subset that isn't representative of the entire set, and then present that subset as if it *were* representative. If there's some hominid species you'd like to see considered that weren't on the list then just ask. For example, here's a diagram showing one possible reconstruction of our ancestry, and if you're interested we can probably produce skulls and dates for all of them: The indoctrination is all on the religious side. You know, the side who believes in talking snakes and baramins? Science minded folks all believe the same basic things about the universe because their beliefs are founded upon evidence from the real world. Creationists believe in all kinds of different things because their ideas are based upon a variety of religious beliefs, not evidence.Anyway, it would be nice if you could stop the "argument by made up accusations" approach and start dealing with the evidence.--Percy

Hi MindSpawn,Some may think me unfair, but in my view scientific opinions on the pathways of human ancestry are fragile and uncertain because of the paucity of data. I think the fragility of these views has been clearly demonstrated time and again by the dramatic changes in viewpoint that occur with each new discovery. We shouldn't try to deny the highly tentative nature of these views on the hominid evolutionary tree.So if we've somehow given you the impression that we're certain that Australopithecus afarensis is on the direct evolutionary path leading to humans then let me correct that impression now. Today we don't know for sure whether it is a direct ancestor or a cousin. The authors of the study you cited believe it isn't, others believe it is, yet others reserve judgment.But clearly it a close relation, closer to us then the chimp/human common ancestor, more distant than Homo erectus. The ordered skulls were intended to show increasing relatedness through time, not illustrate a proven direct progression.--Percy