|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
They are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot. They can be distinguished from tracks of Western people who usually wear shoes.
The human footprints exist.The Australopithecine fossils exist. They were found in the same general area. The Australopithecines did not make the footprints. What made a trail of human footprints? This question is only difficult for people who don't like the obvious answer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Why do you think that the local australopithecines did not make the footprints? All the scientific sources I've looked at agree that they could.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
They are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot. They can be distinguished from tracks of Western people who usually wear shoes. Actually the big toe is a little longer and the footprints show a little variation in positions, indicating some lateral control that would facilitate tree climbing.
The human footprints exist. The Australopithecine fossils exist. They were found in the same general area. The Australopithecines did not make the footprints. Says the person sitting in a chair looking at pictures, as compared to the scientists that measured and compared footprints to feet. The issue of footprints is discussed on {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal along with several other aspects of Lucy and Australopithicines:
quote: The foot for this composite skeleton comes from "Little Foot" and is discussed in detail on Message 20 on that thread:
quote: Some variation in big toe position in the footprints was noted, and that would indicate mobility of the toe that would facilitate climbing ability was still retained to some degree. Footprints and feet found in the same general area and the same time era within the spacio-temporal matrix.
What made a trail of ... footprints? This question is only difficult for people who don't like the obvious answer. When we take out your obviously biased inference the obvious answer is obviously what the scientists concluded, not the armchair detective. Because no modern human fossils are found in the spacio-temporal matrix that the footprints are found in. But I'm glad you recognize how similar Australopithicine feet are to modern human feet. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
CRR writes: The human footprints exist.The Australopithecine fossils exist. They were found in the same general area. The Australopithecines did not make the footprints. What made a trail of human footprints? Again, your post is a classic example of the utter dishonesty of Creationism. The footprints exist. The fossils exist. Australopithecines are humans. The footprints are human. Whether the footprints were made by Australopithecines or not really is irrelevant. Science understands that Australopithecine are human just as Homo Sapiens sapiens is human just as Science understands both are primates and mammals and chordates and animals. The point is that both the footprints and the fossils predate the Garden of Eden or Modern Humans or Homo Sapiens sapiens and are over three million years older than modern humans. The point is that science has a basic tenet of honesty which is utterly missing in Creationism. This answer is only difficult for people who don't like the obvious answer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. Lucy was an ape. As in a modern human’s skeleton, Lucy's bones are rife with evidence clearly pointing to bipedality. Her distal femur shows several traits unique to bipedality. The shaft is angled relative to the condyles (knee joint surfaces), which allows bipeds to balance on one leg at a time during locomotion. There is a prominent patellar lip to keep the patella (knee cap) from dislocating due to this angle. Her condyles are large and are thus adapted to handling the added weight that results from shifting from four limbs to two. The pelvis exhibits a number of adaptations to bipedality. The entire structure has been remodeled to accommodate an upright stance and the need to balance the trunk on only one limb with each stride. The talus, in her ankle, shows evidence for a convergent big toe, sacrificing manipulative abilities for efficiency in bipedal locomotion. The vertebrae show evidence of the spinal curvatures necessitated by a permanent upright stance. Lucy's Story | Institute of Human Origins What would your argument be? Has God been talking to you?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: Yes, let's take Lucy ... her feet bones were missing, so she was depicted with human feet ... based solely on the fact that human foot-prints were found nearby! Real scientific, that. Then ignore the depiction. Why are you so afraid to address the bones they did find? The truth of the matter is that Lucy has a mixture of ape-like and human-like features, the very definition of a transitional fossil.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Yep, and when you get really, really good at it, you can come up with Nebraska Man from a pig's tooth! ... or combine the bones of an orangutan and a human to produce Piltdown Man! That degree of scientific rigour, knowledge and expertise is possessed only by highly qualified Darwinist charlatans. Which of these is Piltdown man or Nebraska man?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
CRR writes: Yes they do. According to Laetoli Footprints they are in fact "hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans."Others have said they are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot. I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. Lucy was an ape. A track of human footprints strongly suggests the trail was made by humans. Well that's the most logical conclusion.
Yet more dishonesty from creationists. Lucy's pelvis and femur were human-like, not ape-like.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
the [Laetoli] foot prints do not correspond to modern foot prints Yes they do. According to Laetoli Footprints they are in fact "hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans." Not "indistinguishable" and not according to scientists, but lay people. I would say that they look similar to modern human footprints, and this is because they show derived traits similar to modern humans. see {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal or Message 213 here (it excerpts pertinent parts from the thread). The distinguishing difference is a slightly longer gap between big toe and the others, and the tracks also show more variation in placement than modern footprints. The stride length was also compared with the Lucy/Australopithicus skeleton, and surprise, matched the skeleton stride length when modeled in a walking position. The spacing is short for a modern human. The heel/toe depressions also match Lucy's stride. Conclusion the spacing is correct for an Austalopithicine walking. Scientists matched an Australopithicine foot skeleton to the footprints and said "A composite A. afarensis foot, assembled from recovered fossil bones, fits the Laetoli footprints exactly. Again size matters here, because the modern human foot is bigger (details, details, details). abe: Here is a picture showing comparative sizes of Human, Australopithicus and Chimp
The foot is smaller and a walking stride (footprint spacing) would be smaller. The track size and spacing match Australopithicus. /abe
Others have said they are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot. And if they saw an Australopithicine foot today they would likely say it was indistinguishable from "modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot" ... because they are similar.
I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. ... Another creationist lie.
quote:quote: That the Australopithicine foot is intermediate between ape and modern human is just what evolution predicts. Lucy (Australopithicine) was still able to climb trees (with a flexible big toe and curved finger bones) but the leg (hip, knee, ankles, etc) show fully developed for obligate upright walking when on the ground.
... Lucy was an ape. Of course she was, just as you and I are. That's why so many of her bones are very similar to ours, and why her transitional bones (hips, toes, fingers, etc) are somewhere between human and chimp because we share an ape ancestor with them.
A track of human footprints strongly suggests the trail was made by humans. Well that's the most logical conclusion. Again the temporal-spacial matrix shows that the hominids living in the area at the time match Australopithicines and completely rule our modern humans. Only a desperate creationist would assume modern humans made the prints, because they ignore the fine detail in the footprints that show longer big toes and they ignore the constraints of time on their relation to modern humans. That's okay, the facts won't change no matter how much they twist and dance. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : pictureby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
New Cat's Eye writes: scientists will continue to employ the theory of evolution as a working theory that explains biological phenomena. Useless talk amounting to useless science, in other words. Not impressed, but slightly amused. I don't care if you're impressed or amused. The only people missing out on the usefulness of this science are people like you who simply deny it without reason. Well, there's reasons... they're just stupid religious ones. Without evolution, biology just doesn't make much sense.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Well, there's reasons... they're just stupid religious ones. Without evolution, biology just doesn't make much sense. You could also say that with fundamentalist creationist religions, biology doesn't make sense. Perhaps that's why there are so many confused creationists ... Enjoyby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
You could also say that with fundamentalist creationist religions, biology doesn't make sense. They have to deny, misrepresent, or ignore many other fields as well, particularly dating sciences, geology, paleontology, genetics, etc.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Coyote writes: They have to deny, misrepresent, or ignore many other fields as well, particularly dating sciences, geology, paleontology, genetics, etc. "Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf That is a quote from a devout Christian and famous scientist. I would suggest that creationists give that article a read because it feeds right into this thread. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You could also say that with fundamentalist creationist religions, biology doesn't make sense. For sure.
Perhaps that's why there are so many confused creationists ... Yeah, maybe one day the Catholic Church will grow up and drop all the nonsense about special human creation - 'cause that shit is confusing as hell.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Forgive my ignorance, but how was the age of the footprints estimated?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024