Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 361 of 830 (870339)
01-17-2020 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Faith
01-17-2020 11:44 AM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
I mean the SHAPE of the flesh is different.
Then see above. The process of changing the shape and orientation of the bones will also change the shape and orientation of the flesh - it's not a separate matter. I feel like I'm missing the point you're trying to make, but have no idea what it could be.
They are all trilobites, all with the same basic parts to them. I'm a creationist, I don't divide anything into separate species if its got all the same basic parts to it.
Yes, you do - humans and chimps. What does one have that the other does not?
Goats are not horses, they don't have the same basic parts. Four legs isn't what I'm talking about. What makes a goat a goat and a horse a horse is what makes them two separate species.
Well, I would agree that what makes a goat a goat and a horse a horse is what makes them separate species. I'd have several species of goats, but that's not the point here.
They still have the same basic parts. That's how I would describe the differences between horses and goats, by listing the ways in which those same parts differ. I mean, there are some things goats have that horses don't - horns are an obvious one - but that's not really the key difference. Not all goats have horns, but that doesn't make them look like horses.
Some things one of the other has more or less of - goats have more vertebrae, and more digits. They have canine teeth, but so do some horses. Horses have upper incisors, which goats don't.
Most things are present in both, but sometimes differ in shape. Goats have more complicated digestive tracts; horses have three trochanters on the femur, goats only two. Horses have a channel running through their alisphenoid bone; it's fused shut in goats.
But it's all the same basic parts. That's what enables us to talk about things like an 'alisphenoid' bone. I couldn't talk about the alisphenoid of a trilobite, but goats and horses clearly both have them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Faith, posted 01-17-2020 11:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 01-17-2020 12:23 PM caffeine has not replied
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 01-17-2020 12:30 PM caffeine has replied
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 01-17-2020 12:41 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 362 of 830 (870340)
01-17-2020 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by caffeine
01-17-2020 12:10 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
They are all trilobites, all with the same basic parts to them. I'm a creationist, I don't divide anything into separate species if its got all the same basic parts to it.
Yes, you do - humans and chimps. What does one have that the other does not?
That's why I brought up goats and horses as two separate species. What makes a goat clearly a goat.... Same as "what makes a chimp clearly a chimp..." You look at the similarities in the basic body design, but the goat and the horse are even more similar to each other in that way and yet different in the ways they are different. Yes it's hard to get this said. Remove all the chimp's hair/fur, give it human type skin, and it will still be a chimp and not a human being. No, what I mean by having all the same basic parts does not put a chimp and a human in the same category, same as it does not put goats and horses in the same category. I wish I COULD say this as clearly I would like to. I've pointed to various differences to try to make the point but I need an overall way of saying it I don't have except for "what makes a chimp a chimp and not a human..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by caffeine, posted 01-17-2020 12:10 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by PaulK, posted 01-17-2020 12:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 363 of 830 (870342)
01-17-2020 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by caffeine
01-17-2020 12:10 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
I mean the SHAPE of the flesh is different.
Then see above. The process of changing the shape and orientation of the bones will also change the shape and orientation of the flesh - it's not a separate matter.
But the bones in the case of the chimp vs. human are much more similar to each other than the flesh is, that's why I brought up the flesh differences which seem enormous to me.
I feel like I'm missing the point you're trying to make, but have no idea what it could be.
Hard to get it said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by caffeine, posted 01-17-2020 12:10 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by caffeine, posted 01-18-2020 1:24 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 364 of 830 (870343)
01-17-2020 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
01-17-2020 12:23 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
quote:
That's why I brought up goats and horses as two separate species. What makes a goat clearly a goat.... Same as "what makes a chimp clearly a chimp..." You look at the similarities in the basic body design, but the goat and the horse are even more similar to each other in that way and yet different in the ways they are different.
But a horse and a goat they are more different at the level of parts than a chimp and a human. Although they do have the same basic parts.
quote:
Yes it's hard to get this said.
It’s hard to find a sensible criterion that gives the result you want. Because there isn’t one.
quote:
Remove all the chimp's hair/fur, give it human type skin, and it will still be a chimp and not a human being. No, what I mean by having all the same basic parts does not put a chimp and a human in the same category, same as it does not put goats and horses in the same category.
Because having the same basic parts is NOT a sensible criterion for identifying species. You just chose that because you want to put all trilobites in the same species. But to do that you have to choose a criterion that is too broad - as we can see.
quote:
I wish I COULD say this as clearly I would like to. I've pointed to various differences to try to make the point but I need an overall way of saying it I don't have except for "what makes a chimp a chimp and not a human..."
It’s quite clear. It is just that you are obviously wrong. There is no sensible criterion that makes trilobites all one species but also makes humans and chimps separate species. That is WHY trilobites are classified as an Order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 01-17-2020 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 365 of 830 (870344)
01-17-2020 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by caffeine
01-17-2020 12:10 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
Well, I would agree that what makes a goat a goat and a horse a horse is what makes them separate species. I'd have several species of goats, but that's not the point here.
Yes, if it's a goat variety it would be a goat to me, not a separate species, the way the trilobites are all trilobites.
They still have the same basic parts. That's how I would describe the differences between horses and goats, by listing the ways in which those same parts differ. I mean, there are some things goats have that horses don't - horns are an obvious one - but that's not really the key difference. Not all goats have horns, but that doesn't make them look like horses.
Although listing separate parts might be necessary, my focus is more on the general appearance as what makes separate species or not. Yes I know there are exceptions, including in trilobites, so this definition isn't perfect yet. But the goat just LOOKS like a goat and not like a horse. Proportions? Muscle distribution? I don't know how to pin it down but those two factors seem relevant. Certainly relevant in the case of chimp vs. human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by caffeine, posted 01-17-2020 12:10 PM caffeine has not replied

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


Message 366 of 830 (870345)
01-17-2020 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Faith
01-16-2020 1:09 PM


intermediate hominid feet
Please show picture of intermediate hominid feet.
From Message 20 in {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal
quote:
Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Journal of Anatomy, 2004 May; 204(5): 403-416. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8782.2004.00296.x.
quote:
There has been a considerable degree of debate surrounding locomotor affinities inferred from fossil hominin foot bones. It is well known that geologically more 'recent' hominin species, such as Homo antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis and anatomically modern H. sapiens were fully bipedal (Trinkaus, 1983; Aiello & Dean, 1990; Lorenzo et al. 1999) (Fig. 1). Their feet reflect this bipedalism, although certain aspects of the pedal morphology of H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis differ from that of modern humans (Aiello & Dean, 1990; Lorenzo et al. 1999). The functional implications of these differences are currently unknown. Although there are no associated foot bones for one of the earliest members of the genus Homo, H. ergaster (c. 1.8 Ma) we do know from the rest of the postcranial skeleton that this taxon was also fully bipedal (Ruff & Walker, 1993). For other hominins, there is still a large degree of disagreement. The OH 8 H. habilis foot (at 1.8 Ma) was originally suggested to reflect a fully developed bipedal adaptation (Day & Napier, 1964; Leakey et al. 1964) but others have argued that it still retains evidence of an arboreal adaptation (Lewis, 1980b; Oxnard & Lisowski, 1980; Kidd et al. 1996; McHenry & Berger, 1998a; Wood & Collard, 1999). This is consistent with some recent interpretations of other aspects of H. habilis skeletal morphology (e.g. Hartwig-Scherer & Martin, 1991; McHenry & Berger, 1998a; Wood & Collard, 1999).
Similar controversy surrounds the Australopithecus afarensis foot bones from Hadar, Ethiopia (c. 3.0-3.4 Ma) that are described by some as being compliant with full bipedal locomotion (Latimer & Lovejoy, 1982, 1989, 1990a, 1990b; Latimer et al. 1987), whereas others have suggested that the same fossils show traits that indicate a mosaic of terrestrial and arboreal locomotion (Susman & Stern, 1982, 1991;, 1983, 1991;, 1983; Susman et al. 1985; Duncan et al. 1994; Berillon, 1998 Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000). Both sides of this controversy can also be supported by the analysis of other aspects of postcranial anatomy (e.g. Stern & Susman, 1983; Lovejoy et al. 2002).
The issue is further complicated by the suggestion that the foot of the important 'Little Foot' specimen (Stw 573), currently assigned to A. africanus, and possibly as old as 3.6 Ma, reflects mosaic locomotor affinities (Clarke & Tobias, 1995), however, there is no agreement as to the nature of this mosaic locomotor adaptation (e.g. Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000; Harcourt-Smith, 2002).
Again, a plethora of intermediate forms from ancient species to modern human type feet.
But if you think "little foot" was an unexpected find, then compare this 1935 prediction with "little foot" (same article):
quote:

A find that matches a prediction based on evolution.
The clearest pictures of the Laetoli footprints that I could find are:
Another article on matching footprints to fossils is
The Laetoli Footprint Trail: 3D reconstruction from texture; archiving, and reverse engineering of early hominin gait from the University of Liverpool:
quote:
Human ancestors, or hominins, have been bipedal for at least four and a half million years. The feet of Ardipithecus already show adaptation for a toe-off mechanism that can have little function in other than terrestrial bipedalism.
When humans walk normally, the forces they exert against the ground show a characteristic double-humped pattern, ... This is associated with pressure propagating from under the heel, down the lateral side of the foot, and, as the foot everts and pronates, across the ball of the foot to the big toe for push-off. In chimpanzees, the flexed knees and hips characteristic of their bipedal walking lead to a flat force curve, ... This is associated with peak pressure in the midfoot and no push-off from the big toe.
Do the 3.6-3.8 mya Laetoli footprints then represent a functionally modern foot, with a fully developed medial arch and eversion/pronation at midstance? ...
Others suggest that this footprint is a good match for a reconstruction of a female Australopithecus afarensis foot skeleton.
Some interesting pictures there too, one with a Australopithecus afarensis skeleton superimposed but not reconstructed like "little foot" although it would better fit the single print above. There seems to be some variation in the footprints, and this leads me to wonder how mobile the toe position was - maybe both are valid?
This is from 2008, and there have been several additional fossil discoveries since then that have filled in more intermediates.
You will note that the big toe skeletal structure is still quite similar to the chimp foot, which leads to the concept that australopithicus was still adept at tree climbing. That foot was also compared with the laetoli footprints and it fit, with the footprints showing preferred bipedal walking.
Again here are the chimp and human foot skeletons from Message 336
and "Little Foot"
Note the relative lengths of the heel bones, ~1/3rd the footprint, between the lengths seen in the chimp (~1/4th) and human feet (~1/2) of their footprints, while the toe bones shrink in size.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : st

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 349 by Faith, posted 01-16-2020 1:09 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 367 of 830 (870346)
01-17-2020 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Faith
01-16-2020 1:09 PM


more intermediate feet
Please show picture of intermediate hominid feet.
We also have Ardipithecus ramidus ("Ardi")
quote:
Ardi - Wikipedia
... It is still a point of debate whether Ardi was capable of bipedal movement. Ardi's divergent big toes are not characteristic of a biped.[11] However, the found remains of her legs, feet, pelvis, and hands suggested that she walked upright when on the ground but was a quadruped when moving around trees. Her big toe, for example, spreads out quite a bit from her foot to better grasp tree limbs. Unlike chimpanzees, however, her foot contains a unique small bone inside a tendon which kept the big toe stronger. When seen along with Ardi's other bone structures, this unique bone would have helped her walk bipedally, though less efficient than Lucy.[12] Her wrist bones also provided her with flexibility but the palm bones were short. This suggests that Ardi did not walk on her knuckles and only used her palms to move along tree branches. ...
Again the heel bones show slightly more of the footprint than we see in chimps, but less than Austrlopithicus, ie intermediate.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 349 by Faith, posted 01-16-2020 1:09 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 368 of 830 (870348)
01-17-2020 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Faith
01-16-2020 1:09 PM


Homo habilis feet
Please show picture of intermediate hominid feet.
And we have Homo habilis feet
quote:
The Feet of Homo habilis
M. Day says this about OH 8: "It is clear from a preliminary examination that the principle affinities of this foot, despite its small size, are with Homo sapiens"
(M. Day 1968, pg 132)
Let me make it clear, Day is not saying that OH 8 was a Homo sapien foot. He is saying they are similar.
Similar because when you see the picture in Day's book you see that the big toe is in line with the other toes, the way it is in our feet.
Here is a picture of OH 8 (Homo habilis)center, compared to the foot of a chimpanzee (left) and a human (right). The bone at the base of the great toe is in line with the others in Homo habilis like it is in modern humans. This helps in walking but not grasping.
Journal of Human Evolution Vol. 31, No. 3, September 1, 1996 ISSN: 0047-2484 EISSN: 1095-8606 The OH8 foot: a reappraisal of the functional morphology of the hindfoot utilizing a multivariate analysis pp. 269-291 (doi:10.1006/jhev.1996.0061) R. S. Kidd*, P. O'Higgins, C. E. Oxnard
Again, the amount of the footprint occupied by the tarsal bones would be intermediate between chimp and human (comparing the length of the middle metatarsil to the rest of the heel length).
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 349 by Faith, posted 01-16-2020 1:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 01-18-2020 1:39 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 370 by Faith, posted 01-18-2020 10:12 AM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 369 of 830 (870359)
01-18-2020 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by RAZD
01-17-2020 1:50 PM


Re: Homo habilis feet
I'm afraid I'm sorry I asked. Too much information and most of the pictures are hard for me to make out. And I'm not even sure what the point of it all is supposed to be any more. I'm sorry RAZD, you do tend to overwhelm with your posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2020 1:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2020 10:25 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 370 of 830 (870370)
01-18-2020 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by RAZD
01-17-2020 1:50 PM


Re: Homo habilis feet
I'm going to get lambasted as usual of course, but those are not very convincing pictures of "intermediate" or hominid feet. When I see a bunch of bones laid out like that as if they all belong to the same skeleton though there is nothing to prove that they do, I take it as the usual evo wishfulness.
You want to believe there is such a thing as a hominid, you want to believe there is such a thing as feet or any other body parts showing transitional forms between apes and humans, so you get a bunch of bones laid out that seem to show that. Perhaps you actually believe it, I won't say you don't, but I certainly don't believe it.
I thought maybe there's a genuine human foot somewhere that shows a somewhat splayed-out big toe that could suggest something transitional, but all I see is the usual definitely ape type of big toe that's completely designed for grasping. A bit smaller a bit tighter but otherwise nothing intermediate at all.
I admit that since my eyes are getting worse all the time maybe I missed something in that array of pictures, so if I did please select and repost the specific photo I missed. Thanks.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2020 1:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2020 10:58 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 371 of 830 (870372)
01-18-2020 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Faith
01-18-2020 1:39 AM


Re: Homo habilis feet
And I'm not even sure what the point of it all is supposed to be any more.
The point is that there are intermediate hominid fossils that show intermediate development of the human foot compared to the chimp foot.
As a way of actually measuring this we can compare the length of the middle metatarsal to the length of the heel portion of the foot from the end of the heel bone to the joint with the metatarsal, this is the foot pad bone structure and includes the tarsal bones, and is the main weight bearing area of the foot. This picture shows them labeled for reference:
Here you can see the middle tarsal bone is about 2/3rds of the heel/metatarsal pad length.
In the human foot it is less than that, and in the chimp foot it is more than that.
The three hominid feet that I found were various intermediate lengths between the chimp foot and the human foot with the older metatarsals being comparatively longer than the later ones.
Clearly evolution can make these changes.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : finished
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 369 by Faith, posted 01-18-2020 1:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Faith, posted 01-18-2020 10:29 AM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 372 of 830 (870374)
01-18-2020 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by RAZD
01-18-2020 10:25 AM


Re: Homo habilis feet
I can't see that picture at all, RAZD, barely make out parts of some of the words. I don't think I can do anything to improve it for my visual problems. Can you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2020 10:25 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2020 11:47 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 373 of 830 (870377)
01-18-2020 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by Faith
01-18-2020 10:12 AM


Re: Homo habilis feet
I'm going to get lambasted as usual of course, but those are not very convincing pictures of "intermediate" or hominid feet. When I see a bunch of bones laid out like that as if they all belong to the same skeleton though there is nothing to prove that they do, I take it as the usual evo wishfulness.
Yes you are going to get lambasted for you blind denial and evasiveness.
You want to believe there is such a thing as a hominid, you want to believe there is such a thing as feet or any other body parts showing transitional forms between apes and humans, so you get a bunch of bones laid out that seem to show that. Perhaps you actually believe it, I won't say you don't, but I certainly don't believe it.
Bones that all came from the same location in a carefully detailed archeological dig, in close proximity to one another. Bones that fit together at the joints just like your bones fit together at the joints. Bones not mixed with any other bones.
You want to believe they were carefully selected from many different digs and artfully constructed into a fake skeleton, by people who are intentionally making a fraudulent skeleton, because you can't accept reality.
I thought maybe there's a genuine human foot somewhere that shows a somewhat splayed-out big toe that could suggest something transitional, ...
What you expect has no bearing on reality. Anything between A and B is intermediate -- ie transitionsal.
... but all I see is the usual definitely ape type of big toe that's completely designed for grasping. A bit smaller a bit tighter but otherwise nothing intermediate at all.
"A bit smaller a bit tighter" IS intermediate, as the human foot is "A bit smaller a bit tighter" than the chimp foot:
The changes in the relative lengths of the foot pad structure of heel bone and tarsal bones to the lengths of the metatarsal and the phalanges shows steady change from similar to chimp to similar to human.
Each stage is "A bit smaller a bit tighter" than the previous stage. That's what intermediate means.
Again it seems that you can't handle the truth.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 370 by Faith, posted 01-18-2020 10:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 01-19-2020 2:11 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 374 of 830 (870381)
01-18-2020 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by Faith
01-18-2020 10:29 AM


foot bones
See if this image helps for bone definitions:
What I have been calling the foot pad area is the hindfoot plus the midfoot. The forefoot is composed of the metatarsals and the phalanges. Phalanges are not always found with fossils, so metatarsal lengths compared to the lengths of hindfoot plus midfoot are a useful metric.
Comparing this foot to a chimp foot, the most striking differences are that midfoot is longer, the phalanges are shorter and the metatarsals and phalanges are straighter. Also the big toe bones are more robust on the human foot compared to the chimp foot. Note that these differences are relatively minor and easily within the realm of evolutionary changes, such as the differences seen in dog bones for instance.
We can see intermediate lengths and curvature in the "little foot" fossil (Australopithicus)
And in this 3-way comparison of chimp, Australopithicus and human:
which also shows intermediate hip bones.
We also have Homo naledi (another hominid) feet which are very similar to Homo sapiens
And we have this direct comparison of phalange curvature:
There are more if one digs for them.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added 3way pic

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 372 by Faith, posted 01-18-2020 10:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 375 of 830 (870391)
01-18-2020 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
01-17-2020 12:30 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
That's why I brought up goats and horses as two separate species. What makes a goat clearly a goat.... Same as "what makes a chimp clearly a chimp..." You look at the similarities in the basic body design, but the goat and the horse are even more similar to each other in that way and yet different in the ways they are different.
Horses and goats are, of course, much more dissimilar from one another than humans and chimps are. I'm struggling to decide if there's any point in going into detail on this.
Yes it's hard to get this said. Remove all the chimp's hair/fur, give it human type skin, and it will still be a chimp and not a human being. No, what I mean by having all the same basic parts does not put a chimp and a human in the same category, same as it does not put goats and horses in the same category. I wish I COULD say this as clearly I would like to. I've pointed to various differences to try to make the point but I need an overall way of saying it I don't have except for "what makes a chimp a chimp and not a human..."
Of course a chimp with human skin would not look like a human! Because it would have chimp bones and chimp muscles. Bones and muscles which are clearly the same parts in humans and chimps, just slightly different shape and slightly different composition.
But the bones in the case of the chimp vs. human are much more similar to each other than the flesh is, that's why I brought up the flesh differences which seem enormous to me.
I would disagree - the flesh doesn't that look different at all.
I think what you're referring to is simply the fact that the metatarsals are obscured by skin and muscle, which makes the difference in orientation seem more dramatic and obscures how similar the digits are to one another. And since you said something about soles, earlier - you're probably also focusing on the crease lines (not sure if there's a proper word for that) in the chimp foot. But these are simply a result of the shape and orientation of the foot - the fact that it's shaped to grasp like a hand. It's not something extra, separate from the shape of the bones - it's simply a consequence of their shape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 01-17-2020 12:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 01-18-2020 6:24 PM caffeine has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024