A Line of Skulls for Mike the Viz

I agree with NosyNed (http://EvC Forum: Carnivores in Creation -->EvC Forum: Carnivores in Creation) that it's not realistic to expect someone to characterize a fossil based on a picture of a skull, and so on.However, in http://EvC Forum: Carnivores in Creation -->EvC Forum: Carnivores in Creation Mike the Viz said: and that seems like too perfect a challenge to pass up. SO, here 'tis: Which (if any) are human and which are not?See also Prominent Hominid Fossils.

Yep, I'd like to see an answer to that question too, please. Which are apes, which are human, and how do you decide?Just to help you along, the first is Pan troglodytes, and is modern; the last is Homo sapiens sapiens, also modern. The rest are fossils in chronological order.Surely 'B' is too similar to 'A' to be human? Okay, so where should we draw the line?TTFN, DT (aka Oolon Colluphid)

Hi, Oolon!!

I'm not Oolon, I just play one on TV.

JonF Thanks for bringing the fossils over to the forum. I was not certain if I could do so and settled on giving Mike The Wiz just the website. I wonder if he is presently cruising around the answersincreation site trying to find a comeback.I suppose one flaw to attack will be the skulls that have been filled in. No doubt some atheist put in the filler to give it the appearance of continuity.Damn those those unbelievers!

quote:

---

I suppose one flaw to attack will be the skulls that have been filled in.

---

Perhaps, but unless some of the "filler" doesn't show up, only E looks substantial enough to elicit any complaints. The rest look pretty reasonable, at least in the photo.

and how much of E is missing if I'm allowed to assume reasonable symmetry? It doesn't look like a lot to me. Got anyother ideas. Mike seems to have none whatsoever.

Lol. It's about time I spoke. I read the admin message and will attempt to cut down my posts, as it seems no one is willing to help.
I am very impressed with the skulls picture, and in all honesty have never seen all of them in an 'order' before. J,K and L strike me as human. One thing that does confuse me is the 'reappearance' of the prominent forehead. I also admitt 'J' I am a little struck by, though I think it's human, it does look a bit long in the tooth.P.S I didn't intend this as a challenge, as I just wanted to see something like this. What ones are known as transitions amongst evolutionists?[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-08-2003]

I believe, Mike, that they are all considered transitional specimens - even the modern human. They may not all be in a single line, but it shows all the paths Nature took to get to what we have today.

Of course, Rox, all species are a transitional from one to another. Since these may not all be direct ancestors of h. sapiens it can be argued that they are not all transitionals leading to us. However, as representatives of what species were extant at various times they sure look pretty "transitional" to me.I've asked before, what others think a transitional would look like. I don't recall any answers from Mike or anyone else?

'I've asked before, what others think a transitional would look like. I don't recall any answers from Mike or anyone else? 'Hi, Ned
That is a fair point. After seeing this picture, I nust concede that. However the 'full' picture ar lack thereof, may be seen in future excavations. Untill then, this is not enough for me. I admitt that makes me slightly unreasonable, but the 'fill ins' bother me. (Look at J.)Also the prominent forehead reappears - don't understand.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-08-2003]

I don't understand, Mike, why do you have a problem with the 'fill-ins?' I can't possibly think of any other way TO fill those spaces, can you? Don't they look reasonable to you?I mean I have enough confidence in your intelligence and ability to come reasonably close to the same inferences as the experts - though your sculptural skills may not be up to par, but you get the picture.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 10-08-2003]

These are, of course, only some of the specimens available. I would worry about fill ins too. If they weren't almost completely simply matching the side that is there. There is no reason at all to expect anything but symmetry. With the symetry assumption all you need is one of the two matching parts. It looks to me from the pictures that, in that sense, the skulls are all complete or so nearly so as to make no difference.Still the real paleontolgists do NOT, by any means, just go my superficial looks of course.As for any individual feature appearing and disappearing. Why would that be a problem? The process is NOT any kind of steady progression. Think back to what drives evolution, what about it would make anyone expect it to be steadily moving in any particular direction?

Also, Mike, I must agree that the complete picture will only appear as there are more specimens available. This sequence of skulls is only to give some idea of what is already available.I hope that no one is suggesting that they think this acutally represents the sequence from one form directly to us. That simply isn't available right now. Many experts in the area would argue that we don't know for sure the details of the path leading to us.However, to look at the indiviudal "trees" here is to miss the real point. Look at the "arrow" where is it pointing? Given all the other information available (our genetics, other fossil transitions) what is the only reasonable conclusion to draw while we gather other data to fill in the details or, perhaps, make us rethink the whole thing.There are, in fact, a lot of "dots" they suggest a picture. There would be enough 'dots' if the picture wasn't much more complicated than a single line of species spread over about 8 Myr and leading directly to us. Since the picture is more complex ( a bunch of species, some existing at the same time, some giving rise to others, some going extinct without others) it will take more dots to make it less unclear. Again, in the meantime, we arrive at a tentitive conclusion. There is only one reasonable one given what evidence we have.

'Also, Mike, I must agree that the complete picture will only appear as there are more specimens available.'Absolutely. And I'm sure there will be more finds. Whether that will confirm suspicions or not, it can only be a healthy process to learn more.'I hope that no one is suggesting that they think this acutally represents the sequence from one form directly to us.'Well, this honesty impresses me Ned. Ofcourse, to my mind you are one of the more reasonable evolutionists. I find this makes for a healthy discussion.
Going back to the skulls, one thing I must agree with is the symmetry. This is quite obvious when looking at the front of the skull. My problem is, how much of the skull is missing. I could be wrong but 'J' made me think this way.