The Missing Link

I personally think that Darwinsterrier asked good questions that deserve answers.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

A wee bit thin skinned are you? In fact, very thin skinned.Various people here and myself, at other such fora, have been called Satan's sons and condemed to hell. But I haven't seen anyone decide they can't post because of that. You might be accused of using it as an out if you decide to duck because you don't like the tone.It may be that you know so little about the topic that you don't realize how absurd some of what you post is. On the other side we do forget our manners when the same topic is raised again and again. If you actually have any ammunition to agrue with then the best revenge for an apparently nasty tone is to shot the arguments down.Besides I've seen the "hurt feelings" ploy a bunch of times. It is tiresome.

DT asked a lot of questions all of which require an answer from you unless you are conceding that your original post to which he replied was pure speculation and assertion?

I wonder if it was the tone or the fact that he so thoroughly demolished your article that halted your reply.I suppose it would be a waste of your time to produce inaccurate articles that will swiftly be refuted but your tone suggests that you have no interest in learning the truth.

quote:

---

Apostle writes:

​

I started to respond to your comments. Yet as I read through them I became less and less impressed with the general tone. It will be a waste of time for you to write in my columns if this tone continues, for you will simply go unanswered.

---

Ahhh, poor little sausage, did I hurt his ickle-wickle feelings?Hmmm, that old trick, eh? Rather than admit you cannot respond, claim to refuse to do so because your ideas are not rolled in cotton wool and handled with kid gloves. Please tell me just why I should sugar-coat the pill for you?Okay. So as to not give you an excuse not to respond, I’ll get this out of the way here and now, then ‘hold my peace’ (unless or until I’m further provoked to anger by arrogance). So far you appear to be woefully ignorant of the hominine fossil record and of palaeoanthropology in general. And so far, despite this apparent ignorance, you feel capable of refuting a hundred years and thousands of lives’ worth of research, which certainly smacks of a huge amount of arrogance.However, I may be misjudging you. Perhaps you are indeed a professor of comparative anatomy or of palaeoanthropology, or whatever. Perhaps, contrary to initial impressions, you do after all know what you are talking about. We will soon see.Now then. I will play nice if you will. Please, by all means show me to be in error! Pray carry on, kind sir...

quote:

---

But if you do want to discuss something then please ask a question respectfully and we will begin an exchange of ideas.

---

Okay, my dear chap. Sticking just to the Neanderthals, here are some questions arising from the last round.Please provide some evidence for your claim that Neanderthals were just ordinary people.Please define ‘ordinary people’!Please explain how diseases etc could produce Neanderthal conserved primitive features and their unique derived characteristics (I take it I need not list these for you! ) by acting on ‘plain’ sapiens. Feel free to be as detailed as you wish! Please explain why the archaic sapiens who replaced the Neanderthals in the same environment did not similarly have these bone diseases?Please explain the Neanderthal retention of Mousterian technology, and why Aurignacian artifacts are only associated with archaic sapiens. (Reason: if Neanderthals were really just ‘us’, they should have been both innovators themselves and have jumped at the chance to use the superior technology. One might expect, at least.)Please substantiate, or retract, your claim that ‘evolutionists’ agree with creationists that these individuals were just ordinary people.That should be enough to be going on with. I’m not being difficult here, trying to throw a lot at you. These are just some of the concerns that arise from your claims.Oh, just one more: Sure, the Neanderthals were considered to be ancestral to modern humans. This was more than partly because they were the first hominine fossils found, and had primitive characteristics (which I barely touched on previously; mostly I stuck to their unique features). However, since the Neanderthals are no longer considered ancestral, please explain their relevance to your developing thesis.Incidentally -- sorry to ask for more stuff! -- I’d be intrigued to hear your thoughts on this: You clearly consider Neanderthals ‘human’; chances are you would say so too about late erectus, heidelbergensis, leakeyi, and possibly earlier erectus and ergaster. We'll see; but meanwhile, within the realms of 'microevolutionary' changes you doubtless don’t argue with... Where do you stand on the multiregional hypothesis? I think Wolpoff and co are finally buried by the molecular data and eg Swisher et al’s dating of those Ngandong and Sambungmacan erectus fossils... but then, I quite like Stringer and Tattersall! What do you think?(And I'd like to hear your thoughts on the phylogenetic status and taxonomic validity of those species -- but that can wait! )Best wishes, DT[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 10-29-2003]

quote:

---

"The Neanderthals were just plain people, some of whom suffered from bone disease. This is not idle speculation either but a reasonable assumption due to the fact that the first discovered Neanderthal came from the harsh inland environments in Europe where they easily could have experienced skeletal abnormalities due to lack of iodine and a shortage of sun-induced Vitamin D that is necessary for calcium absorption during long winters. "

---

Please be explicit here: What bone diseases, specifically, led to what specific features of Neanderthal skeletons?For example, Rickets leads to curvature of thigh bones - but in the wrong direction compared to Neanderthals. So Rickets is out.So, please, specify what diseases and what symptoms. I'm especially curious about which diseases and deficiencies lead to strong, thick bones.{Added "/" to fix quote box - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-29-2003]

I think the most common speculation favors certain Neanderthal's suffering from arthritis. Rickets has been suggested also, but to my knowledge arthritis is the predominant view.
Apostle

To say that Neanderthals were ordinary people is my mistake, simply because of the loose speech. They were not ordinary people, certainly they were different from you and I.
However the question is: How different? We both agree they are indeed human, and scientists place them under the branch of h.sapiens neander.... Certainly they were a well developed people. Fossils have been found showing that they were very detailed in burying their dead. Some bones have been found with beautiful beads around them. Of coarse they were great hunters. I do not know if you dispute this and that is why I am not getting in to everything.
You had better tell me what primitive features you are referring to, because I believe on this point we will disagree.
Apostle

quote:

---

I think the most common speculation favors certain Neanderthal's suffering from arthritis. [emphasis added]

---

Yes, I believe that the first specimen did suffer from arthritis. But most of the others show now signs of disease, at least not that would disfigure the skeleton to the degree we would see here if Neanderthals were "normal" modern humans with a disfiguring disease.The current scientific concensus is that Neanderthals are a separate distinct species of humans. There is a minority opinion, not yet completely refuted, that Neanderthals were the same species as modern humans, but definitely distinct enough to be considered a distinct sub-species.There is no serious scientific opinion that Neanderthals as a whole were "modern" humans with some sort of disease.

I've lost track of why this is important. Neanderthals are very recent. They are a subspieces of H. sapiens or a very closely related species of genus Homo. So what?This topic was discussing the missing link. I don't see that Neanderthals are taken as being such a thing any more (if they were). And I'm not sure I know that you think a missing link would be. Could we have a couple of posts to clarify where we are?

Where we are is, Apostle's still at first base: neandertalensis, whether full species or subspecies, is both sufficiently distinct to be thus identified, and not ancestral to fully modern humans. So I guess discussion of them is more or less ended, and the first plank in Apostle’s thesis falls.I fail to see their relevance anyway; surely that's all 'microevolution', which even creationists accept? What we need is for Apostle to state clearly where, among all these fossils, he thinks the dividing line comes between the 'ape' ones and the 'human' ones. I think it's going to be at H habilis, from what he's said in the other thread, but we’ll see...Cheers, DT

Who cares? Nobody thinks they were ancestral, but rather, cousins. If you think we think they were ancestral, then you’re about eighty years behind the palaeoanthropological times. Yes, they were human. No, they were not us, and probably not the same species. In the same way that Pan trodlodytes and P paniscus are both chimpanzees, and yet not identical. So? I shall compile a list tonight (GMT).TTFN, DT

We were discussing the Neadertal, who was at one point considered the missing link between man and ape.
Interesting you should mention the 'eighty years behind the times' quote. That would put me right around the time a most prominent evolutionist suggested who he believed the missing link was. No doubt, you've heard it. Henry Fairchil Osborn??? Shall I give the quote? Probably not necessary.
The point is: All the things I am discussing have been placed at some point in the past along an evolutionary ladder from ape to man. Neandertal, Java Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Africans. My goal is to really bring to light issues surrounding this macroevolutionary transition. Antropologists should consider Solly Zuckerman's warning that a specimen that does not conclusively point to a transition should not be considered for the macroevolutionary change from ape to man. This is why he dismissed the various australopithecuses (spelling mistake...you may now accuse me of ignorance). There is also despite many claims by antropologists no smooth line of transition that was considered essential to no less an evolutionist than Theodosius Dobzhansky.
Apostle

I'm a bit surprised. I didn't realize that Nebraska Man was every considered as a link from apes to man. Could you document this?Actually I'd be interested in seeing the same for Piltdown (which of course was constructed to look like part way between) and Neanderthal. I wouldn't be as surprised to see these called that.It is, of course, true that the chain connecting us to a common ancestor has been reworked and argued over for years. You may take that as a problem.However, get one thing clear. These discoveries were made after Darwin suggested they would exist. They have a number of characteristics that one would expect. They fit nicely in a dated sequence. If you stand back and look at the data you see a huge red arrow painted across the landscape. It points from small brained, upright, long armed creatures (ape like) to us! It will take a lot more specimens to fill in the complex relationship of all of them but it is there. It is as expected.There is not a single hint in your "science" book suggesting that we had any cousins in the garden of Eden. But we found the cousins.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-19-2003]

Yes; a long time ago; sort of; and no.Yeah, we were talking neandertalensis.The point when they were ‘considered’ was when there were no other known hominine fossils. And of course they do have certain conserved erectus-like features. (Yeah I know I’ve not done the list yet; Real Life keeps getting in the way.)They were never to my knowledge seen as the missing link. Even when first discovered, it was plain that they were pretty close to us. Even allowing Neanderthals to be on our direct line, they still left most of the ‘link’ missing. They did however show that humans could be different in the past.And no, not between man and ape, as per the above. Too close to us, y’see. Again I’m left wondering about your sources. Because that was not a quote, it was my own words. Who has previously said it? And why is it interesting? I fail to see the reason for your obsession with hugely out-of-date information and arguments. No, it isn’t. Read this instead. (He’s on about ‘Nebraska Man’ folks. ) Heehee! Yeah, well there you go again with your behind-the-times ideas. Here’s where we are [sic] in the 1980s: the more fossils that come to light, the more apparent it becomes that evolution is far more bush than ladder. See for instance McFadden’s Fossil Horses for a classic example of formerly-ladder-realised-to-be-bush.The Scala Naturae is sooo nineteenth century...This is all very interesting from a historical point of view. But I’m left very much feeling ‘so what?’ I don’t actually give a flying fruitbat what used to be thought. Wake me up when you get to KNM-WT 1500, OH 24, STS 5... shit, Klein’s index is a bugger, because KNM-ER, KNM-WT, AL, OH and the rest have such a loong list of numbers under each heading... I see. This is all purely an exercise in the history of science, and has no further purpose. Good, I’m all for that. Science generally does learn from its past mistakes, but it’s good to be reminded of them anyway.But it is a mistake to think that past specific errors invalidate present data. Like I say, let me know when you get to the present state of affairs. At this rate, in around 2008 I’d guess.And I’m still curious about which Asian erectus fossils you consider problematic. The Sambungmacan and Ngandong specimens, perhaps? There’s quite a few, you see. Care to be specific? Ah dear, where to start...It’s palaeoanthropologists. Anthropologists study modern sapiens and its cultures.Good ol’ Solly... a bit better I suppose: only 50 years behind now. Argument from out-of-date authority...Define ‘conclusively’ and macroevolution’.And, I’m not sure what you mean by the Zuckerman reference. If it is not on the direct, spot-on lineage to... what? modern H sapiens sapiens? ... then it does not indicate evolution, is that it?Suppose you are the only person living in a village, the sole descendant of its inhabitants; a village where people generally didn’t leave or arrive for hundreds of generations. And suppose I randomly dig up a skeleton in the graveyard. Does the fact that the headstone does not bear your surname mean that you are not related to the body? Yes and no. You may not be directly related, but the chances are very good that it is a distant relation.Fossilisation is a chance event, and finding fossils just as much so. So the chances of finding a direct, specific ancestor -- a member of the population that eventually led to... wherever -- are pretty small. The best we can hope for is a distant relative of a member of the actual population that led to...I suggest you look up ‘cladistics’. This stuff will be on about page 2 of any book where it’s relevant. (I’m not being facetious: it is covered very very early in, eg, Aiello & Dean.) Thanks. I will. Just about all creationist sources even know the generic plural is australopithecines. Once again... I’ve listed some of my sources; where on earth are you getting your stuff from?Oh yeah, and Zuckerman and the a’piths is covered at Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines You sure about the present tense here? Such as? Define smooth line in this context. Because... Please cite him on human evolution. Please make sure it is in context.Because Dobzhansky... say, given your spelling to date, where did you copy-n-paste his name from? ... sorry, because Dobzhansky was a geneticist and population biologist. The smooth generation-to-generation changes one might observe in Drosophila aren’t discernable -- usually -- in the fossil record. Though there are plenty of examples of smooth transitions, when fossils are plentiful enough. See eg here:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/...ay/creation/fossil_series.html
and eg Sheldon’s work on Ordovician trilobites.So let's see what Dobzhansky said, and let’s see if it’s actually relevant.TTFN, DT