Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 301 (15508)
08-16-2002 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by dents
08-14-2002 12:22 PM


I don't think that the creationists consider Turkana Boy anything other than human. Maybe we should put australopiths there. Creationists love to call them apes.
How's that? Change Turkana Boy with Lucy or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by dents, posted 08-14-2002 12:22 PM dents has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by dents, posted 08-16-2002 8:34 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 301 (21806)
11-07-2002 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Ahmad
11-07-2002 1:41 PM


Been there, done that.
http://liquid2k.com/traduza/humevol5.htm
Even if you think that Homo erectus/ergaster should have been classified as modern Homo sapiens, some of their features still fall outside the modern human range. True, from the neck down H. erectus resembles H. sapiens, but their brains are relatively too small to resemble modern humans.
Relative brain size among various hominids:
The dispute over Homo erectus' status as valid species is because paleoanthropologists lump too much fossils into erectus. Personally I think that H. erectus should be split into at least 3 or 4 species (the classic erectus of Java and China, the Georgian erectus, and maybe two species for Africa). Maybe you should do a little looking at the fossils yourself before cutting and pasting from Harunyahya.com.Here:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2%20.htm
Creationist Arguments: Homo erectus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Ahmad, posted 11-07-2002 1:41 PM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Ahmad, posted 11-17-2002 2:25 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 301 (23059)
11-18-2002 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Ahmad
11-17-2002 2:25 PM


quote:
Differences in cranial capacity does not prove anything. It is a fact that there are modern humans with small brains who are nevertheless of normal intelligence and of full humanity.
If you would actually read my post above, you will see that I already covered that. But let's see it again:
http://liquid2k.com/traduza/humevol4.htm
Harun Yahya said that Pygmies and Homo erectus had the same brain size. Astonishingly, the small-brained Pygmy (estimated brain size from Harun Yahya (2001: 96, quote: 'The primary reason for evolutionists in defining Homo erectus as "primitive", is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1100 cc)However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (for instance the pygmies)'), body mass data (30kg) from McHenry & Berger 1998) is even brainier (30cc/kg) than the average modern human (25cc/kg)!
Members of the African pygmy tribe, with brains smaller than Turkana Boy's, do have normal intelligence and full humanity. Because they are on average brainier than me (a Malay) or you (presumably an Arab). In contrast, Turkana Boy, had he lived to adulthood, he'd make a great NBA player but I wouldn't rely on his wits. His brain is small but his body is large, and what directly matters is brain size vs body size, not absolute brain size. Brain size by itself is nothing. An elephant has a brain four times larger than ours but I can safely assume that we are still smarter (no offence to local hairy proboscideans of course ) Your (Harun Yahya) quote of R.D. Martin is correct.
Anyway, of course that Turkana Boy is a human being. So are the Neanderthals and the australopiths. The definition of humans, physically, is an upright stance, free hands, broad pelvis, and small canine teeth.
[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 11-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Ahmad, posted 11-17-2002 2:25 PM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Ahmad, posted 11-26-2002 12:02 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 301 (24534)
11-27-2002 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Ahmad
11-26-2002 12:02 PM


Ahmad, I think we cleared brain-size problem. You don't seem to be interested in the details as much as you want to state that Homo erectus is a human being. So I'll leave the problem.
Now, the australopith problem. Given the fact that they are upright and they keep their heads atop their spine, not hanging from it like chimps' heads, their short pelvis, and their human-like foot, is it plausible that they are quadrupedal? Check my website and look at Lucy's skeleton, the best evidence we currently have on how the australopith body form.
I cited a study by Crompton et al. (1998) there. The abstract:
J Hum Evol 1998 ;35(1):55--74
The mechanical effectiveness of erect and "bent-hip, bent-knee" bipedal walking in Australopithecus afarensis.
Crompton RH, Yu L, Weijie W, Gunther M, Savage R.
Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Liverpool. rhcromp@liv.ac.uk
It is universally accepted that the postcranial skeleton of the early hominid Australopithecus afarensis shows adaptations, or at least exaptations, towards bipedalism. However, there continues to be a debate concerning the likely form of terrestrial bipedality: whether gait was erect, like our own, or "bent-hip, bent-knee" like the bipedalism of living chimpanzees. In this study we use predictive dynamic modelling to assess the mechanical effectiveness of AL-288-1 under both hypotheses, on the basis of data on segment proportions from the literature. AL-288-1's proportions are incompatible with the kinematics of chimpanzee bipedalism, but compatible with the kinematics of either erect or "bent-hip, bent-knee" human gait. In the latter case, neither the ankle nor the knee joint would have contributed substantial mechanical work to propulsion of the body, and net energy absorption is predicted for these joints, which would have resulted in increased heat load. Such an ineffective gait is unlikely to have lead to selection for "bipedal" features in the postcranial skeleton.
PMID: 9680467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Crompton & co. had shown that AL 288-1, aka Lucy, might not walk like chimps, but more like humans.
Anyway, Karl's right, you should read the full Richmond & Strait article. You should also read the title (Evidence that humans evolved from knuckle-walking ancestors).
And for the R.D. Martin quote, sorry. My mistake. I was assuming that you only get your material from Harun Yahya, but it seems that you found it somewhere else. Mea culpa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Ahmad, posted 11-26-2002 12:02 PM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Ahmad, posted 11-28-2002 7:27 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 301 (24701)
11-27-2002 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Ahmad
11-27-2002 11:33 AM


quote:
I don't recall mentioning anything about the quadripedality of Lucy but australopithecines(AUST). So did australopithecines like Lucy walk upright? Careful study of the skeletal anatomy of australopithecine fossils indicates a stooped gait, probably similar to the ‘rolling’ knuckle-walk of chimps. Doesn't sound humane to me.
1. Lucy is an Australopithecus afarensis, an AUST if you wish.
2. 'Stooped gait'? You mean stooped posture? Cite please. Or check this out.

Left to right: Bruce Latimer's reconstruction of Australopithecus vertebral column, silhouette of human skeleton, silhouette of chimpanzee skeleton. Photograph by K. Garrett, from Gore (1997, National Geograpic at http://liquid2k.com/traduza/humevol3.htm
quote:
They admit that Lucy had knuckle-walking characteristics but deny she walked on her knuckle. They say that these characteristics were passed down from lucy's knuckle-walking ancestors. But ,as usual, they don't have any evidence for that. Johanson, an evolutionist, too didn't have any evidence to show that Lucy was bipedal. Same goes for AUST.
3. Where did Johanson say that? Cite source please.
[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 11-27-2002]
[Testing bug fix by repairing posts. --Admin]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 11-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Ahmad, posted 11-27-2002 11:33 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Ahmad, posted 11-28-2002 10:22 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 301 (24917)
11-29-2002 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Ahmad
11-28-2002 7:27 AM


quote:
Secondly, multivariate analysis show that that the fossil australopithecine pelvis is not intermediate between the pelves of ape and Man but is in fact uniquely different from the pelves of both living forms (J.T. Robinson, Nature, Vol. 205, p. 121). And besides naturalist Alberto Angela who worked with Johanson at Hadar, wrote that the reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis was based on supposition."
This is Lucy, image captured from Harun Yahya's website:
Check its pelvis. Is it "uniquely different"? Looks different to the chimp pelvis, isnt it?:
quote:
Thirdly, multivariate analysis (done by Oxnard) also show that the big toe of the so-called the "human-like" foot actually sticks out as in chimpanzees. There is no evidence that their foot resembled the foot of humans.
OH 8 (Homo habilis) foot. Oh, I forgot, it's supposed to be Australopithecus habilis.

Anyone got a picture of Homo sapiens foot bones? Maybe it's different from OH 8.
quote:
Now you tell me: Does it make sense to say that Lucy (an australopith) had two separate ways of moving on the ground (bipedalism and knuckle-walking)??
No, it doesn't make sense at all. Lucy does not do knuckle-walking. I might speculate that she moves like a large gibbon (Hylobates), brachiating on the trees and walking with her legs (not supported by her arms) on the ground.
(to admins: sorry for the image-heavy post!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Ahmad, posted 11-28-2002 7:27 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Ahmad, posted 11-30-2002 2:56 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 301 (25135)
12-01-2002 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Ahmad
11-30-2002 2:56 PM


The australopith brain is the same size as a chimp's brain, so it's no problem for Lucy if she ever gave birth to anyone. Anyway, the character that puts australopiths near to humans is, after all, their erect posture, which implies bipedalism. Check the Lucy fossil again, this time with a ruler. Measure the length of her arm and compare it to her leg. Done that? Then try to get the measurements of a chimp's arms and legs. Lucy's arm is shorter than her feet. Knuckle-walking apes have long arms and short legs. Should Lucy try to knuckle-walk she'd make a ridiculous posture, because her legs are longer than her arms while her face would point downward.
Anyway, about the pelvis, here's an interesting article. The author is a creationist, yet he checked the data for himself (admirable guy) and conclude that Lovejoy did not bend the evidence for evolution.
Angelfire - error 404
'The deformation of the original Lucy pelvis that was corrected by Lovejoy on the reconstruction affects the way the rear part of the pelvic blade articulates with the sacrum, which is also preserved in Lucy's skeleton, and is the bone at the base of the spinal column that joins the left and right blades of the pelvis. In its present state, the articulation between these two bones is crushed such that the back part of the pelvic blade is pushed backwards almost 90 to the front part, creating a completely artificial angle to this anatomical region (it is artifical whether one uses an ape or a human pelvis as a comparison - no ape, monkey or even dog pelvis has such an angle of the blade). What Lovejoy did was to cut the displaced pieces from a series of plaster casts and re-assemble them to remove the distortion. The re-assembly was conducted very carefully. Fortunately the deformation left most of the edges of the displaced fragments intact, so the reconstruction proceeded by matching and refitting the edges of the broken pieces... much as one reassembles a picture by fitting together the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle.'
'The resulting reconstruction was not a product of anyone's imagination or preconceived idea, as suggested by Parker's text, but was the simple result of a geoemetrical restoration of the bone's natural anatomical contours, and thus of its contact with the sacrum.'
Anyway, there are other australopith pelvises besides Lucy's. Again from the same guy:
Angelfire - error 404
See the data for yourself. Anyway, thanks for reminding me the possibility of Lovejoy bending the data. It made me searching and checking my own position. As I have checked, he's not cheating. And it's still consistent with the idea of australopiths being bipedal.
About the foot (OH 8): Arboreal adaptations? You mean a hand-like foot like those of chimps? I supplied the picture, now you tell me where the arboreal adaptations are. And you still owe us that multivariate analysis. Show us Oxnard's data. (HINT: Creationist sites usually don't have them).
quote:
Then why the knucle-walking characeristics and adaptations recently found by Richmond and Strait? Surely they muct contributed to their function, i.e, knuckle-walking.
Retention of ancestral characters? A knuckle-walking wrist does not obstruct a bipedal walker. If it does not get in the way, then natural selection wouldn't weed it out immediately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Ahmad, posted 11-30-2002 2:56 PM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Ahmad, posted 12-02-2002 12:49 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 301 (26457)
12-12-2002 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Ahmad
12-02-2002 12:49 PM


Assalamu 'alaikum brother Ahmad, and minal aidin wal faidzin, Happy Idul-Fitri,
quote:
"Kidd, R.S., P. O'Higgins, and C.E. Oxnard 1996. The OH8 foot: a reappraisal of the functional morphology of the hindfoot utilizing a multivariate approach. Journal of Human Evolution 31:269-291."
Abstract:(emphasis mine)
The Olduvai Hominid 8 (OH8) foot has long been the centre of investigation in considering the locomotor adaptations of early Homo, the original interpretation reporting it as having "... principal affinities ... with that of Homo sapiens" and having "... the structural requirements of an upright stance and a fully bipedal gait" (Day * Napier, 1964). These conclusions have since proved to be controversial. The ape foot and that of the modern human differ in many areas, two of which are the divergence of the first ray found in apes but not humans, and the decreased, but alterable, range of motion at the midtarsal joint. The modifications required to reduce the range of motion at the midtarsal joint to that of the human are principally twofold, one at each of the talonavicular and calcaneocuboid joints. A univariate analysis of the four bones involved in the midtarsal joint of OH8 reveals that, although the calcaneocuboid articulation has assumed an essentially human-like state, the talonavicular joint has not. A series of multivariate investigations have been undertaken in order to identify patterns of morphological variation in biomechanically relevant features of the four hindmost tarsal elements among humans, selected apes and OH8. The results confirm the earlier univariate findings and firmly indicate the functional affinities of the four bones to be mosaic, in some respects being human-like while in others being essentially ape-like, suggesting the presence of a divergent first ray. These findings shed some doubt upon the original interpretation of the gait of this hominid and support a hypothesis of mixed locomotor adaptation, possibly arboreal and terrestrial.
Sounds harmless enough to me. Habilis was an australopith (I'm with Bernard Wood's opinion) and australopiths walk and climb.
Maybe you can access the actual article?
oladieta.com.br
I have a picture of Schmid's reconstruction of Lucy but I cannot upload it to my website today (liquid2k has problems). I will address the pelvis questions later.
[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 12-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Ahmad, posted 12-02-2002 12:49 PM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Karl, posted 12-13-2002 8:24 AM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 162 by Ahmad, posted 12-18-2002 12:38 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 301 (89724)
03-02-2004 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by ex libres
03-01-2004 5:49 PM


ex libre,
First, How many birds do you know that have a reptilelike long bony tail such as Archaeopteryx?
Second, Are you just pasting somebody else's material? You sound like Harun Yahya.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by ex libres, posted 03-01-2004 5:49 PM ex libres has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by ex libres, posted 03-02-2004 12:31 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 301 (89930)
03-02-2004 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by ex libres
03-02-2004 2:14 PM


ex libres, you ever see Protoavis?
If you have, you might also want to notice that it had teeth, fingers, and a long bony tail. It does pose problems to the dinosaur-bird proponents, but it does not refute the fact that birds are decended from a group of reptiles.
Too bad Protoavis was neglected.
[btw, admins, isn't this the Human origins forum, not Bird Origins?]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by ex libres, posted 03-02-2004 2:14 PM ex libres has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 301 (89933)
03-02-2004 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by ex libres
03-02-2004 12:31 PM


quote:
There are many unique species which are now extinct (the Dodo bird for one. How many reptiles do you know that have feathers or are warm blooded, or have a sternum.
Well then, show me the extinct birds that has long bony tails.
Feathered reptiles: Caudipteryx, Microraptor gui
Reptiles with sternum: Archaeopteryx, some raptors
quote:
No. I don't know who Harun Yahya is. If it sounds like him perhaps you heard him refer to the same quotes I did and I do paraphrase at time info. from my research which comes from many different sources maybe one of his. If so, I apologize for having a like mind; I don't apologize for being correct.
You quoted from DarwinismRefuted.com, a website affiliated to Harun Yahya &co. the most successful creationist franchise outside USA. You shouldn't apologize for being correct, because you are not being correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ex libres, posted 03-02-2004 12:31 PM ex libres has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ex libres, posted 05-25-2004 7:02 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 301 (89949)
03-03-2004 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Adminnemooseus
03-03-2004 1:20 AM


Re: Somewhere along the line, severe topic drift has happened
Mr Admin, sir, I suggest we continue, but move this into Evolution/Miscellaneous. We are now talking about birds not humans, therefore out of scope of 'Human origins'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-03-2004 1:20 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024