Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
30 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1 (2 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,616 Year: 16,652/19,786 Month: 777/2,598 Week: 23/251 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?"
Coyote
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 127 of 286 (651663)
02-08-2012 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by jrchamblee
02-08-2012 9:28 PM


Evidence ??
you did not descend from an ape ,man was created by gods, apes were made different,but they learned just enough to stay alive, that's why they are still here

Do you have any evidence to support that belief?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jrchamblee, posted 02-08-2012 9:28 PM jrchamblee has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 158 of 286 (656272)
03-17-2012 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Big_Al35
03-17-2012 11:37 AM


You want changes?
You must admit though that the first image has an uncanny resemblance to a chimpanzee? I would swear that someone had modeled or fashioned that image from what they know about modern chimpanzees. This is what is so misleading about it all. If the images are pure fiction why don't the scientists admit it.

If that picture were changed so that the first critter looked more like Lucy or one of the other early fossils would you be happy?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Big_Al35, posted 03-17-2012 11:37 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 03-17-2012 12:47 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(5)
Message 171 of 286 (656594)
03-20-2012 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Big_Al35
03-20-2012 8:29 AM


On skulls
Not sure if all these fossils look all that different. On what basis are you determining that these fossils are all different from modern man?

Paleontologists, physical anthropologists and several other specialties deal with this topic. Both fossil man and human osteology were subjects I studied for my Ph.D. exams. I can assure you that your cursory look at those pictures differs drastically from what specialists do when they look at these skulls. Specialists have detailed knowledge of the anatomy and morphology involved, and will have looked at thousands of skulls and skull fragments of a wide range of species.

Believe it or not, experts in these fields actually know something!

If you took the fossil of a 19 year old man and compared it with the fossil of a 60 year old man what differences would you see?

I'll not detail the kinds of things you would expect, but between those two ages you give you would expect to see differences in dentition (3rd molar), suture closure, and age-related degeneration. These changes are all well known and can be found in standard text books.

If you were to extrapolate that difference to people who could potentially live till they were 800 years old what might you see?

Extrapolating the age-related changes we are familiar with, by age 800 you would have something approximating a jellyfish.

I am not suggesting that anyone could live 800 years but you never know what happened in the past right?

No that is not right. By studying ancient bones and fossils, archaeologists and paleontologists have a good idea of what happened in the past.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Big_Al35, posted 03-20-2012 8:29 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 200 of 286 (656944)
03-23-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Big_Al35
03-23-2012 8:50 AM


Re: Getting Back On Topic
No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans.

While single dimensions from fossils usually fall within the range of modern humans, that means nothing. Skulls and bones are three-dimensional shapes, and single dimensions simply can't describe their complex shapes.

For that you need multivariate statistics, and that's what the professionals use. I started using those statistics in the mid-70s in graduate school, and successfully differentiated among several closely related Native American groups.

Here are a few random article titles from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that include multiple discriminant function analysis:

--The Maka femur and its bearing on the antiquity of human walking: Applying contemporary concepts of morphogenesis to the human fossil record
--Discriminant function analysis of the central portion of the innominate
--Morphological and taxonomic affinities of the Olduvai ulna (OH 36)
--Is Central Asia the eastern outpost of the Neandertal range? A reassessment of the Teshik-Tash child
--Cranial shape in fruit, nectar, and exudate feeders: Implications for interpreting the fossil record

My point was that the evidence that RAZD provided was unacceptable. If he has some real evidence perhaps he could share it with us. Perhaps he would like to start by giving us the full range of variation amongst the present human population.

Here is more evidence that you could ever want. This is the online link to the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. (It is one of many hundred such journals.)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...0.1002/%28ISSN%291096-8644

You can examine the titles and abstracts of all issues to get an idea of what is really going on in the evolution field.

So don't tell us we have no evidence!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Big_Al35, posted 03-23-2012 8:50 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 228 of 286 (657034)
03-25-2012 1:07 AM


No response yet
Big Al has yet to respond to my post showing that linear dimensions are not a proper criteria for describing and differentiating skulls.

For that you need multivariate statistics which deal with complex shapes.

I'm beginning to think he has no answer to that point.

Nor to the various articles that I cited showing that research in paleoanthropology is done using multivariate statistics.

Nor to my point that I used such statistics to differentiate several Native American cranial series in the mid-70s.

Big Al is trying to apply a freshman understanding to a graduate school problem, and trying to tell those who are more learned how to go about their research.

Big Al is sadly mistaken in this.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 238 of 286 (657084)
03-25-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Big_Al35
03-25-2012 3:44 PM


Ducking?
I think you should think carefully about making judgements about these fossils and before submitting your next post. Good luck.

Are you ignoring me deliberately?

I have posted to you twice about methods used in differentiating skulls and you have yet to even respond. Multivariate statistics, remember?

Please address this issue, or admit that your comments are baseless.

The only value I have found in your comments is that they have convinced me you know nothing of the subject.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Big_Al35, posted 03-25-2012 3:44 PM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Big_Al35, posted 03-26-2012 4:37 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(12)
Message 247 of 286 (657242)
03-26-2012 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Big_Al35
03-26-2012 4:37 PM


Re: Ducking?
Coyote writes:

Are you ignoring me deliberately?

Yes, I am ignoring you deliberately.

I have posted politely, presented solid evidence concerning the topic, and have firsthand experience with fossil man and the statistical treatments used to analyze the various skulls, and those are the posts you choose to ignore?

I would be interested in your reasons for ignoring my posts.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Big_Al35, posted 03-26-2012 4:37 PM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by subbie, posted 03-26-2012 10:12 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply
 Message 256 by Big_Al35, posted 04-01-2012 3:18 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 257 of 286 (658042)
04-02-2012 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Big_Al35
04-01-2012 3:18 PM


Re: Ducking?
You have shown complete ignorance of the subject, and refused to engage me in a debate because I exhibit some real knowledge of the subject.

You should be banned for that--that's trolling behavior.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Big_Al35, posted 04-01-2012 3:18 PM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Big_Al35, posted 04-02-2012 4:26 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019