|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "If I descended from an ape, how come apes are still here?" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
...
Edited by RAZD, : delete double post Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No, my original point was that the fossil ancestors discovered have dimensions that often fall well within the range of modern humans. Whereas your point now would appear to be that there's so much variation in H. erectus alone that the specimens even within that necessarily narrower range shouldn't be classified together:
Look at the erectus skull provided by RAZD and yours frako they are completely different. The fossil ancestors, apparently, "fall well within the range of modern humans" and they are "completely different". These specimens, it seems, are so very similar to H. sapiens that they should all be considered modern humans, and so completely different from one another that they shouldn't all be considered H. erectus. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2355 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1049 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Dr A writes: Whereas your point now would appear to be that there's so much variation in H. erectus alone that the specimens even within that necessarily narrower range shouldn't be classified together: Well the images are now available for all to see. Individuals can make up their own judgements about the differences and merits of classification. I won't explain what I can see as I presume you have eyes. Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Hi Big Al,
This is a copy of my Message 223: Let's put the three Homo erectus skulls alongside the human skull:
The three Homo erectus skulls have a great deal in common, most notably the large brow ridges, prominent cheekbones and small chin. The one with the large canines is a subspecies of Homo erectus, but it still has large brow ridges, prominent cheekbones and small chin. None of these qualities are possessed by the human skull. The question on everyone's mind is whether you can see the differences between the Homo erectus skulls and the human skull. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Big_Al35
Well the images are now available for all to see. Individuals can make up their own judgements about the differences and merits of classification. I won't explain what I can see as I presume you have eyes. In other words, no you cannot describe in detail the differences you find are so definite, and choose instead the old creationist gambit of running away from the issue. Let's take it a step at a time: can you tell me what the obvious differences are between these two pictures:
It is a simple question, yes? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And hi again, Big_Al35.
Going back a little:
WK writes: Apart from some differences with the teeth I don't see the distinction you wish to draw either Ahhh...so you do see some differences then. It appears anyone can just dig up any old set of bones and within limits claim that it is homo erectus. Not very scientific! Curiously, what the scientists actually do is compare similarities as well as differences when classifying fossils. As Coyote (who has actually done this) points out you need a matrix of measurements to do a proper study, not just look at photographs. It may also interest you to learn (hopefully) about the degree of variation within the Homo erectus classification, especially as you were so hot to point out the degree of variation in Homo sapiens sapiens (and we can also talk about variations within Homo sapiens if you want).
quote: Here are some pictures for you to study:
The last one is the Dmanisi Homo erectus georgicus fossil again, and the one on the red table is a composite of "Peking Man" and we see that they are (a) grouped together under Homo erectus by their shared (synapomorphies) characteristics and (b) divided into subspecies by their derived (apomorphies) features. This is done by comparing their overall matrix of characteristics of skull and skeletal features. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1049 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Percy writes: The question on everyone's mind is whether you can see the differences between the Homo erectus skulls and the human skull. WK has already identified the teeth difference between pics 1 and 3, furthermore he claims that pic 3 has the lowest cranial capacity. This is WK's comments not mine. After having done my own research I am dubious about the latter comment.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Big Al writes: After having done my own research Care to share? (It's what we do here.) Or have you just looked at another picture in the bone shop?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Big_Al35,
WK has already identified the teeth difference between pics 1 and 3, ... What about the differences between 1 and 2:
Message 230: Let's put the three Homo erectus skulls alongside the human skull:
Other that pic 1 having a lower jaw and being a plastic model while pic 2 is an actual fossil ... Also you have not answered this yet:
Message 231: Let's take it a step at a time: can you tell me what the obvious differences are between these two pictures:
It is a simple question, yes? I'm still waiting for an answer.
... furthermore he claims that pic 3 has the lowest cranial capacity. This is WK's comments not mine. ... Indeed:
quote: When we look at the chart provided by Malcolm in Message 201 ...
... we see that 600cc is right about the middle of the Homo habilis range (as is the age, at 1.77 mys), and the low early end of the H. erectus range. Based on these criteria alone you might ask why it is not classified as Homo habilis.
quote: Would you care to point out the obvious differences between these:
Note that I've sorted them roughly by cranial capacity ...
After having done my own research I am dubious about the latter comment. Really? What did you find? Where did you find it? What did it say? Enjoy. Edited by Admin, : Narrow the images.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Hi Big Al,
Well, whatever it is you're seeing, whatever your reasons, whatever your answers to our questions, I guess you're not willing to share them. Here's you:
[Groucho] I don't know what they have to say, It makes no difference anyway, Whatever it is, I'm against it. No matter what it is or who commenced it, I'm against it. Your proposition may be good,But let's have one thing understood, Whatever it is, I'm against it. And even when you've changed it or condensed it, I'm against it. I'm opposed to it,On general principle, I'm opposed to it. [chorus] He's opposed to it.In fact, indeed, that he's opposed to it! [Groucho]For months before my son was born, I used to yell from night to morn, Whatever it is, I'm against it. And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it, I'm against it! Why don't you wait until you're ready to explain what you're seeing in the images before posting again. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1049 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Percy writes:
It's not me, it's your colleagues doing most of the seeing. You have already showed me two pictures of homo erectus which you now admit are different. You also now admit that one of the erectus images might be better classified as habilis. You claim to see no differences and yet you admit these differences. You now claim that shop replicas are virtually fraudulent copies. You claim that the lower jaw is a key difference when assessing fossils against modern man but show me a bunch of images where the lower jaw is missing. I think you should think carefully about making judgements about these fossils and before submitting your next post. Good luck.
Well, whatever it is you're seeing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2355 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Hi Big Al,
There seems to be some confusion. I think if we just focus on one thing at a time, and if you actually tell us what you see in the images, then we should be able to make some progress. Here are three homo erectus skulls and one human skull:
Can you see how similar the homo erectus skulls are to one another, including the one that is actually thought to be a subpecies of homo erectus (third from the left)? Can you see how different they are from a modern human skull? Notice I didn't have to tell you which one was the modern human skull. Kind of stands out, doesn't it. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Big_Al35, what's up with the non-responses? Feeling boxed in? Piled on?
... You have already showed me two pictures of homo erectus which you now admit are different. ... But why would you expect two different fossils to be exactly the same -- particularly after going on at length about variations within modern humans. We expect variations through evolution, and the more time and distance between fossils the more variation is possible.
WE would be surprised if there was NO difference. What we are curious about is what differences YOU see from looking at pictures. For instance ...
Message 231: Let's take it a step at a time: can you tell me what the obvious differences are between these two pictures:
It is a simple question, yes? ... was a bit of a trick question: these are pictures of exactly the same fossil (one is an accurate, detailed plastic model of the other), and any apparent differences are due to camera angle. If you doubt me look at the crack lines on the nose bridge, the cheekbones, the top of the right eye, the teeth and the teeth sockets. Now I expect that the "obvious differences" you mentioned are also due in part to these camera angles -- especially when you compare pictures from different sources. This is why Coyote stresses using a matrix of data obtained from detailed measurements of the skulls, not cursory glances at photos.
... You also now admit that one of the erectus images might be better classified as habilis. ... BZZT!!! WRONG AGAIN. What I said was:
Message 235: Based on these criteria alone you might ask why it is not classified as Homo habilis. Note that I specifically said that YOU might ask ... based on only two pieces of information (age and cranial capacity) ... and this is because you apparently are not very well informed about how fossils are classified, and think that you looking at pictures can tell as much as Coyote can from looking at the actual fossil and the complete set of data that has been collected regarding this fossil when this is his particular field of study. Rather than bluster on you should pay attention to Coyote and ask questions about aspects that you do not understand. That chart is not used to classify fossils, but to catalog the variations in cranial capacity of the fossil specimens.
The fact is that when you compare ALL the features, the similarities as well as the differences, this fossil is a better match to Homo erectus than to Homo habilis, yet different enough from the main group of Homo erectus fossils to be classed as a subspecies -- Homo erectus georgicus. See Message 232 for a list of other subspecies.
quote: That's ~500,000 years, while Homo sapiens (including subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens and other subspecies) have only existed ~200,000 years. It would be astonishing if they did not have some variations between early samples and late sample and between african samples and asian samples. Again, we expect variations through evolution, and the more time and distance between fossils the more variation is possible. We also expect similarities between late Homo habilis and early Homo erectus when one evolves into the other. The chart also shows this kind of blending between all species on the chart.
... You claim to see no differences and yet you admit these differences. ... Who has said that? What we have asked you is what differences YOU see between them and what differences you see between them and Homo sapiens. You were the one that claimed that they fell under the range of variation seen in modern humans.
... You now claim that shop replicas are virtually fraudulent copies. ... Not at all: those copies are very accurate right down to the break lines in the skulls. The only obvious difference between the photos is camera angle, so that the size of the cranium appears different.
... You claim that the lower jaw is a key difference when assessing fossils against modern man ... Again, this is incorrect. The lower jaw provides information certainly (when available - same with the teeth), but the major information comes from the parts that can be compared 1 to 1, and not from how complete the image is or how you look at it in a photo.
... but show me a bunch of images where the lower jaw is missing. ... The picture in question:
... has intentionally deleted jaws (not all fossils have them), and presented the fossils from the same point of view for the frontal and profile views, so that people like you will not be distracted from comparing actual differences. Look at them carefully: can you pick out Homo erectus georgicus? Put your hand over the jaw on the second picture above, look at the teeth, eyebrows, etc.
... I think you should think carefully about making judgements about these fossils and before submitting your next post. Good luck. Curiously, what this really shows is that you are not properly equipped -- either by education or personal investigation -- to understand what people have been saying, what they have been showing you, and what they have been asking you about. You need to do more than just make a couple of cursory observations and make some unspecified internet research (presumably of creationist websites). Now I suggest you go ask Coyote, humbly, for some advice on what you need to study in order to learn some basic understanding of this field. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : trick questionby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024