Summations Only

The nested hierarchy only makes sense in light of a process with common ancestry and descent with modification, what Darwin called evolution. I have yet to see a single ID/creationist explain this pattern. There is simply no reason why a designer would force separately created species into a nested hierarchy. ...

And not just a nested hierarchy in traits, but one locked in the spacio-temporal matrix of the distribution of populations around the world -- no evolution occurred without being preceded by a similar less derived species living nearby. (a point observed by Darwin).

No ID/creationist hypothesis explains this observation either. Special creation has no need for such a limitation\restriction to this time-space matrix.

Enjoy

Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published in 1959. ...

I believe you meant 1859.

I think it was still considered a branch of Natural Science in Darwin's day.

And Natural Philosophy.

Enjoy

Hi KyleConno, and welcome to the forum.

Everything we have studied in biology has its roots tied to the evolution of organisms from single cells to multicellular ones.

and in their interactions within the ecological niches they occupy.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

quibble

... While Darwin was generally correct in his theory, and he deserves recognition as the grandfather of evolutionary theory, ...

One of the grandfathers.

Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography: Wallace came to the same basic conclusions at virtually the same time and if not for Huxley urging Darwin to publish we would be seeing his name instead of Darwin in creationist posts, and they would call it Wallacism.

Science builds on science, and ideas accumulate and then some one -- or as has happened many times -- many people come to a new concept that provides the explanatory structure. What this shows is that science does not depend on any one individual, as someone else will unravel the reality that the evidence reveals.

In The Law of Sarawak Wallace laid out the constraints on new species to the temporo-spacial matrix, in 1855.

Enjoy

I'd explain these the same way I'd explain horse/zebra/donkey. They are all descended from the kinds on Noah's Ark. The horse/zebra/donkey also prefer to breed with their own but can cross breed.

In other words, they are members of a clade that descended from a common ancestor population, which you guess/assume/wish was on a (no evidence) fantasy ark.

Is the Okapi also a member of the Giraffidae clade, and is it descended from the same common ancestor population?

Enjoy

Hi Faith

I assume you are replying to the subthread title, as it doesn't relate to my question on Okapi and the Giraffidae clade, and descent from their common ancestor population.

Running out of genetic diversity/ allelic options as new populations develop from old, especially as they near the point of "speciation" where their allelic options are severely reduced.

This is an old argument of yours that has been much replied to ...

... But since this is off topic I'll see if I can find another place to take it.

Good idea. Can I suggest resurrecting your old Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread? I believe this thesis of yours was discussed in great detail there.

Enjoy

Please see my reply at Message 724 in "The TRVE history of the Flood..."

Posted here because it was getting too far off topic in "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

But you didn't answer my question (highlighted below) which is on topic. Let me repeat my post:

quote:

---

Message 105: In other words, they are members of a clade that descended from a common ancestor population, which you guess/assume/wish was on a (no evidence) fantasy ark.

Is the Okapi also a member of the Giraffidae clade, and is it descended from the same common ancestor population?

---

Is the Samotherium? their common ancestor?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added Samotherium reference from bluegenes in msg 93

RAZD, See "The TRUE history of the flood" Message 756

Links to messages are easy: [mid=807989] becomes Message 756, where 807989 is that gray number right after "Message 756 of 759" in the message header

quote:

---

RAZD asks: Is the Okapi also a member of the Giraffidae clade, and is it descended from the same common ancestor population? What about the Samotherium?

Okapi. Yes. However like all scientific questions this may have to be revised if contradictory information comes to light.

Samotherium? I don't know.

---

As I'm talking about evolution explaining the evidence rather than a fantasy flood scenario, I choose to reply here.

There's more ... what about Sivatherium:

quote:

---

Modern, giraffe-like restoration in the MEPAN

Sivatherium resembled the modern okapi, but was far larger, and more heavily built, being about 2.2 m (7.2 ft) tall at the shoulder, 3 m (9.8 ft) in total height with a weight up to 400–500 kg (880–1,100 lb).[6] A newer estimate has come up with an estimated body mass of about 1,250 kg (2,760 lb).[3] This would make Sivatherium the largest ruminant in history. This weight estimate is thought to be an underestimate, as it does not take into account the large horns possessed by males of the species. Sivatherium had a wide, antler-like pair of ossicones on its head, and a second pair of ossicones above its eyes. Its shoulders were very powerful to support the neck muscles required to lift the heavy skull.[4]

---

The skin rendering is immaterial (it could just as easily been similar to the Okapi) the the skeletal structure is accurate and the stance and musculature are probably appropriate.

Then there other Hydaspitherium clade, also classified as members of the Giraffidae Clade, Bramatherium, Helladotherium, and Hydaspitherium.

Interesting that there are 4 species in that genus, just as there are currently 4 species of giraffe.

Of course evolution and nested hierarchies from common ancestors explain these as all members of the same Giraffidae Clade and we can easily trace the family traits (such as ossicones rather than horns on the heads).

Enjoy

As a theistic evolutionist, you seem blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is incompatible with Scripture - and I'm not just talking about the first chapter of Genesis. But this is off-topic so that's all I'll say on the matter here.

In your opinion. Of course opinions incompatible with reality are delusions ... if you want to discuss this further you can join me at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.

So let's start with Message 1 on that thread and see where reality leads us:

We see many creationists saying that dating methods are not accurate and are prone to errors. The problem is that these methods all correlate with each other in many rather astounding ways, given that they are based on very different mechanisms. To address this issue of correlations, and to bring this issue to the fore, this topic starts with ones that have direct methods of counting ages due to annual layers, how those annual layers validate each other and how several radiometric methods enter into the mix -- correlations not just with age but with climate and certain known instances that occurred in the past and which show up in these records just where they should be. The challenge for the creationist is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and yet produce identical results - when the errors in different systems should produce different random results.

I'm betting you won't, because the last thing YEC's want to do is see how badly their opinions are invalidated by the preponderance of objective empirical reality.

Enjoy

ps -- if you don't participate on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 then any comments you make from here on are just you blowing smoke.

Edited by RAZD, : ps

Well finally. It's always puzzled me why creationist don't simply apply magic all the way through the process. Why spend so much time attempting to explain the factual impossibilities of the bible when you can just say 'goddidit'? At that point we'd all shut up - there's nothing we can say about magic. Why do you guys do it?

Because they know they are wrong?

Enjoy

You seem to have assumed that Dredge is a YEC - Dredge is not a YEC. Dredge is an OEC.

My apologies. So you agree that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old and that life on earth has been around for over 3 billion of those years?

Enjoy

Dredge has no idea how old the earth is and Dredge believes that life on earth was created about 5778 years ago.

See Life before 5778 years ago, Message 487 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 as this is off topic for this thread.

Enjoy

... Should Christians just cave in and admit that Genesis is a myth? ...

The majority of Christians have. You are talking about fundamentalist sects, not all of Christianity.

But it's not just Christians that need adapt to reality, anyone that believes something that is at odds with the objective empirical evidence of reality, is delusional if they think reality will change magically to match their belief.

When the world went from the center of the universe to a planet orbiting a star in the far reaches of a galaxy in a universe filled with galaxies, with no discernible center ... Christianity adapted, the world didn't end.

Enjoy

They are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot. They can be distinguished from tracks of Western people who usually wear shoes.

Actually the big toe is a little longer and the footprints show a little variation in positions, indicating some lateral control that would facilitate tree climbing.

The human footprints exist. The Australopithecine fossils exist. They were found in the same general area. The Australopithecines did not make the footprints.

Says the person sitting in a chair looking at pictures, as compared to the scientists that measured and compared footprints to feet.

The issue of footprints is discussed on {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal along with several other aspects of Lucy and Australopithicines:

quote:

---

Message 1: from
http://www.geocities.com/...anaveral/Hangar/2437/hominid.htm

Confirmation that the early Australopithecines were efficient bipedal walkers came when Mary Leaky discovered a set of hominid footprints pressed into a layer of wet volcanic ash some three and a half million years ago near Laetoli in Africa. Three individual bipeds left their prints, apparently a male, a female and a juvenile. The outlines of their footprints, sharply preserved in the hardened ash, clearly showed that the animal that left these prints was an efficient bipedal walker, like a human--there was not a trace of a divergent big toe such as found in apes, and a very humanlike arch was present. A composite A. afarensis foot, assembled from recovered fossil bones, fits the Laetoli footprints exactly.

(bold mine for empHASis)

---

The foot for this composite skeleton comes from "Little Foot" and is discussed in detail on Message 20 on that thread:

quote:

---

But if you think "little foot" was an unexpected find, then compare this 1935 prediction with "little foot" (same article): quote: A find that matches a prediction based on evolution.

The clearest pictures of the Laetoli footprints that I could find are:

The (12 year old) article on "little foot" (stw 573) also says that more bones were found (including the rest of the foot? with the skull and forearm still in the rock but exposed) but I can't find anything more about any recent results of excavations..

Other foot bones for Australopithecus afarensis that I know of include heel and toe bones from the "first family" group:

PBS "how did they move":

quote:

---

First Family: heel bones
The broad heels of this creature could withstand the pressure of walking upright. Like human heels, they are filled with shock-absorbing "spongy" bone, rather than the more solid bone found in the heels of other apes.

First Family: toe bones
Toe bones found among the First Family are long compared to those of humans, but they don't curve forward toward the heel as they do in modern tree-climbing primates.

---

Not fully human, not fully ape -- intermediate.

---

Some variation in big toe position in the footprints was noted, and that would indicate mobility of the toe that would facilitate climbing ability was still retained to some degree.

Footprints and feet found in the same general area and the same time era within the spacio-temporal matrix.

What made a trail of ... footprints? This question is only difficult for people who don't like the obvious answer.

When we take out your obviously biased inference the obvious answer is obviously what the scientists concluded, not the armchair detective.

Because no modern human fossils are found in the spacio-temporal matrix that the footprints are found in.

But I'm glad you recognize how similar Australopithicine feet are to modern human feet.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .

the [Laetoli] foot prints do not correspond to modern foot prints Yes they do. According to Laetoli Footprints they are in fact "hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans."

Not "indistinguishable" and not according to scientists, but lay people. I would say that they look similar to modern human footprints, and this is because they show derived traits similar to modern humans.

see {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal or Message 213 here (it excerpts pertinent parts from the thread).

The distinguishing difference is a slightly longer gap between big toe and the others, and the tracks also show more variation in placement than modern footprints. The stride length was also compared with the Lucy/Australopithicus skeleton, and surprise, matched the skeleton stride length when modeled in a walking position. The spacing is short for a modern human. The heel/toe depressions also match Lucy's stride. Conclusion the spacing is correct for an Austalopithicine walking.

Scientists matched an Australopithicine foot skeleton to the footprints and said "A composite A. afarensis foot, assembled from recovered fossil bones, fits the Laetoli footprints exactly. Again size matters here, because the modern human foot is bigger (details, details, details).

abe: Here is a picture showing comparative sizes of Human, Australopithicus and Chimp

The foot is smaller and a walking stride (footprint spacing) would be smaller. The track size and spacing match Australopithicus. /abe

Others have said they are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot.

And if they saw an Australopithicine foot today they would likely say it was indistinguishable from "modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot" ... because they are similar.

I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. ...

Another creationist lie.

quote:

---

quote:

---

First Family: heel bones
The broad heels of this creature could withstand the pressure of walking upright. Like human heels, they are filled with shock-absorbing "spongy" bone, rather than the more solid bone found in the heels of other apes.

First Family: toe bones
Toe bones found among the First Family are long compared to those of humans, but they don't curve forward toward the heel as they do in modern tree-climbing primates.

---

Not fully human, not fully ape -- intermediate.

---

That the Australopithicine foot is intermediate between ape and modern human is just what evolution predicts.

Lucy (Australopithicine) was still able to climb trees (with a flexible big toe and curved finger bones) but the leg (hip, knee, ankles, etc) show fully developed for obligate upright walking when on the ground.

... Lucy was an ape.

Of course she was, just as you and I are. That's why so many of her bones are very similar to ours, and why her transitional bones (hips, toes, fingers, etc) are somewhere between human and chimp because we share an ape ancestor with them.

A track of human footprints strongly suggests the trail was made by humans. Well that's the most logical conclusion.

Again the temporal-spacial matrix shows that the hominids living in the area at the time match Australopithicines and completely rule our modern humans.

Only a desperate creationist would assume modern humans made the prints, because they ignore the fine detail in the footprints that show longer big toes and they ignore the constraints of time on their relation to modern humans.

That's okay, the facts won't change no matter how much they twist and dance.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : picture