Turkana Boy (for MtW)

Over in this thread, Mike the Wiz seemed confused about the fossil KNM-WT 15000, known as Turkana Boy, after I asked about it. Well, that thread seems to double in length each (UK) night, so I thought this would be better on its own. Here’s a well-known ‘line-up’. Here’s what they are:(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modernWell, young Turk is dated -- by the same methods that put the others in that order, so let’s run with it for now -- at 1.6my. That means he should slot in between H and I, and be more like I. Let’s see!H: KNM-WT 1500: I: Well, do you have any thoughts? (No sniggering there in the peanut gallery! )Well personally, I think it fits better after F, but it's not that much 'younger'.So once again I ask:Is Turk an ape? Yes or no?
Is Turk human? Yes or no?Oh, sorry, you did 'reply' to this... Ah, but I’d like to think that you can think. Forever optimistic, I’m hoping that your (apparent) ignorance is remedy-able. Alternatively, maybe I’m wrong, and you can explain why. So I’m not trying to ‘test the fool’. I am not (merely -- sure, this can be fun ) playing games. I really, honestly would like to hear the arguments that support your claims.So, is it ape? Yes or no?
Is it human? Yes or no?Not, what is it. I already know what species it is assigned to, and why; but it’s not me that disagrees with that. What I think it is doesn’t matter, because you don’t agree anyway, so saying that it is Homo ergaster doesn’t actually help.Therefore, which of the two, human or ape -- apparently the only available options -- do you think it is? It has to be one or the other, doesn’t it? Because there can’t be intermediates between 'kinds', can there?Come on Mike. Please answer the question.Cheers, DT

I think you are living proof of the jigsaw phenomenon game player. Just look at the eyes on 'H' then your chap KNM-WT 1500, and you call that a smoothe transition. Now EVERYONE can see how this does not help the TOE. Can I have a go at jigsaw phenomenon - which is my whole POINT.Can I swap a for d and c for f, Getting the picture yet? Finally someone with good humour I think he is definately jigsaw phenomenon of apish nature.

You still haven't articulated your idea of what the "jigsaw phenomenon" is. Could you do that?

Huh? Just what is that? The bit that troubles you is the supraorbital torus. Let’s look at the front too. And while we’re at it, let’s see their upper jaws: No, I don’t call that a smooth transition. But then, that’s not my point. It is quite possible -- listen up Mike -- it is quite possible that none of these specific creatures is directly on the lineage to us. Maybe some are, maybe not.But before you get your hopes up, there’s a good reason for this. Fossilisation is a chance event, and finding those things that make it into fossils is even more so. The chances of finding a direct, specific ancestor -- a member of the actual population that eventually led to, say, modern sapiens -- are pretty small. The best we can hope for is members of related groups -- some other population, some other subspecies, some other species.What’s going on here is that, to show smooth transitions, we are expected to show a ladder leading to modern humans. But hominine evolution, like that of most other groups, is actually a bush, branching and branching. We are at the end of one twig; the fossils we find are clearly part of the bush, but not necessarily on the same exact branch -- in fact, they are unlikely to be directly ancestral.So what we’re seeing are side branches. If you look into cladistics, you’ll see that that’s why species are shown as branches off of the main line, with nothing actually on the line. (Can’t find a decent simple cladogram to illustrate -- can anyone else? I’ll scan one if there’s nothing else suitable.)What cladistics says is not that this gave rise to that, but rather that this branched off from its common ancestor more recently than that. And guess what? Over and over, this inferred degrees of relatedness matches the fossil record time-wise. Just by comparing them, STS 5 looks like it branched off earlier than KNM-ER 1470; lo and behold, STS 5 is the older fossil.So it’s no surprise if any given fossil has some, what you might call, anomalies, things that aren’t totally what we’re after.What any of these fossils do show us is the sort of things that were around at the time. The original ‘line of skulls’ pic does show a gradual flattening of the face and expansion of the cranium; a heavier supraorbital torus, for instance, doesn’t affect the overall findings. The ‘ToE’ claim is a claim about pattern, and it holds true: there simply aren’t any modern human-like fossils in early strata, and the more recent they are, the more human-like they are, whether one is looking at cranial capacity, dentition, or any other bit of anatomy. Not really. I maintain that the ‘line of skulls’ pic does what it sets out to do: show that there is no clear dividing line between ‘ape’ and ‘human’. If it fails to show a direct ladder, that’s because there is no ladder to show.So, did you ever answer the question previously about this: which ones are apes and which ones are the human skulls? Would you mind awfully repeating your answer now anyway, please? If there is really a dividing line between apes and humans -- caused, yeah, by them not being evolutionarily related -- then this should be possible.. shouldn’t it? Ned, I think what Mike means is that fossils are slotted in as predicted by the theory, thus making the facts fit the theory. Hence, jigsaw. (Quite why he’s not just come out and said so is beyond me.) Of course, as this... ... demonstrates, he is not exactly acquainted with cladistic analysis.Yes Mike, I get the picture, and you’re very wrong I’m afraid. I’ll explain, in all the detail you can handle, why D is closer to ‘human’ than A is, and F than C, later... if you’re interested. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. There’s enough here to be going on with. So is that a yes or a no then? Okay, we’re shoehorning it in where it doesn’t belong, let’s say that just for now. Are you saying that it is actually an ape? Where does it belong, then: in the human ‘kind’ or the ape ‘kind’?TTFN, DT

That was an excellent post. I was going to vote for Loudmouth but your efforts have overwhelmed me. What I do find funny is that you think I am thinking 'My silly questions put their theory in doubt'. Infact your post is about evolution and these skulls are fascinating, let no man tell you I hate the TOE. A fool as miniscule as me can in no way effect your theory in any way. But I do ask a lot of questions, and do think certain things are unhelpful to the TOE. Jigsaw phenomenon is simply what you stated, however I no longer qualify with this because you have explained that they are expected to be found in certain ways. The jigsaw phenomenon is definately over. I could indeed be wrong but I think the only definate human is the human. Transitional aren't what I see. Surely the patterns even confuse the scientists. The prominent forehead makes me think that much variety can make much transitionals. I think the neanderthal closest to the human is human, but th 'line of' has already been done, and you know my conclusions already.P.s this post is also Ned intended. He has also kept a high quality in my eyes, considering my foolish input which I persist with.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-21-2003]

Of course, Mike, I think I've said the same thing myself. If you define "human" to be us (H. sapiens) then that's exactly right. And I agree with that.However, we were supposed to be looking for the "missing link". That is, I presume, somesort of "part way" from something else (something more ape like even if not an ape) to something more like us. What we have shown is that there are indeed a number of samples of creatures which not only are "part way" but also, when laid out by dates, show a trend from more "ape like" to more like us. I am unable to conceive of what else a "missing link" could be like. Therefore I would conclude that they exist.

Thank you. I seem to have no trouble keeping my temper with you, which can be volatile with creationists. Maybe it’s cos you’re a Brit too (or maybe I’ve just not been round you all that long -- I’m more of a regular over at the Internet Infidels), but I’ve not found your questions foolish. Sure, you’re not very ‘up’ on a lot of specifics, but shit, I’m hopeless at genetics (and geography, oriental musicology and African history, come to that!). We all are learning stuff, and honestly asked questions is the way to do it. Hmmm. That impression does come across . I guess that when one has argued with creationists as long as I have, one has seen just about every stupid ‘argument’ there is. So any ‘silly questions’ tend to automatically pigeon-hole the person asking. The only thing I regard as foolish is, someone thinking foolish the thousands and thousands of people, over the last hundred and fifty years, who have spent their lives studying this stuff. Ask all the questions one wants, but why not, as the default position to start with, trust the ‘experts’? Just as one might accept what a classicist tells you about Roman architecture, why not accept what a biologist says... at least until you know enough about the subject to argue properly. What really pisses me off is the mentality that thinks any bozo can wander in and see the flaws in evolution. Like, all these people, all this time... and none of them spotted it?! You may well be right. Ask away! But remember that an awful lot of very bright people have worked on this already. Unless there is some very weird and elaborate conspiracy going on, chances are that you’re not the first to think of these ‘problems’. Maybe you -- or me, or Joe Bloggs -- will think of something revelatory. But the chances are, the problem has already been considered and resolved, and we are just too ignorant to know what the answer is! If I may, I’d say it isn’t. I’d say it’s a persistent danger. There is always the risk of fitting the facts to the theory. Scientists are only human, after all. But that is why science does its best to be self-correcting. Other people check. There’s no better way in science to get famous, rich, and Nobel-laureated than to topple a theory.But that’s why we can be so confident about its findings: if, despite all-comers trying to discredit it, it’s still standing, we can be fairly sure it’s approximately right.Gotta go, will reply to the rest later Cheers, DT

Out of curiousity, what does KNM-WT 15000 stand for? Kenyan National Museum-West Turkana 15000? Does the 15000 have a significance, or is it just an indexing number?

That's a fair point. I guess your question is ' what would a transitional look like?'. - I can't argue with that.
Maybe I am unreasonable , or just enjoy odd questions. For e.g. where there isn't a problem I'll usually find one or be one .In this case the skulls confuse me somewhat. But again, your theory probably has a better explanation than I do. I don't take myself too seriously Ned so 'jigsaw phenomenon' and such goonarisims are invented. Like DT said, your theory does have answers, which is impressive. I don't think intelligent people use evolution theory as a 'lie' when excellent topics showing their reasons behind such thought- occurs. You are the living proof of this. I understand this better now, because of what you said. (the quote above.

Well, yes I guess that was the nature of JP, all I meant is , I wont mention it as it causes confusion. Again, your refutations have prooved a high level of intelligence, so naturally I do not think scientists or evolutionists are foolish in their quests. The skulls are themselves evidence of the thought pattern which makes evo' s think the way they do. So when it's strictly scientific I guess the theory is not a 'lie'. But as you said , if it gets in the wrong hands..... Problems arise when no one tells the other side of the story. I only learned of creationists existing about a year ago, so in some sense I was angry towards the evo' side because no one told me.p.s Some skulls don't seem very smoothe, (from the front view) - is that just with age?

I'm very surprised. If you check Talk Origins for example they often have links to creationist sites. see Web sites that approach the creation/evolution controversy from a creationist or anti-evolution perspective And here Creationists claims they have a list of claims made by creationists.I don't recall seeing a creationist site link to the rebuttals of their claims.Given that sort of linkage and the material that is in the newspapers every few weeks it is hard to figure how you'd miss them.

Well, you shouldn’t be surprised, necessarily. Remember, Mike’s in the UK, where this sort of nonsense is not anywhere near so widely known and promulgated. When I first got into all this, it was as a result of an encounter with a UK creationist, and I thought he was an isolated case. I’ve still only come across a dozen or so of them in the UK. Sure. But that’s only once one gets into it on the net. Though I’d been reading about evolution for years, the only creationist arguments I’d seen before going online were those in Dawkins’s TBW. Offline, in the UK, there’s not much obvious creationism around. So I’d give Mike the benefit of the doubt here: it’s perfectly possible to be unaware of creationism. It is, after all, long-refuted hogwash.Cheers, DT[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 11-24-2003]

Well, like Ned says, there’s plenty there online. But nobody will have mentioned it elsewhere, because most people aren’t interested. Creationism is an historical curiosity as far as most scientists are concerned. When you watch Horizon on anything biological, or a David Attenborough programme, creationists barely get a look in... because it is refuted nonsense. It is wrong, and so largely irrelevant. When you watch a programme on cosmology, nobody bothers to mention rival ‘theories’ about sky domes with stars set into them... so why would a biologist talk about special creation, which clearly didn’t happen? To do so, except when it specifically comes up, would be a stupid waste of airtime or column inches.Cheers, DT

Yes, as far as I'm aware, it's just the museum's catalogue number. It is strange that it happens to be such a large yet easily remembered number though. I'll check into it and see if it does have some other derivation...DT

From "The Wisdom of Bones" by Walker and Shipman. (Walker lead the team that found KNM-WT 15000)."In honour of the boy's extraordinary completeness, we looked for an upcoming number that was euphonius."So it isn't an accident that it was an nice even number and I guess the museum has about that many items in it's collection.