I appreciate the clarification on lineage. There seem to be a few problems with this example. The first two seem to be a dispute with the bio chronological dating methods used and seem to overlap. The variations of Australopithecus examples also exist in the same time period. The subject is to vast for you tube but I will send you some information that seems to be very inconsistent with the lineage you have shown. When I have some time ill finish explaining the last few examples.
I looked at you're surprise article and it said Ardipithecus ramidus was only tentatively believed to be an ancestor of Australopithecus. You told me it was a fine fit. I also saw nothing stating anything about thumbs period. You have not answered my questions even though I repeated them several times until just now you mentioned the inner ear was suited for aerobic maneuvers please tell me were you got this info I defiantly want to cross check and the non opposable thumbs too.
Damn... Just listening to her speak, you can tell how brilliant she is, and she is such a good, clean speaker. God help us... This man who's talking to her is just plain ridiculous... And her answers are so conscise and amazing... God i hope there are more people like her in America.
I never used the word chimp and you have answered the question with philosophy and priori assumptions, which is basically all anyone has. Why did her inner ear have the equilibrium of a knuckle walking ape and walk upright against her own equilibrium. What again were some of these these names that actually studied Lucy. I have heard about them before but I haven't received their names. Do you know who they are?
I will comment when I have some time but before I do, how exactly does this statement help you're case. "Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not.
I looked at the reconstruction of both fossils: Ardi's reconstructed fossil shows an opposable thumb, while Lucy's fossil does not show an opposable thumb. My reference is the professional reconstruction of the fossil and the articles I provided you with about 11 hours ago.
It speaks... And yet another of many, MANY great ideas. How does one handle such knowledge? Is your head average size or ??? Either way, you are clearly gods gift to man and I can't thank you enough for all of your astute advice.
cont... ...When I introduced myself to Eugenie Scott, who was unfamiliar with my stories on evolution, I asked her what she thought about self-organization and why self-organization was not represented in the books NCSE was promoting? She responded that people confuse self-organization with Intelligent Design and that is why NCSE has not been supportive.
@Darusdei I don't know how you derived your question from my statement, but yes, having good institutes of higher education does make a population smarter.
Yes, I know why some people say that Ardi is "rewriting evolutionary history," because it corrects a previous assumption that humans evolved bipedalism in the African planes, instead Ardi shows that bipedalism possibly evolved in forest ares. Did you read the same thing between the lines or did you just see blank space between the lines?
"Well, it's possible that it doesn't have a relationship with anything else, but only if we ignore the hierarchical distribution into which it so nicely fits" "Yes, I know why some people say that Ardi is "rewriting evolutionary history," because it corrects a previous assumption that humans evolved bipedalism in the African planes, instead Ardi shows that bipedalism possibly evolved in forest ares" So it fits nicely or it corrects previous assumptions/ predictability's. Which is it?
When I spoke of Newtonian physics I wasn't necessarily speaking of the formation of planets although that can also apply. I was speaking of the way the galaxies behave over time the kind of trajectories we see and the way some don't seem to conform to Newtonian principles. There are many theories black holes, dark matter, string theories, and many more. Einstein and modern cosmologist in general have been questioning the limitations of gravity for over 80 years.
"I believe they do have it in some cases though, such as amphibians coming from fish, amphibians evolving? into reptiles and reptiles evolving into mammals and birds. Also, change in the mammals, maybe." -- So you basically believe they have good evidence for evolution for some cases, but not in others (I assume others would be humans).
Maybe I shouldn't say that it walked upright at "all times", but the evidence suggests that they spent most of their time either climbing trees or walking upright. Ardi's entire structure suggests that it walk upright, but not very efficiently.
It is a fine fit within the hierarchical distribution of animals, but that doesn't say if it was actually the ancestor A. afarensis. There might have been several closely related species that existed during that time, yet only one of them was actually the ancestor of Australopithecus. I gave you two articles, the first one discusses Ardi, the second one discusses the pelvis of Ardi (and compares it to Lucy)... they don't talk about the opposable thumb of Lucy.
I don't know how anyone can honestly NOT think that... it's crazy! Seriously, we can go at this for a long time, but if you actually have a specific point to address then do bring it up, I'll explain it.
You're right I didn't receive references. Feel free to provide them. I not sure what opposable thumbs have to do with feet. In a book entitled Human Evolution which is a book written by By Camilo José Cela Conde, and Francisco José Ayala who are members of the National Academy of Sciences, in their peer reviewed book on pg 47 in a chapter entitled pliocenes hominids they state empirically that Australopithecus had opposable thumbs. By the way I have corresponded with Ayala in the past.
Eugenie Scott is my hero. She can stand up to any creationist and does so whenever it is vital for her to do so (school boards, courts). She is a defender and source of the one advantage that nobody can take away from someone else, their education. To bad the questioner has an ulterior motive (his personal religious view).
Both... it fits the hierarchical distribution very well and it corrects the previous assumption regarding where bipedalism evolved. I don't see a contradiction there...
Ben, First you said that I didn't give you references... yet I gave you the references 11 hours before that. Then you said that I didn't answer your questions, but I answered them multiple times (see the comment trail). Finally, here is another article detailing everything: "Interpreting the Posture and Locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis: Where Do We Stand?" Show me the opposable thumb on the foot of A. afarensis, where is it? BTW, when were you going to answer my questions?
Dr. Richard Lewontin-Dr. Coynes mentor at Harvard-wrote Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
Ben, I have incorrectly called the big toe a "thumb on the foot"... English is my second language so sometimes I make these mistakes, at least I have a valid excuse :). The point still stands: 1. You are yet to explain why the skull of A. afarensis rests on TOP of the spinal column if she was a knuckle-walker. 2. Nor have you addressed the lack of an opposable big toe*. These two adaptations alone are significant toward bipedal locomotion and you failed to address the last two references.
Hence why I said, the peppered moth is not an example of speciation, but it is an example of natural selection. Go to talkorigins and look at their faq for speciation examples, specifically the 5.0 section. You'll find there actual examples of different species developing under observed conditions. Also, if you distrust science, throw out your cell phone, car, and computer because all of them are gifts of science and engineering.
Well, it's possible that it doesn't have a relationship with anything else, but only if we ignore the hierarchical distribution into which it so nicely fits. But Ardi fits the hierarchical distribution, it's the right age, and it has all of the expected characteristics... if you have a better explanation, then I'm all ears (or eyes since this is over the internet).
On your last statement we are more less in agreement except for the fact that Newtonian physics are testable although limited in cosmology, however you are right about macro evolution not being testable therefore not being empirical science.
And, eventually, if you keep adding, it will become dye with a little bit of paint in it. I admit that it's not a GREAT analogy, but it is along the same lines. Small changes build up in a species to become large changes. What is so difficult to accept about that?
Sir you have every right to conclude anything you want I have know argument as long as you don't mean me when you say we. I cant answer you're last question because I am simply not smart enough. Sometimes its ok to say we just don't know, were working on it but at this time we just don't know. And if my mentioning we doesn't mean you my apologies.
in terms of chemically interfertile species? we actually cannot always be certain. but age is a very good way. if they are gapped by a few million years, they likely appear different and are likely not interfertile (like, they arent). but morphologically they are different enough that we categorize them as different species. some may in fact be opposite ranges of a species which can still breed together but they hadnt been for same time, hence the differences in their bone structure.
I'm not trying to bust your balls but I believe you brought the subject up. I must have missed you're answer on habilis also. What do you mean you looked at the fossil and you can see it doesn't have opposable thumbs when Ardi has even less skeletal remains are you a professional anatomist. In other words do you have a reference or is this your personnel lay opinion.
The opposable thumbs idea is actually right on the reconstructed skeleton: you can see a chimp skeleton and a clearly opposable thumb on the foot. You can also look at Ardi's opposable thumb right on the "Ardipithecus Feet" slide 7 of 9 on the link I gave you and you can compare it with A. afarensis (any reconstructed skeleton). A. afarensis doesn't have such an opposable thumb on the feet. Scientists suggest that Homo habilis should be re-classified as Australopithecus habilis.
cont.. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The reason you need a new flu shot every year is because it's a evolving virus --the particular shot that worked last year will not work this year because it's a completely different strain The reason things like HIV are so difficult to create a vaccine for & treat is because of how quickly its coding evolves
just a little note, most mutations are neutral. They stack over time and can combine to become beneficial or damaging in later generations. Even some negative mutations can be carried forward if it has a greater benefit in some other way. Mutations can have multiple effects so it is a balancing out that occurs. Otherwise you are right.
Like I said latter when I have some time Ill demonstrate some examples of inconsistencies with morphology and molecular phylogeny's in important areas that were used as poster children for evolution but have now been silenced with the exception of a few that still are used to try to support the theory. I don't have my old computer at hand right now.
I cross-checked it with the afarensis fossil foot... if you look at the fossil it's CLEAR that it does not have an opposable thumb. The thumb is pointing forward just like a modern human's thumb is pointing forward. I gave two references to the articles discussing the bipedal locomotion of Ardi... one of these articles compares Ardi and Lucy... perhaps you missed them? I just want to be clear.
I didn't read them... nor did I know who Zuckerman was until today. I'm preparing for a mid-term today so I won't have time to read any of the articles today. As far as afarensis feet being well adapted for grasping tree branches: they don't have an opposable thumb... their feet are streamlined and they walked by pivoting from heel to toe (like a human). When you look at Ardi you see an opposable thumb and a completely different rotation in order to accommodate bipedal locomotion.
The limitation does not come from Newtonian physics but from our capabilities. We can't test the formation of planetary systems, yet we still know that they formed because of gravity. We simply don't have the physical capability to make such a test. None the less, we are still able to conclude that gravity attracted all the matter which formed stars, planets and orbits. How is that possible?
They walked upright at all times... Lucy's foot was very well adapted for upright locomotion, but Ardi has a large grasping toe. The large grasping toe lowers the efficiency of bipedal locomotion. Ardi's skull rested on top of the spinal column, while a chimp's skill rests in front. Muscles attaching to the pelvis are reconfigured to enable better balance on two legs... yet all of those adaptions are noticeably more primitive than Lucy's.
@alachabre I should have said: most atheists I've talked to try to avoid a discussion on abiogenesis and find some way to separate evolution from it, like that's not really where all paths lead if you accept a macro-ised version of natural selection to account for leaps across species.
right. if you only have 1/16th of a femur, its pretty hard to peg what it is from...or even which bone. if you have actual bone matter, you can always analyze the dna to figure it out, but since fossils are mineralized they contain no dna (possibly rare exceptions, im not sure)
What I'm saying is that both Darwin and Einstein were wrong about a bunch of other ideas within their field, yet we can still credit them for the theories they proposed. Of course we don't have a phylogenetic tree that connects us to Ardi, because we don't have any genetic material from Ardi... but we do have a morphological tree does a sufficiently good job to help us establish the relationship... Planetary formations are also extrapolated, why is that? How can we extrapolate?
articles, while there are over 240,000 peer-reviewed articles in support of evolution. Before something can be published, it must be in line with the aviable evidence. And for something to get into textbooks, it must be based on materials that have been peer-reviewed. Would you rather have your kids taught an opinion af a certain group of people as if it was a fact over what is demonstrable and verifiable to be true? What makes you think they're right? which of their arguments convinced you?
The trajectories of galaxies are more influenced by the expanding universe than by Newtonian Physics. In any case, we use Newtonian Physics (or simply gravity) to explain how planetary systems formed, yet we are unable to conduct an experiment which shows the formation of a planetary system. For the same reason we are able to make that conclusion, we are also able to conclude that micro evolution translates into macro evolution.
The scientific standard is very clear testability.observability,falsifiability, repeatability. Evolution and many other historical sciences don't have this dynamic that is why scientific theories need to be consistent. The theory of macro evolution is a house of cards that can be changed easily with one discovery. This is the weakness of the hypothesis of evolution.
We (all humans) currently don't have the capability to conduct a test that shows the formation of planetary systems, yet we (majority of humans accepting the theory of gravity) have concluded that it was responsible for the formation of planetary systems... you can include yourself in whichever group you find fit under the term "we". You are smart enough to answer my last question, but you know by answering it you are also answering why macro evolution is true...
Of course the process for novel features is addressed- they evolve through the change of allele frequency and natural selection. The explanation of what the intermediate forms would actually be is given either by the fossil record or the currently existing intermediate/ring species... there is no other way to determine what they are. In quantum mechanics you can't predict the position of an electron-positron pair because it's random: in evo we can't exactly predict where a mutation would occur
Inconsistent relationships between morphological similarities and genetic similarities, meaning that if those two didn't correlate throughout mounds of evidence then we're in BIG trouble. I can come up with peer reviewed inconsistencies/exceptions too: there are scientists who think that orangutans are more morphologically similar to us than chimpanzees. This is not the same as seeing a general inconsistency between morphology and genetic differences.
As I said, pick any organ/system and I will provide you with a link. And I really don't understand your criticism: of course we'll look at related species to determine how the given organ or system evolved, that's the whole point of evolution! You can look at simple adaptions in related species and determine how those occurred, or you can look at the grand scale and see how evolution changes species- it's the same principle in both situations regardless how much creationists deny it.
It why we don't use antibiotics to treat viruses. If you take antibiotics for a viral infection (like a cold or the flu), you will not kill the viruses, but you will introduce a selective pressure on bacteria in your body, inadvertently selecting for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Basically, you want your bacteria to be "antibiotic virgins," so that if they someday get out of hand and cause an infection that your immune system can't handle, they can be killed by a readily available antibiotic
Actually, let me make one slight correction to what I said: ALMOST every species is transitional, not including those that turned out to be evolutionary dead-ends.
In American Scientist Thick dental enamel may be a key hominid trait. All hominids have thick enamel, whereas all fossil and living apes (except those in the orang-utan lineage) have thin enamel. Because the fossil record of apes is so poor, we do not know whether the primitive condition for apes and hominids was thick or thin enamel. Indeed, how enamel thickness is to be measured and evaluated has generated many pages of debate.
"Micro variations ..Yes .the madness of macro ...NO!" This is the thing I find most baffling about creationists/ID'ers. If you accept that small variations can occur (so called "micro"-evolution), why is it so hard to accept the those small changes, over time, will build up to become very are changes? Using a non-biological example, if you add small drops of red dye to white paint, over time, will it not turn pink, then, eventually, red?
Answer the question and I will be glad to talk about her cranial cavity. Were did you get the non opposable thumbs idea and why is habilis more ape like?
I decided to ask [NCSE Executive Director Eugenie Scott] some questions since I'd interviewed her colleague [NCSE President] Kevin Padian about the "evolution debate", and he'd hung up on me. ...
"I don't know how she would respond to problems with the mechanisms of evolution." -- I think she's saying that the alleged "problems" in evolution (both theory and mechanism) are contrived from some anomalies which creationists spin to be "problems". Anomalies, or points of debate within the scientific community are hardly a problem, but rather a sincere attempts to better the theory (not undermine it like creationists attempt to do).
Ben... look at the history of comments, 11 hours ago I sent you this message: "...search google for "Ardipithecus Ramidus - An Ancient Human Ancestor Surprise" (very good images and analysis of the skeleton) Another really detailed article is "The pelvis of Ardipithecus ramidus" (this one actually compares with Lucy)" An opposable thumb is one that can be used for grasping (like on your hand)... that's not the case with Lucy, I'll check the book later. I have to study now...
I didn't wave off anything... we keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Her inner ear indicates she was suited for tree climbing, not knuckle walking. Her wrists lack the locking mechanism which would allow her to walk on her knuckles. Her skull rests on top of her spinal column, her feet don't have an opposable thumb, she is clearly well adapted to bipedal locomotion. All these characteristics make her transitional... so grab the bull by the horns like you have a pair.
cont.. You keep telling me you answered the habilis question but you never have. You never sited were you got the opposoble thumbs info from and now you have changed it to mean the feet, even though I have given you numerous references that they were designed for tree climbing. Are you going to tell me you have cross referenced all that info already.
You should start reading my comments, an hour ago I wrote: "Scientists suggest that Homo habilis should be re-classified as Australopithecus habilis." Right... opposable toe, not thumb: "Opponents of arboreal adaption dispute the degree of mobility in the A. afarensis ankle, and cite the loss of the opposable great toe, which has become aligned with the other toes, a clear adaptation to bipedality" p. 106 "Human evolution: an illustrated introduction" By Roger Lewin
Well do explain how regular biology can use math more than evolutionary biology... I would love to see how you figured that one out. As a matter of fact if we didn't have evolutionary biology, then I'm sorry to repeat this statement, but nothing in biology would make sense. There is a reason why we have come to that conclusion... if we didn't know evolution, then we pretty much wouldn't be able to explain anything in biology. Furthermore, I use ToE on a daily basis to make trading strategies.
The only thing I can tell you is what the evidence shows: Ardi is morphologically and geologically older than the earliest identifiable ancestor in the Hominid record. Ardi could have been related to our ancestors or it could have been the same species are our direct ancestors. What Ardi shows is that such ancestors existed, it shows that there are intermediate fossils between quadrupedal and bipedal apes just as evolution would predict.
I think you're confusing the word apes with primates when referring to man. Dinosaurs were bipedal, birds are bipedal especially flightless birds, some lizards are bipedal. The fact that Lucy had the ability to walk upright for short periods doesn't say anything. You never answered the question why would Lucy have the inner ear equilibrium of a knuckle walking ape and why do we see ware on her knuckles was she a boxer too? Why are her feat designed for grasping?
Never smoked pot in my life. The analogy was simply to point out the fact that small changes do accumulate, over time, to become very large changes. The fact that you cannot understand this is you problem, not mine. Have a nice day.
Macro-evolution is defined as major changes. I would not call speciation a major change since the two populations are still genetically very similar, if not, identical. In most cases they are still reproductively compatible but do not mate in the wild only because of behavioral differences. They would however breed in captivity if they had no other choice, in most cases. Just as lions and tiger interbreed and sometimes produce fertile ligers and tigons Got a bit to learn yet Mr McKnow-it-all
Again... I still don't see how an overlap is problematic: Diverging species co-exist for a period of time, but eventually the one that's less adapted will go extinct. The structure of Ardi's wrists and fore-arms is not at all built for knuckle-walking; the skull rests on TOP of the spinal column; the muscles attachment points the legs and the pelvis are rearranged for bipedal locomotion. I already gave you two articles with make that conclusion...
I don't doubt that there are inconsistencies between phylogenetic trees and morphological trees, as a matter of fact phylogenetic trees are used to correct morphological trees... I can even give you examples where the morphology is inconsistent: some respected scientists think that morphologically orangutans are closer to us than chimpanzees. Regardless, the patter between morphology and phylogeny is nearly identical... phylogeny being more accurate in general.
"No, I mean papers from paleantology, for example, that describe a certain species would likely be backed with all the evidence, but they might not say anything about the role of random mutation and natural selection in the evolution of the species." -- Well if paleontology supports the hierarchical distribution of species then it certainly fits in with the model of evolution... the evidence of mutation and natural selection comes from other observations, such as genetics at al.
"Oxnard also claims that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans." -- Clearly even Oxnard did think she was bipedal... all you have to do in order to see the names of some of the people who disagree with Oxnard is just check out the references on wikipedia. If you find it so important to have names, then I can spend 20-30 minutes on google, pull up all the relevant research and give you the names.
You can be wrong in other fields but that has nothing to do with scientific theories were you cant afford to be wrong, other wise they cant be considered scientific theories. What do you believe the human lineage is starting from ardi to present day man? Do you know the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory?
If you agree he was not making sense, why are you recommending Sanford's videos? Ancient Greek views are interesting because they are scientific in the sense that the Greeks actually looked at the evidence and based their conclusions on their observations, but they are a little over two thousand years out of date. Evolution before Darwin is like printing before Gutenberg or like 19th century computers. The history of evolutionary thought is quite intriguing, for example at iep.utm.edu/evolutio/
Those people are on education boards and they ask questions like that? Man we are in trouble as a country.
Can you give me an example of speciation through polyploidy?
It is like a person trying to explain partial derivatives for a kid which has not learn to master algebra yet.
Worse. It's a kid who is unwilling to learn algebra.
I appreciate the clarification on lineage. There seem to be a few problems with this example. The first two seem to be a dispute with the bio chronological dating methods used and seem to overlap. The variations of Australopithecus examples also exist in the same time period. The subject is to vast for you tube but I will send you some information that seems to be very inconsistent with the lineage you have shown. When I have some time ill finish explaining the last few examples.
I looked at you're surprise article and it said Ardipithecus ramidus was only tentatively believed to be an ancestor of Australopithecus. You told me it was a fine fit. I also saw nothing stating anything about thumbs period. You have not answered my questions even though I repeated them several times until just now you mentioned the inner ear was suited for aerobic maneuvers please tell me were you got this info I defiantly want to cross check and the non opposable thumbs too.
Damn... Just listening to her speak, you can tell how brilliant she is, and she is such a good, clean speaker. God help us... This man who's talking to her is just plain ridiculous... And her answers are so conscise and amazing... God i hope there are more people like her in America.
I never used the word chimp and you have answered the question with philosophy and priori assumptions, which is basically all anyone has. Why did her inner ear have the equilibrium of a knuckle walking ape and walk upright against her own equilibrium. What again were some of these these names that actually studied Lucy. I have heard about them before but I haven't received their names. Do you know who they are?
What observed examples do we have of macro-evolution?
I have to admire Dr. Scott's patience.
I will comment when I have some time but before I do, how exactly does this statement help you're case. "Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not.
How is the overlap in dating problematic if you're looking at the fossil record from evolutionary perspective?
I looked at the reconstruction of both fossils:
Ardi's reconstructed fossil shows an opposable thumb, while Lucy's fossil does not show an opposable thumb. My reference is the professional reconstruction of the fossil and the articles I provided you with about 11 hours ago.
It speaks... And yet another of many, MANY great ideas. How does one handle such knowledge? Is your head average size or ??? Either way, you are clearly gods gift to man and I can't thank you enough for all of your astute advice.
cont...
...When I introduced myself to Eugenie Scott, who was unfamiliar with my stories on evolution, I asked her what she thought about self-organization and why self-organization was not represented in the books NCSE was promoting?
She responded that people confuse self-organization with Intelligent Design and that is why NCSE has not been supportive.
@Darusdei I don't know how you derived your question from my statement, but yes, having good institutes of higher education does make a population smarter.
Eugenie Scott is such a badass.
Surely you mean dickhead?
Yes, I know why some people say that Ardi is "rewriting evolutionary history," because it corrects a previous assumption that humans evolved bipedalism in the African planes, instead Ardi shows that bipedalism possibly evolved in forest ares.
Did you read the same thing between the lines or did you just see blank space between the lines?
"Well, it's possible that it doesn't have a relationship with anything else, but only if we ignore the hierarchical distribution into which it so nicely fits"
"Yes, I know why some people say that Ardi is "rewriting evolutionary history," because it corrects a previous assumption that humans evolved bipedalism in the African planes, instead Ardi shows that bipedalism possibly evolved in forest ares"
So it fits nicely or it corrects previous assumptions/ predictability's. Which is it?
How do you know this? Can you give me a reference conferring what you just said? Are you saying evolution went backwards?
When I spoke of Newtonian physics I wasn't necessarily speaking of the formation of planets although that can also apply. I was speaking of the way the galaxies behave over time the kind of trajectories we see and the way some don't seem to conform to Newtonian principles. There are many theories black holes, dark matter, string theories, and many more. Einstein and modern cosmologist in general have been questioning the limitations of gravity for over 80 years.
"I believe they do have it in some cases though, such as amphibians coming from fish, amphibians evolving? into reptiles and reptiles evolving into mammals and birds. Also, change in the mammals, maybe."
-- So you basically believe they have good evidence for evolution for some cases, but not in others (I assume others would be humans).
Maybe I shouldn't say that it walked upright at "all times", but the evidence suggests that they spent most of their time either climbing trees or walking upright. Ardi's entire structure suggests that it walk upright, but not very efficiently.
It is a fine fit within the hierarchical distribution of animals, but that doesn't say if it was actually the ancestor A. afarensis. There might have been several closely related species that existed during that time, yet only one of them was actually the ancestor of Australopithecus.
I gave you two articles, the first one discusses Ardi, the second one discusses the pelvis of Ardi (and compares it to Lucy)... they don't talk about the opposable thumb of Lucy.
great post - thank you
I don't know how anyone can honestly NOT think that... it's crazy! Seriously, we can go at this for a long time, but if you actually have a specific point to address then do bring it up, I'll explain it.
You're right I didn't receive references. Feel free to provide them. I not sure what opposable thumbs have to do with feet. In a book entitled Human Evolution which is a book written by By Camilo José Cela Conde, and Francisco José Ayala who are members of the National Academy of Sciences, in their peer reviewed book on pg 47 in a chapter entitled pliocenes hominids they state empirically that Australopithecus had opposable thumbs. By the way I have corresponded with Ayala in the past.
Eugenie Scott is my hero. She can stand up to any creationist and does so whenever it is vital for her to do so (school boards, courts). She is a defender and source of the one advantage that nobody can take away from someone else, their education.
To bad the questioner has an ulterior motive (his personal religious view).
Such a classy woman - always a pleasure to hear her talk.
Both... it fits the hierarchical distribution very well and it corrects the previous assumption regarding where bipedalism evolved. I don't see a contradiction there...
Ben,
First you said that I didn't give you references... yet I gave you the references 11 hours before that.
Then you said that I didn't answer your questions, but I answered them multiple times (see the comment trail).
Finally, here is another article detailing everything: "Interpreting the Posture and Locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis: Where Do We Stand?"
Show me the opposable thumb on the foot of A. afarensis, where is it?
BTW, when were you going to answer my questions?
Dr. Richard Lewontin-Dr. Coynes mentor at Harvard-wrote Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
Ben,
I have incorrectly called the big toe a "thumb on the foot"... English is my second language so sometimes I make these mistakes, at least I have a valid excuse :). The point still stands:
1. You are yet to explain why the skull of A. afarensis rests on TOP of the spinal column if she was a knuckle-walker.
2. Nor have you addressed the lack of an opposable big toe*.
These two adaptations alone are significant toward bipedal locomotion and you failed to address the last two references.
Hence why I said, the peppered moth is not an example of speciation, but it is an example of natural selection.
Go to talkorigins and look at their faq for speciation examples, specifically the 5.0 section. You'll find there actual examples of different species developing under observed conditions.
Also, if you distrust science, throw out your cell phone, car, and computer because all of them are gifts of science and engineering.
Well, it's possible that it doesn't have a relationship with anything else, but only if we ignore the hierarchical distribution into which it so nicely fits.
But Ardi fits the hierarchical distribution, it's the right age, and it has all of the expected characteristics... if you have a better explanation, then I'm all ears (or eyes since this is over the internet).
On your last statement we are more less in agreement except for the fact that Newtonian physics are testable although limited in cosmology, however you are right about macro evolution not being testable therefore not being empirical science.
What a nice thoughtful woman, taking time out from a busy scientific career to teach these poor 'special' folks.
Cheers to that statement!!!!!
And, eventually, if you keep adding, it will become dye with a little bit of paint in it.
I admit that it's not a GREAT analogy, but it is along the same lines. Small changes build up in a species to become large changes. What is so difficult to accept about that?
I'm with you.
Sir you have every right to conclude anything you want I have know argument as long as you don't mean me when you say we. I cant answer you're last question because I am simply not smart enough. Sometimes its ok to say we just don't know, were working on it but at this time we just don't know. And if my mentioning we doesn't mean you my apologies.
in terms of chemically interfertile species? we actually cannot always be certain. but age is a very good way. if they are gapped by a few million years, they likely appear different and are likely not interfertile (like, they arent). but morphologically they are different enough that we categorize them as different species. some may in fact be opposite ranges of a species which can still breed together but they hadnt been for same time, hence the differences in their bone structure.
Wow! Is this a new inquisition?
For the record, the peppered moth example is not a fraud. You can visit the Talk Origins site which explains in greater detail about it.
I'm not trying to bust your balls but I believe you brought the subject up. I must have missed you're answer on habilis also. What do you mean you looked at the fossil and you can see it doesn't have opposable thumbs when Ardi has even less skeletal remains are you a professional anatomist. In other words do you have a reference or is this your personnel lay opinion.
The opposable thumbs idea is actually right on the reconstructed skeleton: you can see a chimp skeleton and a clearly opposable thumb on the foot. You can also look at Ardi's opposable thumb right on the "Ardipithecus Feet" slide 7 of 9 on the link I gave you and you can compare it with A. afarensis (any reconstructed skeleton). A. afarensis doesn't have such an opposable thumb on the feet.
Scientists suggest that Homo habilis should be re-classified as Australopithecus habilis.
cont.. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The reason you need a new flu shot every year is because it's a evolving virus --the particular shot that worked last year will not work this year because it's a completely different strain
The reason things like HIV are so difficult to create a vaccine for & treat is because of how quickly its coding evolves
just a little note, most mutations are neutral. They stack over time and can combine to become beneficial or damaging in later generations. Even some negative mutations can be carried forward if it has a greater benefit in some other way. Mutations can have multiple effects so it is a balancing out that occurs.
Otherwise you are right.
Like I said latter when I have some time Ill demonstrate some examples of inconsistencies with morphology and molecular phylogeny's in important areas that were used as poster children for evolution but have now been silenced with the exception of a few that still are used to try to support the theory. I don't have my old computer at hand right now.
I cross-checked it with the afarensis fossil foot... if you look at the fossil it's CLEAR that it does not have an opposable thumb. The thumb is pointing forward just like a modern human's thumb is pointing forward.
I gave two references to the articles discussing the bipedal locomotion of Ardi... one of these articles compares Ardi and Lucy... perhaps you missed them? I just want to be clear.
I've been asking you for some time if you can define macroevolution and so far you have failed to do so......why?
I didn't read them... nor did I know who Zuckerman was until today. I'm preparing for a mid-term today so I won't have time to read any of the articles today.
As far as afarensis feet being well adapted for grasping tree branches: they don't have an opposable thumb... their feet are streamlined and they walked by pivoting from heel to toe (like a human). When you look at Ardi you see an opposable thumb and a completely different rotation in order to accommodate bipedal locomotion.
The limitation does not come from Newtonian physics but from our capabilities. We can't test the formation of planetary systems, yet we still know that they formed because of gravity.
We simply don't have the physical capability to make such a test. None the less, we are still able to conclude that gravity attracted all the matter which formed stars, planets and orbits. How is that possible?
They walked upright at all times...
Lucy's foot was very well adapted for upright locomotion, but Ardi has a large grasping toe. The large grasping toe lowers the efficiency of bipedal locomotion.
Ardi's skull rested on top of the spinal column, while a chimp's skill rests in front. Muscles attaching to the pelvis are reconfigured to enable better balance on two legs... yet all of those adaptions are noticeably more primitive than Lucy's.
@alachabre
I should have said: most atheists I've talked to try to avoid a discussion on abiogenesis and find some way to separate evolution from it, like that's not really where all paths lead if you accept a macro-ised version of natural selection to account for leaps across species.
right. if you only have 1/16th of a femur, its pretty hard to peg what it is from...or even which bone. if you have actual bone matter, you can always analyze the dna to figure it out, but since fossils are mineralized they contain no dna (possibly rare exceptions, im not sure)
What I'm saying is that both Darwin and Einstein were wrong about a bunch of other ideas within their field, yet we can still credit them for the theories they proposed.
Of course we don't have a phylogenetic tree that connects us to Ardi, because we don't have any genetic material from Ardi... but we do have a morphological tree does a sufficiently good job to help us establish the relationship...
Planetary formations are also extrapolated, why is that? How can we extrapolate?
articles, while there are over 240,000 peer-reviewed articles in support of evolution. Before something can be published, it must be in line with the aviable evidence. And for something to get into textbooks, it must be based on materials that have been peer-reviewed. Would you rather have your kids taught an opinion af a certain group of people as if it was a fact over what is demonstrable and verifiable to be true? What makes you think they're right? which of their arguments convinced you?
So, no comment on the transitional fossil evidence I provided you? You seem to have skipped over that part.
Yeah, I knew about that. Just had never heard it referrred to as 'peppered moth theory'.
"Again at some point we have to agree to disagree."
-- I guess this is the point then... thanks for the debate.
Why do these people refuse to read books and studies but insist on spamming public forums with their ignorant questions?
The trajectories of galaxies are more influenced by the expanding universe than by Newtonian Physics.
In any case, we use Newtonian Physics (or simply gravity) to explain how planetary systems formed, yet we are unable to conduct an experiment which shows the formation of a planetary system. For the same reason we are able to make that conclusion, we are also able to conclude that micro evolution translates into macro evolution.
The scientific standard is very clear testability.observability,falsifiability, repeatability. Evolution and many other historical sciences don't have this dynamic that is why scientific theories need to be consistent. The theory of macro evolution is a house of cards that can be changed easily with one discovery. This is the weakness of the hypothesis of evolution.
As I said... the scientific consensus is that A. afarensis is better adapted to bipedal locomotion than Ardipithecus ramidus.
She's great!!
congrats, you have profited from our knowledge of evolution
We (all humans) currently don't have the capability to conduct a test that shows the formation of planetary systems, yet we (majority of humans accepting the theory of gravity) have concluded that it was responsible for the formation of planetary systems... you can include yourself in whichever group you find fit under the term "we".
You are smart enough to answer my last question, but you know by answering it you are also answering why macro evolution is true...
Of course the process for novel features is addressed- they evolve through the change of allele frequency and natural selection. The explanation of what the intermediate forms would actually be is given either by the fossil record or the currently existing intermediate/ring species... there is no other way to determine what they are.
In quantum mechanics you can't predict the position of an electron-positron pair because it's random: in evo we can't exactly predict where a mutation would occur
I'm surprised she didn't mention ring species.
Inconsistent relationships between morphological similarities and genetic similarities, meaning that if those two didn't correlate throughout mounds of evidence then we're in BIG trouble. I can come up with peer reviewed inconsistencies/exceptions too: there are scientists who think that orangutans are more morphologically similar to us than chimpanzees.
This is not the same as seeing a general inconsistency between morphology and genetic differences.
As I said, pick any organ/system and I will provide you with a link.
And I really don't understand your criticism: of course we'll look at related species to determine how the given organ or system evolved, that's the whole point of evolution! You can look at simple adaptions in related species and determine how those occurred, or you can look at the grand scale and see how evolution changes species- it's the same principle in both situations regardless how much creationists deny it.
Correction-1:57
"Alleged." Gawd, the challenger was as dull and unknowing as a thick brick - a very dull brick at that.
It why we don't use antibiotics to treat viruses. If you take antibiotics for a viral infection (like a cold or the flu), you will not kill the viruses, but you will introduce a selective pressure on bacteria in your body, inadvertently selecting for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Basically, you want your bacteria to be "antibiotic virgins," so that if they someday get out of hand and cause an infection that your immune system can't handle, they can be killed by a readily available antibiotic
Actually, let me make one slight correction to what I said: ALMOST every species is transitional, not including those that turned out to be evolutionary dead-ends.
In American Scientist
Thick dental enamel may be a key hominid trait. All hominids have thick enamel, whereas all fossil and living apes (except those in the orang-utan lineage) have thin enamel. Because the fossil record of apes is so poor, we do not know whether the primitive condition for apes and hominids was thick or thin enamel. Indeed, how enamel thickness is to be measured and evaluated has generated many pages of debate.
Do you know what a theory is? If so, please define it.
"Micro variations ..Yes .the madness of macro ...NO!"
This is the thing I find most baffling about creationists/ID'ers. If you accept that small variations can occur (so called "micro"-evolution), why is it so hard to accept the those small changes, over time, will build up to become very are changes? Using a non-biological example, if you add small drops of red dye to white paint, over time, will it not turn pink, then, eventually, red?
Eugenie Wins Again!
Answer the question and I will be glad to talk about her cranial cavity. Were did you get the non opposable thumbs idea and why is habilis more ape like?
I decided to ask [NCSE Executive Director Eugenie Scott] some questions since I'd interviewed her colleague [NCSE President] Kevin Padian about the "evolution debate", and he'd hung up on me. ...
"I don't know how she would respond to problems with the mechanisms of evolution."
-- I think she's saying that the alleged "problems" in evolution (both theory and mechanism) are contrived from some anomalies which creationists spin to be "problems". Anomalies, or points of debate within the scientific community are hardly a problem, but rather a sincere attempts to better the theory (not undermine it like creationists attempt to do).
Ben... look at the history of comments, 11 hours ago I sent you this message:
"...search google for "Ardipithecus Ramidus - An Ancient Human Ancestor Surprise" (very good images and analysis of the skeleton)
Another really detailed article is "The pelvis of Ardipithecus ramidus" (this one actually compares with Lucy)"
An opposable thumb is one that can be used for grasping (like on your hand)... that's not the case with Lucy, I'll check the book later. I have to study now...
I didn't wave off anything... we keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
Her inner ear indicates she was suited for tree climbing, not knuckle walking. Her wrists lack the locking mechanism which would allow her to walk on her knuckles.
Her skull rests on top of her spinal column, her feet don't have an opposable thumb, she is clearly well adapted to bipedal locomotion.
All these characteristics make her transitional... so grab the bull by the horns like you have a pair.
cont.. You keep telling me you answered the habilis question but you never have. You never sited were you got the opposoble thumbs info from and now you have changed it to mean the feet, even though I have given you numerous references that they were designed for tree climbing. Are you going to tell me you have cross referenced all that info already.
You should start reading my comments, an hour ago I wrote:
"Scientists suggest that Homo habilis should be re-classified as Australopithecus habilis."
Right... opposable toe, not thumb:
"Opponents of arboreal adaption dispute the degree of mobility in the A. afarensis ankle, and cite the loss of the opposable great toe, which has become aligned with the other toes, a clear adaptation to bipedality" p. 106 "Human evolution: an illustrated introduction"
By Roger Lewin
Well do explain how regular biology can use math more than evolutionary biology... I would love to see how you figured that one out. As a matter of fact if we didn't have evolutionary biology, then I'm sorry to repeat this statement, but nothing in biology would make sense.
There is a reason why we have come to that conclusion... if we didn't know evolution, then we pretty much wouldn't be able to explain anything in biology. Furthermore, I use ToE on a daily basis to make trading strategies.
The only thing I can tell you is what the evidence shows: Ardi is morphologically and geologically older than the earliest identifiable ancestor in the Hominid record.
Ardi could have been related to our ancestors or it could have been the same species are our direct ancestors. What Ardi shows is that such ancestors existed, it shows that there are intermediate fossils between quadrupedal and bipedal apes just as evolution would predict.
I think you're confusing the word apes with primates when referring to man. Dinosaurs were bipedal, birds are bipedal especially flightless birds, some lizards are bipedal. The fact that Lucy had the ability to walk upright for short periods doesn't say anything. You never answered the question why would Lucy have the inner ear equilibrium of a knuckle walking ape and why do we see ware on her knuckles was she a boxer too? Why are her feat designed for grasping?
Never smoked pot in my life. The analogy was simply to point out the fact that small changes do accumulate, over time, to become very large changes. The fact that you cannot understand this is you problem, not mine. Have a nice day.
According to theses standards evolution can never be falsified.
Macro-evolution is defined as major changes. I would not call speciation a major change since the two populations are still genetically very similar, if not, identical. In most cases they are still reproductively compatible but do not mate in the wild only because of behavioral differences. They would however breed in captivity if they had no other choice, in most cases. Just as lions and tiger interbreed and sometimes produce fertile ligers and tigons
Got a bit to learn yet Mr McKnow-it-all
Again... I still don't see how an overlap is problematic:
Diverging species co-exist for a period of time, but eventually the one that's less adapted will go extinct.
The structure of Ardi's wrists and fore-arms is not at all built for knuckle-walking; the skull rests on TOP of the spinal column; the muscles attachment points the legs and the pelvis are rearranged for bipedal locomotion. I already gave you two articles with make that conclusion...
I don't doubt that there are inconsistencies between phylogenetic trees and morphological trees, as a matter of fact phylogenetic trees are used to correct morphological trees...
I can even give you examples where the morphology is inconsistent: some respected scientists think that morphologically orangutans are closer to us than chimpanzees.
Regardless, the patter between morphology and phylogeny is nearly identical... phylogeny being more accurate in general.
The Force is strong with this one...
"No, I mean papers from paleantology, for example, that describe a certain species would likely be backed with all the evidence, but they might not say anything about the role of random mutation and natural selection in the evolution of the species."
-- Well if paleontology supports the hierarchical distribution of species then it certainly fits in with the model of evolution... the evidence of mutation and natural selection comes from other observations, such as genetics at al.
"Oxnard also claims that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans."
-- Clearly even Oxnard did think she was bipedal... all you have to do in order to see the names of some of the people who disagree with Oxnard is just check out the references on wikipedia. If you find it so important to have names, then I can spend 20-30 minutes on google, pull up all the relevant research and give you the names.
You can be wrong in other fields but that has nothing to do with scientific theories were you cant afford to be wrong, other wise they cant be considered scientific theories. What do you believe the human lineage is starting from ardi to present day man? Do you know the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory?
If you agree he was not making sense, why are you recommending Sanford's videos? Ancient Greek views are interesting because they are scientific in the sense that the Greeks actually looked at the evidence and based their conclusions on their observations, but they are a little over two thousand years out of date. Evolution before Darwin is like printing before Gutenberg or like 19th century computers. The history of evolutionary thought is quite intriguing, for example at iep.utm.edu/evolutio/