Ed

Both of those skulls are poorly preserved, major sections of the skulls are missing. That is why it may appear not as cut and dried as most ape-human comparisons. But 1813 is most likely human as the evidence from Dr. Falk above demonstrates.

Ed

By "status quo", I mean maintaining the existence of the organism. Using your example, antibiotic resistance allows the bacteria to survive, it does not turn it into another organism.

Quote:

Ed: No, creation predicts that there will not be large patterns of transitional forms especially between major groups. ps: Could you possibly fit just a few more weasel words and/or squid ink into that sentence? What do you mean by "large patterns" and "major groups"? Certainly there are transitional fossil forms-- transitional both in time and morphology-- illustrating the stepwise emergence of 'major groups' like tetrapods and mammals. Patrick

By major groups I mean phyla, orders, classes, families and genera. By large patterns I mean thousands of transition forms between groups even down to species. They should exist if evolution actually occurred.

Jack the Bodiless

And they do.

...So what's the problem?

And you have already made it clear that only "Biblical evidence" matters to you, not scientific evidence. So why are you now pretending that fossils matter to you?

ps418

The thing I like about you Ed is that you make a whopper of an error in every single post, which allows me to look smart by correcting you. Your latest error is particularly amusing. The "evidence from Dr. Falk" that you quoted somewhere around page 35 is as follows:

First, you neglected to give the source, which is Falk (1983, Cerebral Cortices of East African Early Hominids, Science 221, 1072-1074). Second, note that Falk is referring here to a single characteristic of the endocast-- the sulcal pattern in the part of the endocast corresponding to the frontal lobe.

Third, and most importantly, read that Falk passage a few times Ed. Notice something funny? That's right, it says nothing at all about ER 1813. Apparently you have confused ER 1805 with ER 1813. Regarding ER 1805, which is quite similar to ER 1813, Falk explicitly says it should not be attributed to Homo. These are the ony two skulls examined in Falk's article. So, here we have yet another example of you grossly misreading your own source. Do you ever get tired of botching the facts?

In light of the other similarities of ER 1805 and ER 1813, I would expect that ER 1813 shares the same frontal lobe sulcal pattern as ER 1805, and thus by this criteria you would classify ER 1813 as an 'ape.' Indeed, as I pointed out before, virtually all creationist excuses for paleoanthropologists classify ER 1813 as 'just an ape.'

Though it may take another year for you to reach this point, in the end the best you'll come up with is that ER 1470 is 'human,' whereas ER 1813 is 'just an ape,' a position that is ridiculous on its (prognathic) face, but is the best the creationists can come up with.

Yes, and an numerous example of transitions between orders, classes, families and genera (but not phyla) have already been presented (Cuffey, 2001). There's no question as to whether they exist, only whether you will continue to make yourself look silly by conspicuously ignoring them.

The statement reflects a deep ignorance on many levels. Let me mention a few. First, whether an organism existed and whether it was preserved as a fossil are two totally different questions. So, even if we both agree that an evolutionary lineage existed, it does not follow that we should expect to find every step of the represented by fossils.

The completeness with which any lineage can be documented by fossil evidence is a complex function of various factors, including paleobiogeography, preservation, human sampling, and evolutionary tempo itself. Population size and geographic distribution of species, the nature of sedimentation and the geologic record, the effects of taphonomy, paleontological sampling, and of course, the mode, tempo, and duration of change all constrain the resolution of the fossil evidence.

Its not enough for geologically ignorant creationists like yourself to make armchair demands for a palentological resolution that ignores every single one of these factors. When you say that some fossil evidence "should" exist, you need to specify "should exist given assumption X about sampling, assumption Y about biogeography, assumption Z about evolutionary tempo, and so on."

A second point is that according to YEC dogma (its not science), every species alive today is descended from a handful of species aboard Noah's ark. This implies an extraordinary amount of diversification, including in many cases splitting above the species level. Where is the fossil evidence for this? It doesn't exist, and the only way to reconcile this fact with the evidence is to assume that even though this splitting and diversification did in fact happen, there is little or no fossil evidence documenting it. Gosh, were's all the evidence for the post-flood diversification of beetles, or fruit flies, or birds, or dog breeds?

Patrick

ps418

Ed, I have shown that there is no sense in which your original statement that modern birds coeexisted with Archaeopteryx is correct.

1. Protoavis is not thought to be a bird at all by most paleontologists. But even if it was, it certainly was not a modern bird, and is not placed in any existing order, familiy, or genus of birds. Also, the only specimen of Protoavis that exists is from the Triassic, and long predates Archaeopteryx, and so did not coexist with Archaeopteryx.

2. Confuciusornis is a bird, but in no sense is it a modern bird, since it does not belong to any existing order, familiy, or genus of birds. And since the oldest specimens of Confuciusornis post-date Archaeopteryx by 20 million years, neither can it be said to have coexisted with Archaeopteryx.

There can be no doubt that you made an error by claiming as fact something that simply is not true. Thus far you have refused to retract the error or even admit the mistake, despite repeated requests to do do. Observers here can only conclude that you have no problem propagating falsehoods, and no interest in admitting to or correcting your errors. Are you sure this is an effective way to champion the biblical worldview?

Patrick

ps418

Also, regarding Protoavis, here are some interesting quotes from a 1991 Science research news article, describing some researcher's reactions once they'd seen the Protoavis material. As it turns out, I was apparently wrong about Feduccia's position on Protoavis.

Calling this the original bird is irresponsible," says Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina. A world authority on Archaeopteryx, he has seen illustrations of Chatterjee's fossil and compares the reconstruction of its fragments to "reading tea leaves in the bottom of a dark cup."

Feduccia even says that "All you can say about Protoavis is that its a small Triassic reptile of unknown affinity." Feduccia, by the way, was the most prominent critic of the theropod ancestry of birds hypothesis, and would have had every reason to accept Chatterjee's claims if they were supportable.

Larry Martin, one of the few paleontologists that would be expected to agree with Chatterjee, says weakly that it may be a dinosaur, but that if it is a dinosaur, "it is more bird-like than any known dinosaur," which may well have been arguable when he said it, but is certainly not true today.

Early bird threaten's Archaeopteryx's perch: Is it a bird? If it is, a hotly debated fossil from Texas may alter avian evolutionary history. Science 253, p. 35.

Ed

How could a partially folding fanged snake survive? It would inject itself with venom or the very least it would puncture the floor of its mouth.

Ed

I was pretty specific for a non-anthropologist in my earlier posts in this thread. 1813 and OH 24 MAY be relatives but 1813 is too fragmentary. I tend to think it is human because the skull was deformed by geologic processes to the point that its cranium is small like an ape's. But it could be an ape if the deformation is not considered severe, though to me it appears to be quite severe. As far as OH 24 it also is fragmentary so you need to look at the similar OH 62 where more postcranial material is present and it is smaller than Lucy so it is most probably an australopith.

Ed

How is that garble speak?

Quote:

pat: Though I doubt you'll recognize it, you've pushed yourself into a corner. D and E in the image above, which you classify as human, are both habilis (RE 1813 and OH24, respectively). Now, if you don't mind lending us your expertise in vertebrate anatomy, please explain why in the world ER 1813 is human while ER 1805 is not. Patrick

What Oolon convienently failed to mention is that a few pages later I retracted my statement on the basis that those two skulls were too fragmentary to make a definite call. Notice the huge chunks missing in the skulls from key areas. Also see my post to Oolon above.

Ed

Because then his natural revelation would contradict his written revelation. In his written revelation He says that we can learn of his existence by studying his creation, but if living things came into existence by natural processes we would not be able learn of his existence from studying them. They would look the same whether or not He existed. Then atheists would have a legitimate excuse for not believing in him.

Quote:

oc: Further, would such a deity impart this information to people in all its detail? Since he apparently chose to tell bronze age goat-herders about it, what’s the chances?

It is not that much detail.

Quote:

oc: God: “Well, inside every cell in your body -- that’s the tiny tiny bits you’re made of -- there’s this molecule that’s like a twisted ladder, and the rungs can separate and make copies...” Moses: “Erm, just a sec Lord. What’s a molly-cool?” God: “A molecule is a tiny bit of matter, made up of atoms which in turn are made of even smaller bits like quarks and leptons... even molecules are far too tiny for you to see, so you’ll just have to trust me on this... Oh, alright. In the beginning, it was dark, and I made it light, set the sun and moon in the sky, and then I made plants and animals...” Now, doubtless you’ll reject such a god. Fine: so do I of course. But why is that not at least as plausible -- or more plausible -- than the one you would have us accept?

See above.

Quote:

lp: Ed clearly interprets away any part of the Bible he dislikes, like the flat-earth and geocentric parts. Ed: There are no such parts as I demonstrated. lp: With totally vacuous "demonstrations". Ed: Evidence? oc: What about your dating of the flood? We never did get to the bottom of that one, iirc. It is perfectly possible to calculate when it was from the bible. But even you realised that that was too improbable, so you settled on a “I don’t know”.... when, as I say, one can tell from the bible when it should have been. You also left us with warp-speed moving continents to explain post-flood biogeography. Okay, maybe ‘vacuous’ isn’t quite right. Try ‘hopelessly inadequate’, or ‘stupid’.

No, I demonstrated quite clearly from expert Biblical scholars including one from Princeton that the dating of the creation and the flood is indefinite in the bible. I mentioned that the rapidly moving continents was the view of the YECs but I am an OEC.
But maybe the YECs are right and I am wrong.

Quote:

Ed: No, the bible does not cover the structure of the solar system or the atomic system, or etc. But in areas that it does cover, it is acccurate. oc: Like where?

Like that there is a definite beginning to the universe, ie the big bang. Genesis 1:1. Also things like the history of ancient Israel.

Quote:

Ed: That is all I am saying. oc: Promises, promises. TTFN, Oolon

:banghead: :banghead: