lpetrich

How does one expect ANYTHING from some hypothesis of miraculous special creation?

(a lot of other argument about Homo erectus specimens being either outside of or inside of the typical Homo sapiens range...)

However, the average of H. erectus is distinctly different from that of H. sapiens, even if there is some overlap at the edges of their parameter ranges.

Ed, Ed, Ed, tell us how that is supposed to be "expected".

Duck!

This a bit disingenuous Ed. Your entire argument is based on a string of maybes, possiblies and perhaps's. And now you're telling us that Creation "expects" certain things?

Care to say what it "expects" the date of the flood was?

Or what it "expects" is the answer to the string of questions put to you about predator/prey relationships on the ark, infectious agents and parasites, what species were actually taken on the ark and what they "microevolved" into afterwards, the patterns of biogeography we now observe, etc?

And come to think of , how does Creation predict anything about the cranial capacities of Homo erectus skulls?

A shiny new donkey to you Ed if you can answer with using the word "maybe".


Duck!

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Duck of Death ]</p>

Daydreamer

I reccomend a nice course in population genetics before you make assertions like this. It can take generations for one species to kick another out of a niche, especially if they are closely related.

It is also highly likely that, given overlapping niches, they evolved to specialize in different things so they wouldn't completely wipe each other out. Extinction is common, but by no means the only outcome of such a conflict. How else, pray tell, could we have three to four digits of bird species living in the same jungle?

Ed

Because the skeletal characteristics are closest to matching existing humans whose mental abilities and behaviors we empirically know to be human.

Quote:

Ed: But posting the dog skulls does help me make another point. It shows how an organism can have a very different skeleton and in fact not be ancestral or even a different species but in fact be the very same species. And I believe that is the case with early humans, they appear to be a little more morphologically variable than humans today. Just like the modern dog. OC: Fine. The breeds of dog are related by descent with modification, but are still dogs. So there is no reason why this this or even this cannot also be human. Funny how the older they are, the less human they are too, isn’t it?

See above and also yesterday's post.

Quote:

[Ref geographical distribution after the flood] Ed: Ever hear of Gondwanaland? OC: Oddly enough, yes . Ed: The flood may have occurred shortly before Gondwanaland broke up OC: Okay. That’s around 100 million years ago. Please offer some evidence for a world-wide flood then -- or any time. And some evidence of, say, great apes in South America, and humans in rocks older than 10 million years, would be good too.

There is documentary and cultural evidence for a worldwide flood, ie almost all cultures have a
story of a worldwide flood in their cultural memories. Some christian geologists claim there is evidence for a worldwide flood, but not having read their books and not being a geologist, I cannot provide it. And at present no humans have been found in 10 myo rocks that I know of, though I could be wrong. And I will have to research the great ape one. Though at present of course there are no great apes in SA.


[b] [quote]
[Ed grasps at straws] Some of your examples are examples of microevolution, ie sequoias(evolved conifers), cave animals, flightless birds and etc.

[b]While the skeletal changes appear small, the mental changes are huge.

lpetrich

Says who?

And even if that was the case, that would only prove that floods are something that our minds are attracted to.

Also, a local flood can easily be imagined to be worldwide by someone not familiar with much of our planet's surface area. And how much of that area were the writers of the Bible familiar with? Not much.

Directly contrary to what Ed has been posting in several pages of this thread -- he has posed as supporting Flood Geology, more particularly, big-sediment Flood Geology.

Coragyps

Ed, re early hominid to man:
Duh!

And a study in Science a week or two ago (there's a thread on this forum) shows that gene expression is considerably different in humans and apes in the brain, and not much different in other organs. Ol' selection pressure at work again.......

Duck!

Are they? How do we know?

And even if the mental changes are "huge", I think it's probably an illusion.

The vast majority of what goes on in the brain of a protohuman and a modern human are the probably the same. We take input from around the world and process it. Our eyes, noses, ears, skin, etc. take in data from the outside world and process it. We build up an internal model of the outside world from visual data so we can judge distance, speed, identify objects based on colour and shape, etc. We take in audio data and we identify different sounds and determine the direction the sound is coming from. We take in olfactory data and identify things according to smell. We can usually tell if something is edible by interpreting the smell. Our skin gauges ambient temperature and by feeling something we can judge the temperature, shape, texture, etc. of it. Blind people can identify coins by their shape and texture alone. All of this is pretty impressive on it's own. Humans, however, excel at linguistic skills and abstract reasoning.

All of this involves taking in information from the outside world and having our brain interpreting it. But this isn't uniquely human. Birds, dogs, even insects do most of the above. Some of them not as good as, but some of them do it FAR better than humans.

Most "higher" animals are capable of interpreting the world mentally by interpreting data. This takes some fantastic mental skill. But does it take much more to develop abstract reasoning? Maybe a small change is all that's needed to develop human intelligence. Most of the groundwork has been laid.

Until the genetic code is fully interpreted and we understand what genes do what in the human brain, than how is it possible to say either...

1) There are huge differences in the mental abilities of humans and protohumans.

2) The genetic differences are greater than the genetic differences that allow for all the microevolution that creationism permits. Is the genetic difference between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus greater or lesser than the differences between a particular modern species and it's hypothetical ancestor on the ark? How can you say that the differences in intelligences couldn't have

This is kind of a rambling incoherent post I think but my point never been convinced that human intelligence is so different from all other species intelligence. I'm inclined to think that there's a fine continuum from no intelligence to human intelligence. I'd say that the vast majority of what goes in a human brain, goes on in any other mammal brain, i.e. the stuff I mentioned above, and more probably.

Well, I'm not sure what my point is, but I think I've made it.


Duck!

Ed

It came from "Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups" by Stephen Molnar.

Quote:

Ed: I think for those familiar with vertebrate anatomy [where to draw the line between ‘ape’ and ‘human’ fossils] IS obvious. OC: Most of those are ‘evolutionists’, so they know they are ultimately drawing it on a continuum of generations. They make no such distinction between ‘human’ and ‘ape’, because they all agree we are apes. Only creationists think otherwise, and for them, the line may be clear but they cannot agree where it is! See the Jesus, Dinosaurs and more! page and this page, which compares various creationists’ assessments of various hominid fossils.

No, they plainly do make a distinction between humans and apes. It is how they differentiate between Australopithicines and the Homo "species".

Quote:

Ed: Also, as a sidelight, the size of the brain is not necessary directly connected to intelligence. OC: True. I imagine yours is well within the range of modern humans.

HA HA, very funny. (sarcastic laugh)

Quote:

Ed: Several years ago a young man went to college and obtained a college degree and obtained a decent job with 90% of his skull being filled with cranial fluid. With only a thin layer of brain surrounding the fluid. OC: You can provide references, of course?

Yes, see my post to lp above.

Quote:

Ed: The main differences between mammals and reptiles occur in their soft tissue such as the heart and reproductive organs. OC: Um, ear bones? Jaws? Differentiated dentition? Limb posture? Palate?

Some animals have very similar skeletal structures and yet are totally unrelated. I.e., marsupial and placental dogs. That is probably the case with some of these ancient mammals and reptiles.

Quote:

Ed: Since this is not fossilized in the mammalike reptiles this connection is highly speculative. OC: To you, because you want it to be. Everything we can tell from what we do have indicates transition between major groups.

Just because something is suggestive of a lineage doesnt necessarily mean there actually is one and see above about how skeletons can look very similar and yet be totally unrelated or ancestral.

Quote:

Ed: In addition, studies of the their skull endocasts show that their brains were typical of reptiles. OC: Which Synapsids? References please.

All of them. "Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence" by H. Jerison.

Quote:

Ed: And as far as fish becoming reptiles, the lack of fossil specimens intermediate between anurans or urodeles and the older amphibians has forced paleontologists to base their speculations about the evolution of the group upon evidence from the anatomy and embryology of modern species which is a highly questionable practice. OC: Not if evolution is correct, but if you say so. Shall we ask Per?

Who is Per?

Quote:

OC: What about land plants, parasites and pathogens, and saltwater organisms (or fresh water, if the flood was somehow saltwater)? And how did they get to where they are now? Ed: Some of those [pathogenic] organisms may not have been pathogenic in the past to humans. Most of them may have been in the animals rather than the humans. Then later they microevolved to be pathogenic to humans. OC: “Some”? “Most”? “May have”? Sounds like you don’t even believe it yourself. It’s pure hand-waving speculation. But okay, it might apply to those that are specific to humans alone. But most are adapted to mammals (or primates) in general, not specifically to humans. What prevented them from having always parasitised humans? Did the creator simply not notice, as he made them, that they could infect and affect his most special of creations too? How did they know to leave us alone? Why did Team Noah not catch them from the animals he was in so close contact with?

They didnt know to leave us alone, they just had not yet breached our immune systems.

[b] [quote]
Ed: Some of those organisms may not have been pathogenic to either humans or animals, some may have been neutrally symbiotic.

OC: And those not included in the “some” that “may not”? What stopped the mosquitoes passing on Plasmodium and dengue to everyone? They had to get their blood meals from somewhere, and nothing else was alive.[b][quote]

How do you know that mosquitoes at that time passed on plasmodium and dengue? Just because they do now doesnt mean that they did then.

[b]See my post to lp.

Oolon Colluphid

A better try than usual Ed. It almost sounds like you’re answering the question at least. But as everyone can see, you didn’t answer it. You restated your position, that if it looks more human it is human. So, to repeat:

What is it specifically about cranial size and shape that forms the boundary between apes and humans?

What is it specifically about size and shape of jaws and teeth that forms the boundary between apes and humans?

What is it specifically about the proportions of limb bones that forms the boundary between apes and humans?

Please put numbers on it if possible. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0120455919/qid=1020073753/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-0493812-2488051" target="_blank">Aiello & Dean</a> is a good source.

Please demonstrate that such a boundary exists.

I also note that you say “the skeletal characteristics are closest to matching existing humans whose mental abilities and behaviors we empirically know to be human”. Mental abilities and behaviours are only properly known for fully modern Homo sapiens, our present species. Yet you said above (25/4) that you include “ancient” hominids in order to include all humans. So is it or is it not only living humans? It seems we should take into account inferred evidence about behaviours etc from the archaeological record too. Would you like to talk about habilis stone artefacts?

So your answer is, if it looks human enough (enough not defined), then it’s human. See above and also every damned post to you so far. Be specific on specifics.

Cultural memories dating back before there is any evidence modern mammal groups, let alone humans? I ask seriously: are you serious??

That’s fair enough . However, normal working geologists are sure the Christian ones you’re referring to are utterly wrong. (And I don’t think any creationist ones -- for it is only they -- say the flood was c100my ago; usually it’s more like 4000, though I could be wrong). You’re right, no humans have been found in 10myo rocks. And the only great apes in South America are Homo sapiens.

The flood is a major piece of potential conflict between science and the literal bible. But you cannot provide any evidence for its occurrence, nor can you say when it happened, nor answer how the flood might explain numerous facts about the fossil record (eg mud-grubbing trilobites found later / above free-swimming ones; Peter Sheldon’s trilobite sequences). Thus, the factual nature of a flood must be relegated to just another ‘maybe’. If the flood is a maybe, then maybe it’s a myth. If the flood is a maybe, then maybe so is Genesis 1 and 2. Whence this certainty of yours, Ed?

Sez you. And they don’t fossilise. Another irrefutable hypothesis. That we can’t know these things does not mean that your version is right, it just means we don’t know. But everything we do know from the fossils and artefacts is in accordance with evolution. Why then reject evolution? Because you don’t like it?

TTFN, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

Please explain how creation expects a very old ‘human’ to have significant differences from a modern human -- differences which are all in the direction that evolution expects.

Hmmm. You do know that paedomorphosis (neoteny) is thought to be a major factor in our humanisation, yeah? I can’t find a picture of a skull, but how about comparing WT 15000:



to this:



Also note that you ignored the main point I was making about WT 15000’s chin: It’s not that it recedes, it is that it lacks the characteristically human mental protuberance:



Despite its cranial capacity of 510cc? More info on 1813 <a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Why is this creature not just what evolution anticipates? Why no mention in the bible of so many nearly-men and abnormal apes?

Sure. But he’s not an Australopithecine. How about an australopithecine’s descendants a hundred thousand generations on? Why might they not grow this tall? Let me remind you what selection can do:



Where? Indulge the slower ones in the class. Please repeat them.

So you merely trust that such measurements would vindicate you . Check your library for a copy of Aiello & Dean’s book. Meanwhile, here's a graph with some actual measurements:



Why should it be that the earlier the fossil, the more it diverges from modern humans? Fossils are assigned to the same species when they differ from each other less than do members of modern species. H erectuses are all more like other erectuses than they are modern humans; habilises are all more like other habilises than they are erectuses, and so on. Yet the younger ones are more like the later species than earlier ones are. They are found in the evolutionarily expected chronological order. Please explain how creation expects this.

“It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Or perhaps “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

Or the concise <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> .

[Edited for a stray repeated paragraph ]

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>