John Solum

Thanks for the information. How significant are lava tubes in basalt aquifers?

Bait

Hi Kosh,

You believe in luck??
Sidestepping the question Kosh. Yes, people die in Africa, but there is always someone left. So you're saying that environmental conditions EVERYWHERE in the world but ONE would eliminate ALL, as in every bit of the life that could have started, except ONE cell, in ONE location?
Would not that all of those cells try to replicate themselves, including that ONE cell, making it less likely that they ALL would have died out? In fact, why do most life forms reproduce in a manner that attempts to replicate their particular genetic information?

And before someone askes me "what is life?" in response (which is a way to evade the issue), by any definition you may have in mind, would crystals would be considered a "life form"? (I'm not seriously asking that question BTW)

I know, I know, I'm itching to get flamed...oh well, it's all in fun anyway.

Bests,
Ron

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Bait ]</p>

Peez

Hi Bait,

Before I go on, I just want you to reflect on two things. First, although we all make mistakes, I have seen many creationists make the particular mistake of picking out bits from what they read so that it seems to support their point of view. I have no doubt that this is usually unintentional, but it says something about the creationist mindset. If you are so married to the idea of creationism that you tend to unconsciously disregard parts of what you read, then you should perhaps consider that you may be unable to critically evaluate the evidence.

Second, we are discussing issues in a number of areas, and obviously you are no expert in these particular areas. No offense is intended, none of us are experts in all things. However, does it not strike you that the experts in these areas accept the fact and theory of evolution? We are happy to try to explain things to you, but also think about how all those experts, who know and understand much more about biology, geology, physics, etc. than you have no problem with common descent and evolution. Well, chimpanzees resemble humans. What is striking about the fossil record is that there is a series of fossils with the most recent resembling Homo sapiens very closely (you and I would have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing them), the more distant resmbling living non- human apes, and many intermediate forms in between. There is no such thing as a "missing link." There have probably been over 500,000 generations between the common ancestor of chimps and humans, and us. Let us imagine that we find fossils of individuals from generations #3, #98,452, #327,891, #395,015, and #402,333. The creationist cries: "but there is a missing link! Where is the link between #98,452 and 327,891?" Later, another fossil is found: #274,200, but the creationist cries: "That solves nothing, there are no fossils between #98,452 and 274,200!" O.K., says the scientist, and looks some more. Finally, #100,437 is found. "That is not the missing link," the creationist responds, "you have no fossils between #100,437 and #274,200!" Since we don't expect that at least one fossil will be found from every generation that lived, sooner or later we will not find some "link," but it is irrelevant. We have more than enough "links" to show the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors. You are wrong again, of course. First, no biologist has tried to argue that Australopithecus afarensis is the same as Homo sapiens, that's why they have different names. Lucy is not the only fossil of A. afarensis. "Her knee joint" did not come from a different skeleton at all, and there is no question in the scientific community that she was bipedal (the structure of the hips, knees, and feet indicate this, and fossil footprints have been found that confirm it). I quite agree with Susman and Stern. Such findings are exactly what we expect given A. afarensis's place in our evolutionary history. What has this got to do with the price of potatoes in Finland? By whom? Yup. By the way, you like to quote Richard Leaky, as if he is some kind of expert. What has he said about the <a href="http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html" target="_blank">evolution of humans</a>? Why are you still carrying on about A. afarensis? The very fact that it is called A. afarensis and not H. sapiens tells you that we do not think that they are the same species, not even the same genus. What do you mean "digress"? Perhaps you should consult a dictionary. If you meant "regress" or something like that, then you truly do not understand evolution at all. There is absolutely no reason to expect that brain size must increase through evolution. It might increase, decrease, or stay the same. Furthermore, why do you think that we evolved from Neanderthals? What are you talking about, and how is it relevant? I see that you have just cut and pasted it from another site, it is starting to look suspiciously like you are simply trying to snow us under with irrelevant quotes, the content of which you neither know nor understand. If not, use your own words to make your arguments (or at least acknowledge that you are cutting and pasting, and provide a link). Are you deliberately avoiding such resources as <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/" target="_blank">this</a>? If you are serious, take a few minutes and actual read about, rather than making up your opinions without and knowledge, then digging up quick quotes that seem to back up these opinions.

Peez

Peez

Hi Kosh,

You are quite correct to italicize the genus and species names. Just two nits to be picked: the species name is never capitalized, and the second sapiens indicates a subspecies, as does neanderthalensis (you were close! ). Thus, "Neanderthals" are, indeed, considered members of our species, perhaps as different from us as a German Shepherd is from a Boxer. Nevertheless, Bait is certainly not making any points with his argument based on "Neanderthals."

Peez
[edited for format]

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Peez ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex

Peez,

You have major error here. The knee joint is not part of Lucy. Here is what happened. Johanson was asked at a public appearance where the knee joint was found. Johnanson replied that it was found a mile away from her in the x layer. Some creationist here this, falsely assumed that they were refering to a part of Lucy, and the creationists gained a story to tell: that Lucy was distributed over a mile since "her" knee joint was found a mile away. The story is still going around as you can see.

Here are the facts:

1) The knee joint is a different find from Lucy and has never been claimed otherwise. That it is a different find is clear from all of Johanson's relevent writings.

2) Lucy does not have a knee joint, though it would not be difficult to reconstruct one for her by the use of "mirroring."

3) Lucy is clearly bipedial for reasons besides the knee joint.

4) A second knee joint is part of the "First Family" find that is usually considered to be the same species as Lucy.

Peez

No, it means nothing of the sort. Why do you conclude this? Why would it be impossible for conditions to be "just right" in only one spot? Why do you think that there must have been only one spot for there to have been only one ancestor? This may or may not have happened. I have heard nobody here argue that life appeared only once. Note that even if life had appeared many times, life could still have evolved from only one common ancestor. No, it does not. Explain how you came to that curious conclusion. I do not understand your logic at all. It is quite possible that life appeared many times, and that all but one of these life forms went extinct. Remember, the fossil evidence indicates that at least 99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are extinct. Now, if life did appear independently several times, with plants (for example) entirely unrelated to animals, we would expect some fundamental differences. Guess what, we are not all that different from plants on a fundamental level. We use the same type of genome, organized the same way, with exactly the same genetic code, with the same basic cell structure. Sure, plants have cell walls and plastids, but we both have a plasma membrane of a phospholipid bilayer with imbedded proteins, Golgi apparatus, rough endoplasmic reticulum, smooth endoplasmic reticulum, nuclear envelope, chromosomes, nucleolus, ribosomes, mitochondria, vacuoles, vesicles, cytoskeleton, etc. Both carry on the same fundamental processes: mitosis, meiosis, glycolysis, the Krebs cycle, the electron transport chain, etc., etc., etc. It would be incredibly unlikely to have such commonality if these life forms were entirely independent. Further, there are life forms that are intermediate between "plants" and "animals," such as Euglena (which can eat food from it's environment, like an animal, or carry on photosynthesis, like a plant.

Peez

Kosh

Thanks Peez.I stand corrected. However, Ron is
still wrong in claiming that H.s.n. was just a
"variation" within the norm of H.s.s., right?

Peez

You are missing the point, Bait. First, it is not necessarily true that conditions were "just right" in many places. Second, it is not necessarily true that life must have appeared many times if conditions were "just right" in many places. Third, it would not be at all surprising if only one of many life forms survived to the present. As I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of species that have ever lived on this planet are extinct. If one form was more efficient than the others, it would probably have out-competed the others, eventually driving them to extinction. This sort of thing has been observed. Because if they didn't, their genetic information would no longer be with us. Just how would you "reproduce" yourself without replicating your genetic information? I would define life as a system that
1) exchanges materials with its environment
2) responds to its environment
3) carries on complex chemical reactions
4) grows
5) replicates itself[/b][/quote]I know, I know, I'm itching to get flamed...oh well, it's all in fun anyway.[/b][/quote]Given that some creationists have compared the teaching of evolution with the attacks of September 11, it is not always in fun. I find it disturbing that people can get so wrapped up in their mythology that they willfully reject science in favour of ignorance.

&lt;takes deep breath&gt;

O.K., I am not particularly upset with you, Bait, but I hope that you can appreciate that this debate does have serious real-world implications. That being said, consider yourself flamed.

Peez

Peez

While there is some disagreement on where H.s.n. fits in, it is almost certainly not a few "outliers" of H.s.s.

Peez

Valentine Pontifex

As Peez explained this: No one claimed that Lucy is from our species. Johanson does claim that she is a hominid and no one is suggesting otherwise.

You would have never made a comment like this if you had read anything of what Johanson had actually wrote about the subject.

In other words it was a transitional form.

You did not think that scientists think that a creature was 100% arboral gave birth to a 100% non-arboral creature?

No he does not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was Richard Leakey who the one who put the nails in the coffin for that point of view. Indeed discovering one of those nails was one of his first contributions to the field. The discoveries were made in 1969 and 1970 with publications in 1970 and 1971. See pages 158-161 From Lucy to Language by Johanson and Edgar.

The person who was the advocate for the robust australopithecines being male and the gracile ones being female was Milford Wolpoff. He no longer has this view because the fossil evidence indisputably falsified this.

Wolpoff consided defeat in 1975 when Richard Leakey's team discovered KNM-ER 3733 (Homo ergaster or Homo erectus depending on classification preferences) that was from the same time frame as the earlier finds. He last wiggle room was gone. He really should have conceded defeat earlier, but that is easy for me to say thirty years latter. But Wolpoff is a scientist and when he is shown conclusively to be wrong, he will admit defeat. This is something the creationists could learn from.

Zinj has NEVER been classifed as Homo habilis. Indeed the discovery that resulted in the proposal of Homo habilis was made after the "Zinj" find was found.
This is an example of an out-of-date quotation. This was written before "Lucy" and many other relevant specimens were discovered. Leakey no longer holds this view and has not for nearly three decades.

For shame.


Gee, a half-century old quote. Gee, my mother was 11 when that was written.
Furthermore Zuckerman had an extreme minority viewpoint on this matter. His studies were not based on the actual fossils, but casts, and a very limited selection of casts at that. Of course this was written when australopithecines were only known from fragmentary finds in South Africa.
Most researchers these days classify the Neandertals as a separate species and not as Homo sapiens. The reason is that H. sapiens had in the view of many, a collection of which every fossil that even remotely resembled modern humans was pigeon-holed.

Why would you ask if evolution "digress[es]"?
1) It is not clear if we are descended from Neandertals or not as this is highly contested within the scientific community.
2) Evolution often does reverse itself.
3) Don't think that having more brains necessarily made the neandertals smarter than us. The difference, while significant, is not overwhelming. There is no linear relationship between IQ and brain size especially at size differences as little as between us and the neandertals. Indeed, there is good reason to suspect that they were not as smart as us though I would not assert it dogmatically.

I will snip another case of quoting ancient history.

I can safely say that you have never met person with a cranial capacity of 750 cc. And if you actually <a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html" target="_blank">look</a> at 1470 you will see that it is not resemble a skull of any person that I have ever seen. Indeed from the beginning there are have been those that have considered it a "big brained australopithecine." One of Leakey's team and co-writer of the paper that announced the find (Alan Walker) being case and point. Bernard Wood and Mark Collard (Science, vol 284, pp. 65-71, 2 April 1999) proposed that all the habiline fossils be transfered from Homo to Australopithecus.

Reference?

Lucy's age was initially estimated a 2.9 million years old. When more detailed fieldwork was done it got refined to 3.2 million years old. Not that great of a difference.

The 1470 dating debate has been long resolved. It was started by a dating study that should have never been published (it was rejected by a very influential referee). Problems with the false date showed up almost immediately since it contradicted other evidence. It started a nasty debate since the participants were unaware of the problems with the original study. To resolve the matter more testing was done that showed conclusively who was right and who was wrong.
There is no evidence that humas were present when Lucy was. Nor are there any tools found in Lucy's time.