Oolon Colluphid

Quite right. It was very convenient. Very convenient to not wade back through any more fucking pages than I had to.

What we should have done years ago -- frigging literally -- is split each separate line of argument off into its own thread. As it is, we’re going round and round in fucking circles, and never pinning Mr Ed down on anything. By the time he replies to something, I’ve forgotten what I was replying to that he has finally replied to.

Well, I’m sick of it. So if the moderators have no objections, I shall split off the human stuff to its own thread, which will remain solely for that topic. I don’t much fancy going back through 38 pages to extract the relevant posts, so I guess that thread will start from scratch in its circularity. I await moderator comments.
How very... convenient... for you.

So do tell... why should it be so difficult? Why should an ape skull be sufficiently deformable that it might be misinterpreted as a human skull? How can a human skull be mistaken for an ape one, just by having some bits missing?

And why is there so much missing from these skulls to make the call? Are you assuming that these creatures were not bilaterally symmetrical?

Here’s KNM-ER 1813 again:







What is so missing that we cannot tell for sure if it is ape or human?

And you do realise that being so difficult to decide about, is exactly what a transitional should be like? Don’t you??!

KNM-ER 1813 is an adult -- third molars fully erupted and worn -- yet it has a brain capacity of just 510cc. Even if the skewing of the skull were responsible for reducing the apparent volume, and even if the people who do these measurements are totally incompetent, which is what you are implying... there is still no way you could get a ‘human’ brain in there. Modern human brains are on average nearly three times that size!

From here:
So even the smallest modern human brains are nearly twice the size of 1813. And even if 1813 were microcephalic (sufferers can have brains as small as 600cc), 1813 at 510cc would still be significantly smaller than the smallest of those of sufferers from a pathological condition!

Then there’s the ‘human’, according to you, KNM-ER 1470, a contemporary of 1813. It has a large brain for its time at 775cc. But it is still well below (only 85% of) the smallest -- the absolute smallest -- modern human brain. And just over half the size of the average modern one.

So tell me Ed, why do we only dig up microcephalics -- people with a rare abnormality -- as we go further back in time?

What’s more, the life expectancy, even for modern microcephalics, is low. Microcephaly comes with a host of other congenital abnormalities. So how did these individuals survive into adulthood without medical care? (Mind you, it’s amazing what you can do with a hand-axe... )

And are you not curious that these people also exhibit a range of other, more ape-like characteristics too? Not only are these people tiny-brained to the extent of pathology, they also have, compared to modern humans, apelike teeth and palates, protruding faces, heavy brow ridges, and so on. If these individuals are exhibiting rare pathology, what are the chances that they would also have these other features too -- features that are exactly like evolution says transitionals should have?

And if these people were just at one extreme of our possible form, where are all the -- hell, where are any of the -- normal people from 1.9mya?

TTFN, Oolon

Duvenoy

Ok Ed, one, last time:

Go back and read my post describing the four wildly varying venom injection systems found in Squamiger today, then sit down and use the brain Evolution generously and laboriously provided you. The mamba's fangs do not go through the bottom jaw, nor do they fold. Nor do the boomslang's. Why could not one of these systems become modified? Is not a longer fang more effective, therefore advantagous? Could not these short, stubby fangs evoilve to move without injury to the animal, even as they became longer? Look at the fanged Colubrids and see how it appears that the fangs, in some species, may be on the move from the rear of the mouth toward the front. Are not front fangs more effective, therefore advantagous?

Think, Ed! It's what that oversized ball of noxious mush sloshing around in your dense skull is for. Otherwise, as Einstein once said, "...the spinal chord would suffice!"

doov (currently with a incapacitated right hand and arm from one of these venom injection systems, thereby accounting for the painfully slow typing and vile-temper.)

ps418

Ed, before I begin, I'd like to remind you once again that you've yet to retract or satisfactorily modify your obviously false claim about modern birds coexisting with Archaeopteryx. Unless you'd like to be known as a liar, rather than merely grossly incompetent, you should do so immediately.

I see your understanding of taphonomy is on par with your understanding of paleontology, which is to say, nonexistent. Though ER 1813 has indeed been crushed, it has not been deformed in a way that would significantly compromise size estimates. FYI, there's not a single creationist 'paleoanthropologist' that would agree with you that ER 1813, with its suite of australopith features and ~500cc brain case, is 'probably' a human.

At this point, I think we can safely end the discussion of homonid taxonomy, since you've proven far more clearly than I ever could that there is no rational creationist homonid taxonomy, and that there are no major morphological gaps seperating the human 'kind' and the ape 'kind.'

You "demonstrated" no such thing, at least with respect to the flood. The dating of the flood is indeed indefinite, but only within a few hundred years. The date was 2500BC, +/_250yrs. If you want to see scholarly opinion on the date of the flood, AiG and ICR have plenty of material on their sites. Alternatively, you could actually pay attention to the clear words of scripture, which place firm constraints on the date of the flood.

Furthermore, the flood is dated by working backwords from Solomon, using clear, unambiguous statements that A was born when B was X years old, rather than working forward from the creation using ambiguous statements that A begat B. For instance, Abram was born when Terah was 70, Terah was born when Nahor was 29, Nahor was born when Serug was 30, and so on. In other words, the typical lame OEC excuse that begat could refer to a second of third generation descendent won't work here, because the dating does not rely on any interpretation of begat. I explained all of this at the beginning of this thread, but you must have ignored it.

As odd as it may seem, Oolon is not responsible for catalogueing your numerous self-contradictions, backtracks, and expulsions of squid ink. In fact, there are far too many of them in this thread for any single human being to do so. Indeed, you appear to be reversing your opinion yet again by judging ER 1813 to be probably human.

What is there left to argue about? After contradicting himself numerous times, Ed now basically says that that all the australopiths are apeas, ER 1813 is probably a human, ER 1470 is probably a human. No matter how he changes his mind in the future, on the status of ER 1813 for instance, its clear there's no major morphological gaps left for him to plug the creator into. Barring the unlikely event that Ed starts to make sense, I'd say there's not much left to argue about re: homonid taxonomy.

Patrick

lpetrich

(Evolution as god's method of creation...)
Ed:
Because then his natural revelation would contradict his written revelation.

Then does Ed believe that the Earth is flat and that the Sun moves around it? That the sky is a bowl overhead with the stars moving on its surface? That grasshoppers have four legs? Etc.

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.

So that's what it comes down to? I wonder if Ed also rejects the electricity theory of lightning on the ground that it makes god look like an unnecessary hypothesis -- lightning is god striking people, right?

They would look the same whether or not He existed. Then atheists would have a legitimate excuse for not believing in him.

This is a god who has refused to put his signature on his various creations. And one who refuses to unambiguously reveal his existence ought not to complain.

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.

And I can show you some scholars who believe that the early parts of the Bible are essentially fiction.

Like that there is a definite beginning to the universe, ie the big bang. Genesis 1:1.

One can make similar claims for other creation stories. For example, Hesiod's Theogony is a good description of how the Universe and various subsets of it have gone through several generations.

Also things like the history of ancient Israel.

Some of it holds up, some of it doesn't.

If Ed went back in a time machine and discovered that the Bible is in error on some important things, I wonder what the look on his face will be.

GunnerJ

Follow your heart.

Doubting Didymus

One moment, please.

Ed

The differences in the shape of the skulls are part of the important information differentiating humans from apes. Also, my measurements did not show australopiths being in between humans and gorillas. It showed them being closer to gorillas.

Hey we finally agree on something! Except it is more than a bit!


No, I am not saying that that is the only criteria, there are other subtle differences in the post cranial skeleton as well that point to it not being obligate bipedal.

There must be some mistake here. Two members of the same species have FM in different places on their skulls?? Something is not right in Kansas. Have you got drawings and evidence of this weird fact? This sounds pretty far fetched. If what you say is true, then the location of the FM is totally trivial and irrelevant to telling us anything about determining even the SPECIES of hominid much less the family or genus!

I didnt measure to the posterior most point of the skull. I measured to the FM.

Why don't you whack yourself whacker boy?

Doubting Didymus

We agree. This thread has become unworkable, and we are going to close it. I think a new thread with one specific topic (comparative homonid anatomy, in this case) should be started, one that actually has a track from which we moderators can keep it from straying.

I suggest that any regulars in this discussion who feel up to it should summarise their recent points to form a good strong set of opening posts and fire up a new thread. When its up, I'll put links at the end of this thread and the start of the new one and shut this sucker down, but it should not be just a continuation of this thread. It should be a new discussion, one that does not require detective skills to find the relevant posts in.

Ed

Why? I thought you atheists were supposed to be highly intelligent. Have you fellows never heard of MULTI-TASKING?? I am sure that you fellows could handle it. You are all bright and educated dudes. C'mon, you can do it!

Doubting Didymus

The problem is not so much multiple topics, but the sheer amount of posts that were are trying to deal with in this thread. It's clearly in desperate need of a clean start.

Do you have any specific objections?