Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GeoTheo · 07-15-2002, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scombrid:
Now I know why I can't stomach arguing with cretinists anymore. With no understanding of comparitive morphology or cladistics, those people dismiss the findings of experts because the cranium "looks like an ape to me". They know nothing of the methods used and definitely couldn't understand the anatomic terminology in the paper (as if they bothered to read the paper)

Well that cuts it, JimBob Mouthbreather says that it looks like it's an ape so it is. That's the way comparitive morphology works, they just look at it. They don't take 100000000000000000 ultra tedious measurements from specific angles in order to be able to have a statistically powerful test for comparison to other specimens. Scientists just subjectively assess findings on a whim.

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

Get over yourself. You're a student. Maybe 3 years ahead of me in Biology. I get National Geographic and am familiar with the process of how they reconstruct these skulls. The tone of this thread earlier was that this was a devastating threat to creationists. I read the article and they aren't even sure it is a human ancestor.
But if I say it's just an ape I'm a mouthbreather. If it's not a human ancestor then why is it not just an ape?
They know what muscles go where on the skull by the insertion scars and their knowledge of primate anatomy. I also think that there is a lot of expectation to find human ancestors and this causes bias. Is this reconstruction not a human endeavor? Every body has bias. Why not them?
Prove that they are without bias. I'm not saying they are idiots. But It is not beyond my comprehension what they are doing either. I happen to collect mammalian predator skulls. I don't think it is rocket science to become familiar with the fleshly characteristics of living animals based on how their skulls look.

lpetrich · 07-15-2002, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:

Get over yourself. You're a student. Maybe 3 years ahead of me in Biology. I get National Geographic and am familiar with the process of how they reconstruct these skulls. ... (other such whining deleted).

GeoTheo, if you think that we are going to feel sorry for you, you are sadly mistaken.

Mageth · 07-15-2002, 08:03 AM

I also think that there is a lot of expectation to find human ancestors and this causes bias.

Huh? Whatever the skull is, it's one more piece in the tree of hominid/primate ancestry, and thus provides valuable information. Scientists want to know the true structure of that tree, not just to find human ancestors.

Note that scientists are speculating that it may be as much a "chimp" ancestor as a human ancestor.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Ergaster · 07-15-2002, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:

...
I read the article and they aren't even sure it is a human ancestor.
But if I say it's just an ape I'm a mouthbreather. If it's not a human ancestor then why is it not just an ape?
....

Because hominids are not "just apes", even if they are not "human ancestors". And there are certainly hominids that are not directly in the human line. That does not make them "just apes", though, because there is no either/or.

GeoTheo · 07-15-2002, 09:53 AM

How can it be said of this find "Boy, it sure must be hard to be a creationist anymore!"?

scombrid · 07-15-2002, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:


Get over yourself. You're a student. Maybe 3 years ahead of me in Biology. I get National Geographic and am familiar with the process of how they reconstruct these skulls. The tone of this thread earlier was that this was a devastating threat to creationists. I read the article and they aren't even sure it is a human ancestor.
But if I say it's just an ape I'm a mouthbreather. If it's not a human ancestor then why is it not just an ape?
They know what muscles go where on the skull by the insertion scars and their knowledge of primate anatomy. I also think that there is a lot of expectation to find human ancestors and this causes bias. Is this reconstruction not a human endeavor? Every body has bias. Why not them?
Prove that they are without bias. I'm not saying they are idiots. But It is not beyond my comprehension what they are doing either. I happen to collect mammalian predator skulls. I don't think it is rocket science to become familiar with the fleshly characteristics of living animals based on how their skulls look.

I am over myself. I know the limitations of using morphology in cladistics. Some of those limitations were discussed in the paper. Additionally, my insult was directed at the quotes from ARN. There we had laypeople parroting their preachers. I’ll repost them incase you don’t want to look back up the page to see them.

Quote:

there is no controversy in the church, we make our claims and stick by them, no wavering, etc...but just look at this article, evolutionism, especially the assumed ape like predecessor, is supposed to be a slam dunk, according the the folks on this page, and yet, how is their so much confusion? surprizingly modern features, (assumed)six million years old.????
whoa, who says this shares ape and human morphology, etc? those who assume evolutionism? this is far too early to tell, and it is either a early human, or ape, plain and simple. there are groups of people alive today who who body features, brow ridges, facial features, etc, that have less than the typical hollywood star look, and no one doubts their humanity....i see this as more of a problem for your belief system, after all, the quotes from the peepul in the article seems to show confusion and consternation etc....
im very comfortable with it, it is either an ape or human skull, and all the squirming semantics from the evolutionist daycare camp in nature magazine won't effect that one bit.
yep, from the back, it looks like a chimp and from the front, austraoleopithcenes (sp)more extinct apes....hardly a transitional, unless you need one, and evolutionists need one badly...so, i guess that is what they will call it.
first, it is a type of extinct ape, call it what you will, but something that looks like chimp from the back, and an extinct ape from the front, is not a human.

I guess it was sort of applied to you as well based on your entrance to this thread.

Quote:

By TheoGeo:
Are you familiar with the full range of variation in both human and chimp skulls to begin with? What characteristics do the share in extant specimens?
Is their not overlap already?

Here you implied that the scientists presenting the finding didn’t consider the variation in extant species, didn’t bother to make any comparison, and don’t have the power to tell definitively whether a specimen differs from another. You implied that they base their assessment on what it looks like to them, not by systematically following proscribed sets of measurements. I based my response on that.

RufusAtticus · 07-15-2002, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
How can it be said of this find "Boy, it sure must be hard to be a creationist anymore!"?

I doubt it. If there were creationists when all the other hominid fossils were found, I don't see how more evidence will convince them.

Valentine Pontifex · 07-22-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:
I haven't seen anyone mention the other recent find, the 1.75Mya ergaster skull (D2700) and mandible from Dmanisi. According to Vejua et al., the "Dmanisi specimens are the most primitive and small-brained fossils to be grouped with this species or any taxon linked unequivocally with genus Homo and also the ones most similar to the presumed habilis-like stem." The cranial capacity of this specimen is ~600cc, which is within the range of habilis/rudolfensis.

[...]

<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/297/5578/85" target="_blank">A New Skull of Early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia </a>

For the point of view of the evolution/creation "debate" this find is IMHO far more important than the 7 myr skull. While that 7 myr skull is important in trying to find out what was going on near the human/chimp split, I don't think it would convince even a fair minded creationist. Long discovered stuff is far better for that job.

The new small brained Homo erectus (in the broad--lumper--sense) from Georgia throws a monkey wrench in a position that has become in the last few years rather dominant in YEC circles. That position is that H. erectus is merely an unusual human and that australopithecines (including habilis/rudolfensis) are merely apes. The problems the new skull provides to this view should be obvious.

MrDarwin · 07-23-2002, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LordValentine:

That position is that H. erectus is merely an unusual human and that australopithecines (including habilis/rudolfensis) are merely apes.

I've asked numerous creationists over the years to give me some set of criteria for differentiating ape skeletons from human skeletons. Still no takers.

GeoTheo · 07-23-2002, 10:44 AM

I think you could perhaps say that humans are primates, but not all primates are human.In the genus homo There are patterns of tooth erruption associated with extended childhood, which is in turn associated with a larger brain that is different from the pattern in both the african apes and australopethecines.
There is also a different system of blood flow (the vessels of which can be traced in the inside of the skull) that relates both to bipedalism and to a larger brain. Bipedal endurance walking with a large brain requires an effecient radiator. More efficient than a smaller brained knuckle walker that may take faltering bipedal steps. I still think there is a strong line of demarkation in the fossil record between the two types. Turkana boy is much closer to the human pattern in both respects along with the other homo erectus and Neanderthals as well. Whereas
Taung child, homo habilis, and the australopithecines share the ape like pattern in these respects.

07-15-2002, 08:03 AM	#43
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I also think that there is a lot of expectation to find human ancestors and this causes bias. Huh? Whatever the skull is, it's one more piece in the tree of hominid/primate ancestry, and thus provides valuable information. Scientists want to know the true structure of that tree, not just to find human ancestors. Note that scientists are speculating that it may be as much a "chimp" ancestor as a human ancestor. [ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2002, 09:53 AM	#45
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	How can it be said of this find "Boy, it sure must be hard to be a creationist anymore!"?

07-23-2002, 10:44 AM	#50
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	I think you could perhaps say that humans are primates, but not all primates are human.In the genus homo There are patterns of tooth erruption associated with extended childhood, which is in turn associated with a larger brain that is different from the pattern in both the african apes and australopethecines. There is also a different system of blood flow (the vessels of which can be traced in the inside of the skull) that relates both to bipedalism and to a larger brain. Bipedal endurance walking with a large brain requires an effecient radiator. More efficient than a smaller brained knuckle walker that may take faltering bipedal steps. I still think there is a strong line of demarkation in the fossil record between the two types. Turkana boy is much closer to the human pattern in both respects along with the other homo erectus and Neanderthals as well. Whereas Taung child, homo habilis, and the australopithecines share the ape like pattern in these respects.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.