Oolon Colluphid

Like simply accepting evidence for evolution when presented, rather than squirming and twisting God’s words to try to fit? Why is it apparently impossible for you to consider that God used evolution as his way of creating?

Imagine, for a moment, that you are an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent being. You can do anything you like; you know everything that has happened, and everything that will. Would the universe you created not be an intensely boring place? Surely, if you were to bother creating a universe, the one thing that you would want from it is unpredictability, inherent unpredictability, such as we seem to see at the quantum level. Such a universe would be interesting only if it were capable of producing unexpected novelty. And inherent unpredictability and novelty is just what we find. Is it not reasonable for an entity like that to make such a universe... a universe much as we see around us? Why could God not be using -- have designed -- natural mechanisms so as to produce it?

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?

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?
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’.
Like where?
Promises, promises.

TTFN, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

Hmmm. That may be Ed, or perhaps this is.

Oolon

MrDarwin

I've stayed out of this train wreck of a discussion but this little gem caught my eye:

Would those "modern birds" be ducks, or geese, or chickens, or wrens, or eagles, or hummingbirds, or ostriches? I'm among those waited with bated breath to hear Ed explain this one. Surely Ed has something with which to back up this claim, because otherwise, it would mean he's deliberately lying.

And I've always said that creationists who are backed into a corner will say absolutely anything, even if it means making things up out of thin air, to support their position. Thanks for proving it!

ps418

Ed, while I'm waiting for your to retract that whopper about modern birds coexisting with archaeopteryx and clarify your thus-far highly inconsistent and irrational homonid taxonomy, I want to expound a bit more on what you've said about the position of the foramen magnum in humans and australopiths.

Now take your trusty ruler back out. You'll be needing it.

First, the measurement you're making --from the anterior-most point of the cranium (the maxilla) to the posterior-most point-- is not very informative, because the shape of the skulls you are comparing are different. The australopiths and early homo are much more prognathic than H. sapiens, while the rear of the cranium is more expanded in Homo. It is true that, measured in this way, australopiths are in between H. sapiens and gorillas.

Second, note that you are generalizing inappropriately to the entire genus Australopithecus based on a single illustration of A. africanus, and generalizing to the entire genus Homo based on a single illustration illustration of H. sapiens. By doing this, you are implying that there is no within-genus variation in the placement of the FM. As someone like yourself --with experience in vertebrate anatomy-- should know, this is never a safe bet. Pause here to give yourelf a whack in the head with the ruler.

What you should be looking at instead is the placement of the FM relative to the landmarks on the basicranium, for instance the bitympanic line. When this is done, you can see that the anterior margin of the FM in the gorilla lies well behind the BTL, while in H. sapiens the anterior margin of the FM just meets the BTL. Interestingly, the australopith FM is not intermediately place relative to the BTL -- it is actually a bit more anteriorly placed than H. sapiens (e.g. Sts 5, ER 406; Dean and Wood, 1982). Give yourself another whack for that one. So, if your wish to make inferences about australopith locomotion based on the FM alone, you should infer that it was just as bipedal as H. sapiens, not that they were 'facultative' bipeds somewhere between quadrupedalism and bipedalism.

Also, ER 1813, which virtually all creationist paleoanthropologists would regard as an australopith or ape, despite being assigned to H. habilis, has a FM placement exactly the same as H. sapiens (Wood and Dean, 1982). And OH 24, which is also assigned to H. habilis, which is specimen E in Oolon's image above, and which you have already judged to be human, has an FM placement exactly like the australopiths.

Third, you said that the australopith FM "is still at the anterior of the skull." No, relative to the measure you're using --from the anterior-most of the maxilla to the posterior-most point of the skull, the australopith FM in the illustration is posteriorly placed. Give yourself final whack for that one.

Ref

Dean and Wood, 1982. Basicranial anatomy of Plio-Pleistocene homonids from East and South Africa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 59, 157-174.

Lugoba and Wood, 1990. Position and orientation of the foramen magnum in higher primates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81, 67–76.

Patrick

PS- Anyone have info on FM placement in other homonids, for instance ER 1470? I have a cite to retrieve on my next trip to the library (Lugoba and Wood), but if someone here knows, it would save me a trip.

Oolon Colluphid

:notworthy
I'll have a look in Aiello & Dean and Klein -- my only two likely to cover it -- tonight and let you know. A&D has some graphics about the FM position, and I think 1470 may have been one of the examples, but 'fraid I couldn't make head nor tail of it, all circles and line-linked points. If Ergaster's around, maybe she could decipher it for me? (It's in the chapter on cervical spine and support of the head.)

Oolon

ps418

Actually, I already consulted A&D, and ER 1470 isn't in the drawing you have in mind. Come to think of it, I dont recall seeing any "inferior view" of ER 1470, so it may be that the basicranium is not preserved. I don't have Klein, though, so let me know if you find something there.

Patrick

MrDarwin

What I don't understand is why anybody bothers to continue the discussion when somebody posts something like this. As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the discussion unless the person making such outrageous claims either backs them up somehow or admits their error. Why bother introducing any new information when your opponent won't bother to address what has already been presented?

ps418

You're not the only one who feels that way, obviously. It was obvious long ago that Ed has a fact-resistant force field surrounding himself, a veritable Morton's Demon. But I look at it a different way. In my view, people like Ed are invaluable, because they motivate me to check, recheck, clarify and reformulate my opinions and arguments. Whether Ed learns anything or not is almost beside the point -- we learn alot pointing out his errors.

Patrick

Jack the Bodiless

It might also provide a window into the sort of insanity that fuels the "creation science" movement in general.

I'm interested in tracking down the "primary liars": those who concoct the false statements that ignorant but otherwise decent creationists recite as honestly-believed "truths".

That's why I've asked where Ed is getting this stuff from. I have reason to believe that Ed is one of these people. If a particular piece of evidence would pose a problem for Ed's wordview, he will arbitrarily declare that it does not exist. There are NO transitional forms between X and Y (not merely "I don't know of any": they do NOT exist), even without Protoavis there ARE birds (and modern ones at that) with Archaeopteryx, the Bible WAS written by round-Earthers despite all evidence to the contrary, and so forth.

We have a live one here, folks.

Oolon Colluphid

Like, perhaps, the way to cure leprosy being:

1) Get a couple of birds.

2) Kill one.

3) Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one.

4) Use the live bird to sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times.

5) Let the living bird fly away.

6) Next, get a lamb.

7) Kill that.

8) Wipe its blood on the leper’s right ear, thumb, and big toe.

9) Sprinkle him or her seven times with oil, and wipe some of the oil on the aforementioned body parts.

10) Repeat eight days later.

11) Kill a pair of doves and offer them to the Lord.

(See Leviticus 14:2-32)

Yep, that’ll work.

This is obviously some strange usage of the word ‘acccurate’ (sic) I wasn’t previously aware of.

TTFN, Oolon