SmashingIdols

[Moderator, if this is out of place to ask this question here, please let me know, I will open a new thread]

Ed, I have a Noah's ark question for you!

According to the bible Noah took a pair of each species. Every [non-aquatic] species?

What did they eat after they hit land?

The reason I ask is my wife is an amateur zoologist, and she remarked - "there is not a proper balance of predator to prey populations, the predators would die, and then (eventually) the prey as well - due to overpopulation, disease, etc." To a naturalist there would have to be many prey to each predator.

This question begs to be answered - what exactly did these animals eat, and if it was each other (the predators) or their prey (a singular pair) how on earth was there anything left to breed?

Quetzal

[lurk mode off
SmashingIdols: Excellent question!! There's been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about what the critters ate while ON the ark, but I haven't seen the one about what they ate OFF the ark for awhile. Ed said he's a wildlife biologist, so he should be able to answer that one scientifically from his own field.

[lurk mode on]

Hey! That's my coke! Give it back!

Oolon Colluphid

Excellent question SmashingIdols. I do feel it would be better in a new thread (as would any new questions for Ed) as this thread is so long and diverse already. Could you start one with this?

Thanks, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

So because we don’t know about their biochemistry, genetics or intricacies of physiology, we can deduce nothing about them, despite having their skeletal (and hence muscular and to some extent vascular) anatomy? We’re lumping them together when they shouldn’t be? Science is about basing inferences on what we can tell, on all the evidence we can obtain. Your argument is like saying that because we don’t know exactly what went on at the heart of the <a href="http://users.erols.com/nbeach/eleusis.html" target="_blank">Eleusinian Mysteries</a>, they were not religious events.

You think that, given just the skeletons of a wolf and a thylacine, anatomists would put both in the canidae? No dog has a tail that tapers from the hind quarters. Would there be no sign, skeletally, of the total absence of the webbing that hold a dog’s toes together for running, nor of the fusion of the thylacine’s interdigital pads? Would the fact that a thylacine’s limbs are more similar in structure to cats such as leopards have no bearing? That a dog’s limbs are lengthened in the wrist and ankle, unlike a thylacine’s? Would the thylacine’s dozens and dozens of similarities to marsupials be ignored?

Really? Please explain how. I’ve found his e-mail addy, I’ll happily ask him for clarification.

Do I sense another ad hoc argument coming on...?

What about the ones that do have living representatives, like your good self?

Ah, I see...

There is also the possibility that you are an arrogant whatsit for thinking that a trawl of the internet means you know better than people such as <a href="http://pondside.uchicago.edu/oba/faculty/hopson_j.html" target="_blank">James Hopson</a>. Maybe you do. Perhaps you’d like to ask him about it?

Have you ever heard the term ‘irrefutable hypothesis’? This is a non-argument. Sure, it’s possible, but we can’t tell about that. Based on what we do know, there’s no reason at all to doubt that the therapsida were the reptile-mammal transition in action.

Is it not odd that the jaw-joint to ear-bones sequence in them is mirrored in modern mammalian foetal development?

Are you referring to the mitochondrial DNA analyses (Roush 1997, Science 277:1436)? You know what that did show? That lungfish are our closest gilled relatives.

Anyone know of any news on this?

Did it refute one particular hypothesis? Probably. Did it refute evolution? Not in the slightest. Your point is nothing more than yet another 'maybe'.

TTFN, Oolon

lpetrich

And how did you figure that out, O Ed?

And what reason might there be for suppoing that to be the case, O Ed?

This does not explain why there are lots of ichthyosaurs in Mesozoic rocks and only in Mesozoic rocks and lots of cetaceans in Cenozoic rocks and only in Cenozoic rocks -- even though ichthyosaurs and dolphins are much alike in overall appearance, physiology, and preferred food and habitat, at least as can be determined from the fossil records.

One concludes from this that ichthyosaurs had gone extinct at the end of the Mesozoic, and that cetaceans evolved afterward, converging on ichthyosaurishness as they did so.

Also, no live trilobites have ever been found, despite live examples of other presumed-extinct creatures having been discovered in the ocean depths.

MrDarwin

I'd also like to point out that several extinct groups of organisms--e.g., trilobites, graptolites, and conodonts--were among the most common, most diverse, and most widespread, and most easily fossilized marine creatures at the time they were alive. And yet not one of any of these organisms made it into the same fossil beds as any whales! Is it magic, or is it just barely, slightly, remotely, vaguely, conceivably possible that whales appeared sometime after these groups had become extinct?

This has nothing to do with evolution; it's simply a matter of what creatures were alive in the oceans, and when. The simplest explanation that geologists and paleontologists have come up with--and can I stress enough that the conclusion is independent of evolution?--is that these creatures lived during completely different periods in the earth's history. Now, is there any possibility that geologists and paleontologists have just a little smidgeon of competency in the fields that they study for a living?

Ed

Not much more. Key areas of the skull are severely damaged.

Quote:

OC: and there are many other H habilis fossils. The people who spend their lives studying these things have no doubt that habilis is not a modern human. To take just one obvious feature, none of the habilis skulls have a cranial capacity near that of modern humans: OH 24: just under 600cc OH 13: 673cc OH 7: estimated 674cc (it was an adolescent) OH16: 638cc KNM-ER 1813: 510cc This is what we'd expect from evolution.

As I stated before, many of the habilis fossils are actually probably apes.

Quote:

OC: Again, what is the difference? Where do you draw the line? Ed: I already explained how, see my post to your first pictures. OC: You mean this? Ed: As I told rufus, cranium size and shape, size and shape of the jaws among other things, not being an anthropologist I dont know all the criteria. But generally any fossil classified in the genus Homo, I consider human. OC: In other words, the differences are subtle morphology. Stuff that can be the result of 'microevolution', as with the dog skulls -- only to a much lesser degree than with those. And you did not say why there is a line to be drawn.

If we had the soft tissues and were able to watch their behaviors the differences would be far more than subtle. The reason why a line is to be drawn is to obtain an accurate picture of ancient life.


[b] See above about soft tissues and behaviors.

lpetrich

Which reminds me of how different creationists draw the human/ape boundary line in different places in the hominid fossil record.

And what's worse, I've yet to see any creationist try to analyze these different viewpoints to try to puzzle out who's right -- as a real scientist would.

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Erm, "not much more than a tooth"?







So tell me Ed, which ‘key areas’ are so severely damaged that we cannot tell whether it is ape or human? Assuming basic bilateral symmetry, it looks pretty complete to me, especially considering it’s nearly 2 million years old. You are saying that we cannot tell anything about this creature? Why is saying that there's not much more than a tooth not a stupid dodge?

Please say which ones. And you still haven’t said why you think so. Why do you think you know more about hominid anatomy than those who, studying this stuff professionally in the glare of peer review, think that they are all Homo habilis?

Reordering this for coherence:

Sure, we don’t have the soft tissues. But these can be substantially reconstructed from the skeleton: See <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0120455919/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Aiello & Dean (1997): An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy</a>. Behaviour, of course, is entirely speculative.

But we are not talking about soft tissues etc. Are you saying we can know nothing about a creature from its skeletal remains? We cannot know about the details of its endocrine systems or how its brain was wired up. Here is what we can and do know: the differences between the skeletal anatomy of these creatures is a matter of subtle morphology. This is PRECISELY what evolution expects. Since the skeletons ARE what evolution predicts, claiming that the major differences are in something that we can’t know about is an irrefutable hypothesis, a pathetic rebuttal and a remarkably stupid dodge, even for you.

[ref the differences being subtle morphology]
No, dingbat, why there is a sufficient difference between something like <a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts5.html" target="_blank">STS 5</a> or <a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts71.html" target="_blank">STS 71</a>, and <a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html" target="_blank">KNM-ER 1813</a> and <a href="http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/oh24.html" target="_blank">OH 24</a> (or wherever it is you do want to draw the line), that you can be certain they are not related, and so divided into separate ‘kinds’. I can’t believe you didn’t understand that, so your comment is anther stupid dodge.

Once again: what are the differences that constitute the reason for putting these things in separate kinds.

Oh, and don’t forget that, according to you, a kind roughly equates to the taxonomic group Family. Want me to show you how different things within the same family can be?

TTFN, Oolon

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Ed

Maybe the lower range but definitely within the human range. As creation expects.

Quote:

OC: And where’s its chin? Ed: I have met people with less of a chin than that! OC: Oh dear. It is not that the mandible 'receeds'; modern humans also have a ledge of bone that forms the chin. KNM-WT 15000 does not have this: Do these folks you’ve met also have such protruding upper jaws too?

Yes, some of them.

Quote:

Ed: And the cranium is relatively large compared to an ape's. OC: And far smaller than a modern human’s. No, it is definitely within the modern or ancient human range. OC: LOL! Why do you need to include "or ancient"?

To include all humans.

Quote:

OC: No, it is definitely not within the modern human range, unless Turkana boy were a dwarf. (He was 5’3’’, and would have been around 6’ when fully grown.) See The volume of a human brain. At around 900cc, it is well below the modern average of about 1400cc. Maybe, to be very charitable, borderline.

I am not referring to the average, I am referring to the range and he is definitely within it.

Quote:

Ed: Homo erectus is definitely human OC: Yet earlier ones have some distinctly non-modern-human features, such as cranial keeling, relatively small thoracic spinal canal diameter, smaller cervical and lumbar swellings, as well as smaller cranial capacity. [Edited to add: see also this thread on H erectus's teeth.] All of which is what evolution expects. Ed: And all with the human range. OC: Of course the differences are subtle. The point is, they’re differences to modern humans. And do you know what sagittal keeling is? Here’s an erectus skullcap with it: H erectus specimens such as this one also show projecting, bar-like brow-ridges, a sloping forehead, a low cranial vault height, and a broad cranial base.

And according to your excellent article you linked below, there are some modern aborigines that also have those characteristics so definitely within the human range.

Quote:

Ed: According to Neanderthal expert Dr. Erik Trinkaus has said that there is virually no difference in cranial morphology between neanderthals and homo erectus. OC: Even if true, so? Are there also no differences between neanderthalensis and sapiens skulls? Or between early erectus and habilis? The experts can tell them apart, and you are no expert. The differences, as evolution expects, are subtle, but real. Also, I am familiar with Trinkaus and Shipman’s Neanderthal book, and don’t recall this being mentioned. Can you supply a reference please?

Creation expects microevolutionary subtle differences. The quote comes from a personal communication with Marvin Lubenow.

Quote:

OC: Is it not also curious that a site with which you may be familiar, Jesus, Dinosaurs and More!, says exactly the opposite of what you claim? This page there says: quote: Some people believe that Homo erectus is a smaller version of Neanderthal man. It is not. Neanderthals were true humans, and Homo erectus is a complex ape. This page will show some of the differences in [sic] the two. So which is it Ed? Is erectus merely modern human or not? (Answer: it is not. It is just as evolution predicts.)

Just as there are poor evolutionist researchers so there are poor creationist researchers and I think Marvin Lubenow's research is far superior to that website. He has done research on fossil data for over 25 years. As far as whether erectus is 100% human see your article you linked below, everything in it points in that direction.

Quote:

Ed: And as far as your teeth website, the speed of human organ growth is based on nutrition so that article is irrelevant to establishing relationships between erectus and apes. OC: Well the authors of that paper don’t seem to think it’s nothing but nutritional difference, and they are anthropologists and oral biologists. Maybe you should take it up with them. On second thoughts, don’t bother; I have emailed Christopher Dean for his thoughts on your assertion. Meanwhile, I note that the article (can anyone get at the full thing?) is not about showing a relationship with apes. It is about there being differences between erectus and apes... and modern humans.

Yes, but the whole point is to show erectus intermediary between humans and apes which is the same thing.

Quote:

Ed: homo erectuslike skulls have been found in populations of Australian aborigines only 10,000 years old. OC: Sure, could be, if the multiregional hypothesis is correct. References please. You have evidence that these skulls are the ancestors of the aborigine population in question? That’s quite some evidence, if you can provide it. A test of the multiregional versus African erectus / ergaster out-of-Africa. Come on, let’s see it! Ed: A.G. Thorne and P.G. Macumber, "Discoveries of late Pleistocene Man at Kow Swamp, Australia, Nature, 238(11 August 1972). OC: Thanks. Again, Nature, and a very old issue at that. Does anyone have access to the article? Meanwhile, see this article, which, despite emphasising the erectus-like features of the Kow Swamp material, stresses at the start that: quote: This discussion will not involve whether the Australian Kow Swamp fossils are Homo erectus. They are not and no scientists presently would say otherwise. [Emphasis in original]

Thanks for the excellent article! Actually despite the disclaimer the entire article demonstrates that very fact!

Quote:

OC: Also, not that it matters, this does not show that the modern aborigine populations are descendants of the fossil ones.

Again despite your disclaimer, the excellent article demonstrates that very fact!

Quote:

Ed: Also in 1996 paleontologist Carl C. Swisher of the Berkeley Geochronology Center redated Java Man and instead of the expected hundreds of thousands years, a newer technique based on the decay of uranium yielded an age of 27,000 to 53,000 years. Which means that they were living in Java with "modern" humans. OC: So what? How is that different from more than one species of Australopithecine coexisting? Or with having both blackbirds and thrushes in a garden simultaneously? How does that make any difference to evolution?

But if they occupy the same ecological niche, and they do, then they cannot be ancestral to humans. It in fact implies that they are just different looking homo sapiens like your dog skulls.

Quote:

Ed: The above skull [presumably KNM-ER 1813] is extremely damaged and distorted so it cannot be as clearly differentiated OC: Not by you, apparently. The people who study these things seem to manage. Take a look at the alternative views of it above. If one knows enough about anatomy, there is plenty there by which to judge it.

Well sometimes the more you "study" something the more it seems to "fit" your "theory". But if I was forced to make a decision, I would call it human.

Quote:

Ed: however, the skeleton associated with it (KNM-WT 15000) OC: Oh, sorry, you mean WT 15000. What on earth do you mean by damaged and distorted then??

It looks like it was crushed by the layers above and below it.

Quote:

Ed: was 5.5 feet tall and was only a 13 year old boy so he would have grown probably to 6 feet, only 100% humans could grow that tall. OC: Says who? You? Your ideological colleagues think that a "complex ape" could.

Most anthropologists don't think a australopithicine could.

[b] I have already given you the dividing lines, I can't give you any detailed measurements or such being I am not an anthropologist. But generally except for homo habilis, I think the evidence points to all the homos being actually just different-looking homo sapiens. See your article about erectus. And the dog skulls show that creatures can have highly variable skulls and yet still remain the same species and not be ancestral to each other.