MrDarwin

But have you actually tried it?

Coragyps

I really, really want one of you microbio folks to inoculate a plaster wall, or a garment, either woolen or linen, warp or woof, makes me no nevermind, with Mycobacterium leprae. Then incubate it and see if you get reddish or greenish strakes in it, whatever in the fuck strakes are. This would determine the accuracy of the biblical leprosy treatments without arousing the PETA people over shabby treatment of doves - I don't think that there's an anti-cruelty lobby for walls yet.

Protocols are in Leviticus 13 and 14.

Ed

I admit that there is a possibility that the flood story is in phenomenological language since it is an event that could impacted by the viewpoint of the observer. However, the emphasis on the universality of the flood in the terms used still convinces me of that fact. However I could be persuaded that it just appeared to be universal if more biblical evidence is discovered.

Quote:

jtb: What about the Resurrection? Is that written in "phenomenological language"?

No, because it is an event that is not affected by the viewpoint of the observer.

Quote:

jtb: Perhaps a demonstration of what IS and IS NOT "phenomenological language" is in order.

It generally depends on the words used and the event spoken of, ie can it be affected by the viewpoint of the observer and etc. However, I am not a language expert but generally I can recognize it.

Ed

Not for long! See Lob's last post! It appears to be a concession of defeat.

Ed

The universality of homeotic genes is supposed to be due to their presence in a common ancestor, but the preponderance of evidence suggest the common ancestor lacked the features that those homeotic genes now supposedly control.

Quote:

jtb: (bilateral to radial symmetry in echinoderms...) Ed: Because chordates (bilateral symmetry) supposedly evolved from echinoderms (radial symmetry). This is basic evolutionary biology. A subject that His Eddianness has a lot to learn about. Chordates did NOT evolve from echinoderms. Both evolved from a sort-of-chordate ancestral deuterostome that also produced hemichordates (acorn worms). This common ancestor was bilaterally symmetric, a feature shared by all of Deuterostomia except for adult echinoderms; echinoderm larvae are bilaterally symmetric. One theory I've seen goes like this: Many marine invertebrates do indirect development, where the adult is not much like the larva. In "Type I" indirect development, the larva grows a tail that becomes the adult animal. However, echinoderm larvae grow not one, but five tails, and these become radially arranged. For more, see Early Animal Evolution -- yes, about the Precambrian.

I stand corrected. But my statement about the Cambrian explosion still stands.

Jack the Bodiless

But not scientific evidence, of course.
That would apply only to eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after the resurrection, and only a handful of those are mentioned in the Bible. For everyone else, the truth or falsehood of those claims is just a viewpoint.
You think you can win an argument by a display of unrelenting stupidity? Curious. It was unnecessary for him to continue, because HE (like everyone else here) had defeated YOU.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a preponderance of evidence that the common ancestor lacked ALL the features that hox genes now control?

There is a preponderance of evidence that a common ancestor with hox genes entirely lacked limbs or other protuberances, for instance?

Present this evidence.
Which statement is that? The statement that there is "no scientific explanation" has been refuted.

Oolon Colluphid

Patrick, I checked in Klein (which is a marvellous book, btw), but not a lot about 1470 in relation to its FM. You may be right about the basicranial preservation, since I’ve now seen drawings of it from all perspectives except below.

Klein does however have plenty on the 1470-1813 'sexual dimorphism vs habilis & rudolfensis' problem though. Personally, I'm not sure how much of a problem it really is. After all, there's not a massive number of individuals to get a picture from. The dimorphism may, to my mind, not be sexual, but simply a range of variation within the species. We modern humans, after all, can be 5'4'' or 6'2'' without being abnormal.

(But then, these folks know rather better than I: by the end of looking, my brain was overloaded with supraorbital sulcuses, basicranial pneumatisation, ruff-somethingorother (cresting) and so on. There's only so much talk of occipital condyles I can take at one sitting .)

Which reminds me of another problem for Ed with his classification. Sure, species have a range of morphology. But he would have us believe that every single fossil of early Homo -- the ones he does consider human -- is from a severely abnormal individual. All of them are prognathus, all of them have brains far smaller than any modern human, and so on.

Given the rarity of preservation anyway, what are the chances that all of the fossils we find would happen to be from only one extreme end of the bell-curve?

And what's more, all these features are in the direction of making these 'aberrant' individuals more similar to Australopithecines... while all of the 'aberrant' apes happen to be aberrant in the direction of being more human. Strange.

Two books (that I’ve been meaning to get hold of for ages) that may have more info on KNM-ER 1470 are Larsen’s Human Origins: The Fossil Record and Tattersall & Schwartz’s Extinct Humans. Have you seen either of those Patrick? Larsen especially looks useful.

It may also be worth mentioning what Aiello and Dean note: that the position of the foramen magnum is not necessarily conclusive evidence, in and of itself, of the mode of locomotion. Which is a double-edged sword: it means that alone, it is not conclusive proof of obligate bipedality, though it is fairly indicative; but it also means that Ed’s waffle about facultative vs obligate bipedality based on the FM position holds no water.

Taken together with pelvic structure, femur-humerus ratio, foot anatomy and the rest, though, there is no doubt about bipedality from the A’piths onward *. Basically, from afarensis on, on the ground these critters were bipeds. That they retained significant arboreal abilities too is neither here nor there. In fact, it’s hardly surprising: on the ground, they would not have been very quick, so the ability to get up a tree fast would be something of an advantage.

* Ed however will probably doubt it. Given a mirror, he’d probably doubt the evidence of his own eyes that he has an arse unless the bible tells him he's got one. As someone has said recently elsewhere here, you can lead a creationist to evidence, but you cannot make him think.

Cheers, Oolon

Ed

My measurement provides the same information and makes the same point.

Quote:

jtb: And do you actually know what the terms "facultative bipedalism" and "obligate bipedalism" mean? "Faculative" bipeds have the facility to walk upright, "obligate" bipeds are obliged to walk upright. Try walking on all fours, with your hands and feet (not your knees) on the ground, and you'll see that the problem is limb length, not the position of the foramen magnum.

No, with a basal FM the neck muscles are required to do much more work in order to keep the head in a position to look forward. But with a FM at the anterior of the skull the muscles do not have to work as hard to hold the head up to look forward when walking on fours.

Quote:

jtb: Do you now regard the australopithecines as "fully human" due to the position of the foramen magnum? Their brains were no larger than chimp brains! ED: No, see above. jtb: Good. Therefore you cannot cite a lack of pre-australopithecine fossils as a "problem".

Well, they are not a problem for the origin of humans but they are a problem for the origin of australopithicines.

Quote:

jtb: Incorrect. There are at least TWO explanations that I'm aware of. One, that the evolution of the Hox genes made it easy for diverse body plans to appear at this stage. Two, that the formation of hard body parts (and, hence, more fossils) became easier due to a change in the chemical composition of seawater at this time. Both could be correct, of course. Ed: There is no empirical evidence that Hox genes even existed at that time since we do not have fossil DNA. jtb: No, we don't have fossil DNA. How is this relevant to the validity of the theory?

Because you are assuming what you are trying to prove, ie evolution. It is called circular reasoning.

Quote:

Ed: Any evidence for the seawater assertion? jtb: DID CHANGES IN SEAWATER CHEMISTRY PLAY A ROLE IN THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION?

Maybe, maybe not.

Quote:

jtb: Besides, the Cambrian explosion doesn't help the cause of Biblical creationism anyhow (not even the Old-Earth variety). Not a single creature mentioned in the Bible appeared in the Cambrian explosion: no mammals, no birds, no reptiles, no fish, no land plants, no insects, nothing at all. Every single creature in the Bible evolved much later. The Cambrian explosion does not fit with any of the Genesis "days". Ed: Fraid so, they fit perfectly with Day 5. jtb: No, they do not. On Day 3, God creates grass, herbs and trees. These came AFTER the Cambrian Explosion.

No, there may have been blue green algae before the CE. These are generic terms used for ALL plants. And remember there are overlaps in the ages of creation.

Quote:

jtb: On Day 5, God creates birds and whales. These came AFTER the Cambrian Explosion. God also creates "every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind": i.e. all marine organisms. Most of these, including ALL fish, came AFTER the Cambrian Explosion.

Most of the organisms in the CE were marine. And remember the overlap.

Quote:

jtb: On Day 6, God creates land animals. These came AFTER the Cambrian Explosion, but BEFORE the birds and whales created on Day 5, and BEFORE the grass on Day 3. Again, why do you bother to post easily-refuted nonsense?

See above about overlap.

Jack the Bodiless

Ed, why are you digging up old posts? (even older than usual, I mean: you were apparently catching up). Are you going into reverse to avoid addressing your lie about modern birds with Archaeopteryx?
No, it does not. Due to the position of the jaws relative to the rest of the skull, the back teeth are further forward in the australopithecines than in modern humans, increasing the gap between them and a basal foramen magnum. This has already been pointed out to you.
Correct. And the australopitheicines had a basal foramen magnum. But this does not prevent them climbing trees too, just as modern humans can climb trees.
No, it isn't. Learn some logic, Ed. Nobody has ever claimed that evolution is true BECAUSE of the existence of Hox genes in the Cambrian Explosion. It was YOU who erroneously claimed that there was "no scientific explanation", and I provided two. So you were wrong (again). That's it.
Nope, "these are generic terms used for ALL plants" is a lie invented by Ed. And "there are overlaps in the ages of creation" is ALSO a lie invented by Ed, therefore there is nothing to "remember".
Again, this "overlap" is entirely non-Biblical, a lie invented to cover the undeniable fact that the sequence is wrong.

Oolon Colluphid

Correct... sort of. And the australopithecines had basal FMs, which suggests bipedality. So what’s the problem?

But as I said above, the precise position of the FM is not a certain guide. Camels among others, for instance, have an dorsally / posteriorly positioned FM, yet they hold their heads up. So an anterior FM does not prove the mode of locomotion one way or the other; it does however support bipedality when combined with other stuff we know about these hominids. And this means that a somewhat posterior FM does not preclude obligate bipedality.

I’ll run that one by you again slowly. A foramen magnum more forward than in (other) apes implies more bipedality than them. But within that range, its precise position does not mean that the owner could not be obligately bipedal. Combine with a forward FM the humerofemoral ratio (ie comparatively longer legs and shorter arms, so that your bum is in the air if you’re on all fours), anatomy of the foot (eg adducted hallux -- ie big toe aligned with the others, giving better leverage -- it’s a second class lever, btw, so having all the toes tgether increases the mechanical advantage) and pelvis, and the rest, though, and what you get is the anatomy of something that went about on two legs on the ground.

An intriguing aside on foot anatomy: the Laetoli prints show a moderately adducted hallux. It turns out that in modern humans who habitually climb trees and do not wear shoes, adduction of the big toe is also only moderate!

Did afarensis and co wear shoes? Nope. Did they climb trees? Yep, as shown by hand anatomy eg curvature and squarish cross-section of the phalanges (finger bones), as well as the logic of being a slow biped. Were they obligate bipeds? Yep. There’s no reason why not that we know of -- unless Ed knows differently, of course -- and plenty of reasons to think they were.

TTFN, Oolon