davidH

Haven't read the links yet, so will only be quick with this.

One of the most important "inbetween" pieces - that of ape to man.
How come there is no sure evidience of that? Surely there should many many fossils linking us but how come there aren't.

If you say Lucy is an example of this - have you seen pictures of Lucy's remains??!!

They are so uncomplete it is unbelievable! There are only a few pieces of skull, etc. etc,.
So infact does the interpretation of what Lucy was lie completely in man's hands? Does that explain why there are so many differing views?

How can you be sure that some of the fossils aren't those that have had harmful mutations and natural selection has eliminated them?

One last question ; how could the dinosaurs go extinct and yet more fragile smaller creatures survive? Doesn't that strike you as odd?

These are a few questions I have - but as yet I have to look at the links provided and will do that tomorrow.

Coragyps

Come on, David! Oolon and others have explained MANY TIMES now that natural selection doesn't always select the proud and flashy. The organisms best suited for the environment in which they find themselves are the ones most likely to survive and bear offspring. In the case of the end-Cretaceous calamity, whatever it was in detail, the land-based animals that were best able to pull through were small critters that, perhaps, could burrow and maybe feed off dead dinosaur parts. Some of them were apparently furry - most of us mammals are even today. The big guys were less fit for the environment at that particular time. The dinosaurs died: our ancestors lived. Some really "small and fragile" animals, like jellyfish, have lived through several major extinctions.
Yes, these explanations may sound like they're "made up" to you. But when you have tons of fossils and libraries of geology that show any rational student that 1) the dinosaurs did die out, 2) the mammals survived, 3) a huge asteroid hit the Yucatan within a geological eyeblink of 1) and 2), it should make that student wonder: "Hmm, I bet there's a connection here!"

Principia

I just wanted to point out that more accurately, natural selection is the process which confers *differential reproductive success* with respect to particular alleles in a gene pool. It is not entirely correct to say 'survival of the fittest' since sometimes a gene that is not entirely helpful (i.e. the carrier may not be 'fit') may help the individiual survive. One example that comes to mind is the high frequency of the HbS allele in environments in which malaria is rampant.

I just want to point out this inaccuracy because we would be as bad the Creationists are if we spread half-truths.

SC

Oolon Colluphid

(Hey folks, am I getting predictable or what? ) David, please could you tell us which of these pictures are of ape skulls, and which ones are human?



Yes thanks. Here they are:



Do you know the slightest thing about anatomy, David? Can you tell a flattened canine from an incisor? What, pray, do well-developed incisors or the wear patterns on the inside of a canine indicate about diet? Do you know what a humerofemoral ratio is? Do you know what a deep zygomatic arch indicates, or a sagittal crest?

Two points: Lucy may be remarkably complete for her age (c 3.2my), but she is very far from being the only Australopithecine specimen. And unless one understands rather more than you do about anatomy and palaeontology, you've got no way of realising just how much information can be gleaned from a single tooth, let alone all that lot above.

So please take a look at those skulls. Which ones are the ape ones, and which are the human ones? You reckon apes and humans are separate kinds. Show me the dividing line, and say why.

Oolon

ps418

David, would you mind answering a simple question? What features must be present in a fossil primate for it to qualify as an "in between"? And please give an operational definition that is based on observable anatomical-skeletal features. For instance, what dental, cranio-facial, and post-cranial features should we use to diagnose "in betweens"? Answer this question first, and then we can discuss whether such things exist or not.

Thanks,

Patrick

Valentine Pontifex

Of course I have seen pictures of Lucy. Why would you have thought otherwise? Indeed I have seen better than a picture but have seen the unreconstructed first generation cast of all her pieces.

There are a lot of differing views, but there is no different views of the basics like whether or not it was a hominid or whether or not she was bipedial amoung qualified experts. Indeed that this was a bipedial creature is really obvious seeing her (or actually her cast) in 3D. The famous picture that is reproduced in another response your claim simply does not do it justice. Probably because it is of her laid out flat on a table. There is enough in that skeleton to give the broad strokes of what she looked like. You mention that Lucy has very little of the skull. But we have that from other specimens. I rather complete cranium was discovered in the early 1990s. A baby's cranium was in the "First Family" found in the 1970s. A nearly complete skull was found in the Fall 2000 field season. A child's skeleton was found in 2000 that has the entire skull, the rib cage, shoulder blades, and spinal column and possibly more still in the rock matrix.
Gee we have thousands of specimens and why do certain mutations only appear in certain rocks. Plus you seem have a bizaire notion of mutations that fits a Hollywood productions and not reality. Sorry but a single mutation does not result in an entirely different kind of creature.
That question is outright dumb. Gee creatures like the dinosaurs are far more risk of extinction that those "more fragile smaller creatures." Extinction, especially in a mass extinction event, has nothing to do with who is stronger or bigger than who. In a disaster, it is better to be small for extremely obvious reasons like finding enough food to eat.

Valentine Pontifex

Re: Fossil Hominids

David mentions Lucy. I wonder why he does not mention Turkana Boy:



This 90% complete skeleton of a boy that is not a human being and yet so clearly allied with humans. If you want we can go through the un-"human"-like features of the skeleton.

Lets return to the australopithicines. Lucy and her species are not the only finds. You can learn about a rather recent find <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/littlefoot.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Notice that Little Foot's skull is complete and articulated and with a great deal of the postcrania known.

Here is a picture of a robust australopithecine skull from a great new hominid site in South Africa:


I have only given a tiniest fraction of the fossil evidence.

lpetrich

The Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction is noted for having a "fungal spike" -- a big increase in the concentration of fungus spores, as if fungi had been multiplying at that time. This is consistent with the mass-kill hypothesis, and it also shows that the Earth stayed warm enough for fungi to grow.

This suggests a combination of obscuration and greenhouse effect; the obscuration would kill much of the vegetation, and force much of the rest to stop growing and drop its leaves, while the greenhouse effect would keep it warm enough to decay.

The survivors on the land are small warm-blooded animals (mammals and birds at the time) and cold-blooded ones (invertebrates, frogs, salamanders, turtles, lizards, snakes, and crocodilians). These have in common having a relatively small appetite compared to big warm-blooded animals, which many dinosaurs apparently were. The small warm-blooded ones simply because they were small, and the cold-blooded ones because they did not have to continuously eat.

So what may have happened is:

Meteorite hits
Puts up lots of haze and CO2
Which darkens the Earth and keeps it warm
Which kills many plants and plant parts
Which deprives the animals of food
Which drives to extinction those with big appetites

Valentine Pontifex

Some more hominids.

Here is a different species of robust australopithecine:



Here is a recent skull that was published last year:


A gracile australopithicine:


A habiline fossil:


And another habiline:


I could go on for a long time.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: LordValentine ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex

How about a neandertal?