Ed

Huh? If they evolved to specialize in different things then they would no longer be the same species and would therefore no longer be their ancestor! Sorry daydreamer, but you are not making any sense. Maybe you have been daydreaming! Just kidding! The reason there are so many bird species living in the jungle is because there are so many niches available without overlapping. And NONE of them are the other's ancestor!

Quetzal

[Lurk mode off]

Whoa Nelly, you're waaay out there on this one Ed. You've forgotten some of your basic environmental science - assuming you ever knew any. Although I find it a bit odd, evidently you've never heard of Darwin's 14th finch (Pinaroloxias inornata). It's a classic example in a lot of the literature. Because of the spatial restrictions of its island home, it's unable to undergo complete speciation. (Remember the old s=ca^z rule of biodiversity? You ARE supposedly a wildlife biologist specializing in environmental impact assessments, right?). Juvenile finches "select" an adult whose behavior they emulate. There are finches who follow sandpipers, and eat snails and other shoreline crustaceans, there are finches who follow flycatchers and eat insects, there are finches who mimic warblers, etc. There are nectivore finches, seed eaters, fructivores, etc. These juveniles may follow a particular behavior for a few weeks or their entire lives. The key point is that the entire population interbreeds freely. IOW, they're all still P. inornata.

In what may well be a unique variant case of ESS, a small population of finches has apparently both solved the inter- and intra-specific competition dilemma based on limited resources AND neatly avoided the mutation catastrophe problem that would occur in the case of extreme micropopulation fragmentation due to the development of behavior-based reproductive barriers. IOW, the finches specialize in different things BUT REMAIN THE SAME SPECIES. Your assertion is utterly without foundation (que sorpresa ).

As to your second assertion: Yes, there are significantly more niches overall in a tropical rainforest (what's a jungle, btw?) - Rappaport's Rule applies, obviously. However, that begs the question of the fierce interspecific competition within this community at every level. The competition is quite apparent to anyone who's spent any time at all in the tropics. You can see intraspecific competition in the desperate "race for the sun" when a hole opens in the canopy. You can see interspecific competitition in rainforest adaptations of trees like the strangler fig (Ficus spp.) or parasitic orchids. You can see it in the mosaic (source-sink) distribution patterns among different populations of the same organism caused by niche competition, etc. In short, "over-lapping niches" are the rule in the tropics.

Ed, I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever been outdoors at all. What kind of EIAs do you perform, anyway?

[Edited several times to fix spelling. Sigh.]

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

Ed

Maybe, but it could also be a collective memory from the distant past of an actual event.

Quote:

lp: Also, a local flood can easily be imagined to be worldwide by someone not familiar with much of our planet's surface area. And how much of that area were the writers of the Bible familiar with? Not much.

Yes, some scholars think that the term "earth" in flood account refers just the inhabited part of the planet and not the entire planet, thereby being a "localized" flood. But there are other descriptions in the account only seem to fit a worldwide flood so I have not been convinced by the biblical evidence that the flood was local.


[b] I have just tried to show there is not strong conclusive evidence that there was NOT a worldwide flood. Actually just recently I read about some possible evidence for a worldwide flood. There are large caches of animal bones in what geologists call "rubble drift in ossiferous fissures." These have been found all over the world. The only reasonble explanation for this type of phenomenon is huge hydraulic action.

lpetrich

However, humanity had spread over much of this planet's land surface while having only Paleolithic technology, so this means a lot of area to flood.

I think I ought to have been clearer as to what I had had in mind by a local flood: flood of some river valley.

It would seem that the Bible is the only source that really counts for Ed -- the only way that something is meaningful for Ed is if it can be shown to follow from an interpretation of the Bible, it would seem.

And in the process, Ed, you've only illustrated your abysmal ignorance of geology. Yes, ignorance. Coupled with a remarkable talent for inventing specious "maybes" and hollow excuses. Such as claiming that you are not a geologist. And that you were not really advocating big-sediment Flood Geology after several pages of doing exactly that. And now this.

Mainstream geologists have concluded that the global form of Noah's Flood had never happened; Ed, explain to us why you think that they are wrong.

Which can be produced by LOCAL floods. I repeat, LOCAL floods, as in a flood of a river valley. And such fossil graveyards have been known about for a long time. Ed, I suggest that you read some of the literature on "taphonomy", which is the study of how fossils form and what gets fossilized. There are other mechanisms that can produce concentrations of fossils, such as swamps acting as "carnivore traps". Some big animal gets mired down and attracts some big carnivores, which in turn get mired down and attract some more big carnivores, etc. The La Brea Tar Pits of the Los Angeles area are a late-Pleistocene example of this effect.

And yes, some gigantic local floods have been known to happen, such as the late-Pleistocene Missoula floods and similar floods in the Altai mountains. But these were nothing like Noah's Flood -- and a wooden boat like Noah's Ark I imagine would easily be smashed into driftwood by one of those floods.

Ed

We can study the behavior of apes which have a very similar cranial capacity to australopithicines.

Quote:

dod: The vast majority of what goes on in the brain of a protohuman and a modern human are the probably the same. We take input from around the world and process it. Our eyes, noses, ears, skin, etc. take in data from the outside world and process it. We build up an internal model of the outside world from visual data so we can judge distance, speed, identify objects based on colour and shape, etc. We take in audio data and we identify different sounds and determine the direction the sound is coming from. We take in olfactory data and identify things according to smell. We can usually tell if something is edible by interpreting the smell. Our skin gauges ambient temperature and by feeling something we can judge the temperature, shape, texture, etc. of it. Blind people can identify coins by their shape and texture alone. All of this is pretty impressive on it's own. Humans, however, excel at linguistic skills and abstract reasoning.

Humans more than excel at language and abstract reasoning, they are the only creatures that can do such things. While chimps have been taught to simplistically use sign language, they have not used grammar and syntax correctly which are the fundamentals of true language skills.

Quote:

dod: All of this involves taking in information from the outside world and having our brain interpreting it. But this isn't uniquely human. Birds, dogs, even insects do most of the above. Some of them not as good as, but some of them do it FAR better than humans. Most "higher" animals are capable of interpreting the world mentally by interpreting data. This takes some fantastic mental skill. But does it take much more to develop abstract reasoning? Maybe a small change is all that's needed to develop human intelligence. Most of the groundwork has been laid. Until the genetic code is fully interpreted and we understand what genes do what in the human brain, than how is it possible to say either... 1) There are huge differences in the mental abilities of humans and protohumans.

See above.

Quote:

2) The genetic differences are greater than the genetic differences that allow for all the microevolution that creationism permits. Is the genetic difference between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus greater or lesser than the differences between a particular modern species and it's hypothetical ancestor on the ark? How can you say that the differences in intelligences couldn't have

Actually most of the evidence points to homo erectus and homo sapiens being the same species. I think they are both homo sapiens.

[b] I am not just referring to intelligence. Only humans have a true will, a conscience, abstract thinking.

lpetrich

Although that is certainly true, chimps' mental abilities are nothing to sneeze at; they can make nontrivial tools and they can recognize themselves in mirrors. And they even wage systematic warfare on each other.

I've seen the Turkana Boy fossil, and he both looks almost human below the neck and not-quite human above the neck. His skull has brow ridges, no forehead, and no chin sticking outward.

And in the places where H. erectus lived, we discover no evidence of such H. sapiens behavioral capabilities as painting on the walls of caves.

The two species seem more different than the wild members of:

Canis: wolves, coyotes, jackals

Equus: horses, donkeys, zebras

Panthera: lions, tigers, leopards

Is Ed such a big taxonomic lumper that he considers each of these three groups to be one species?

One must be able to look from the outside and work out the presence of these features; introspection is cheating, because the results of it must be communicated, and doing that depends on having high-level language skills, which may not be present.

And there is the question of what a "true will" is. If it is related to having a sense of self, then there is evidence that chimpanzees, orangutans, dolphins, elephants, and maybe gorillas have a sense of self -- at least if self-recognition qualifies as evidence of such a sense. However, self-recognition is absent from most of the animal kingdom, despite the numerous opportunities that some experimenters have presented.

As to having a conscience, there is some evidence of that in chimpanzees, which are known to choke back impolitic calls. This may only mean that they are able to suppress potentially-troublesome impulses, however. Again, that is rare away from the great apes.

As to abstract thinking, it is an interesting question how much chimpanzees are capable of doing, since they can make nontrivial sorts of tools. Yet again, this ability is rare outside of the great apes.

Happy Wonderer

How do we know? There is a lot about animal behavior that we don't understand. What are the measurable signs of a "true will" or a "conscience?"

Research on abstract thinking seems to support the hypothesis that dolphins, at least, are capable of it. I don't think you should dismiss Koko's abilities too lightly, either.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/marineanimalwelfare/bibliogr.htm" target="_blank">Dolphin intelligence?</a>

HW

Ed

I basically agree with the specifications put forth by anthropologists on the boundary between Australopithicine and Homo and Pongidae and Hominidae. Read any good book on the differences between these groups and I will basically go along with it. Evolutionary anthropologists and taxonimists acknowledge that there is a boundary only that it is not a impassable boundary as I do.

Quote:

OC: I also note that you say “the skeletal characteristics are closest to matching existing humans whose mental abilities and behaviors we empirically know to be human”. Mental abilities and behaviours are only properly known for fully modern Homo sapiens, our present species. Yet you said above (25/4) that you include “ancient” hominids in order to include all humans. So is it or is it not only living humans? It seems we should take into account inferred evidence about behaviours etc from the archaeological record too. Would you like to talk about habilis stone artefacts?

Sure, though as I stated before I believe the habilis fossils and associated artifacts are a mix of ape and human material.

Quote:

OC: Fine. The breeds of dog are related by descent with modification, but are still dogs. So there is no reason why this [1813] this [STS 5] or even this [‘Lucy’s Cousin’] cannot also be human. Funny how the older they are, the less human they are too, isn’t it? See above and also yesterday's post.

It depends on the classification. Since some modern aborigines have erectus features, are you saying that they are less human?

Quote:

OC: So your answer is, if it looks human enough (enough not defined), then it’s human. See above and also every damned post to you so far. Be specific on specifics.

See above about the boundary between australopithicines and homo.

Quote:

[Ref a flood at the time of Gondwanaland’s breakup, 100 million years bp] There is documentary and cultural evidence for a worldwide flood, ie almost all cultures have a story of a worldwide flood in their cultural memories. OC: Cultural memories dating back before there is any evidence modern mammal groups, let alone humans? I ask seriously: are you serious??

If the Christian God exists then such a thing is quite possible.

Quote:

Ed: Some christian geologists claim there is evidence for a worldwide flood, but not having read their books and not being a geologist, I cannot provide it. And at present no humans have been found in 10 myo rocks that I know of, though I could be wrong. And I will have to research the great ape one. Though at present of course there are no great apes in SA. OC: That’s fair enough . However, normal working geologists are sure the Christian ones you’re referring to are utterly wrong. (And I don’t think any creationist ones -- for it is only they -- say the flood was c100my ago; usually it’s more like 4000, though I could be wrong). You’re right, no humans have been found in 10myo rocks. And the only great apes in South America are Homo sapiens.

No, great apes belong to the family Pongidae, humans belong to the family Hominidae.

Quote:

OC: The flood is a major piece of potential conflict between science and the literal bible. But you cannot provide any evidence for its occurrence, nor can you say when it happened, nor answer how the flood might explain numerous facts about the fossil record (eg mud-grubbing trilobites found later / above free-swimming ones; Peter Sheldon’s trilobite sequences). Thus, the factual nature of a flood must be relegated to just another ‘maybe’. If the flood is a maybe, then maybe it’s a myth. If the flood is a maybe, then maybe so is Genesis 1 and 2. Whence this certainty of yours, Ed?

Actually I did present some evidence for the flood, ie huge jumbled piles of bones in certain areas all over the earth. See my post on the Flood thread. My certainty comes from my belief and experience that God is trustworthy and his word makes the claim that a worldwide flood occured.


[b] Australopithcine cranium size is very similar to chimp cranium size so it is a rational assumption that chimp and australopithcine behavior was similar.

lpetrich

Ed, please describe what you believe that boundary to be. Be specific. Provide at least a little bit of detail.

And if biologists decide that the taxon Hominidae is to include all the members of Pongidae, or vice versa, what will you then conclude? Will you conclude that our species and the great apes form a single "created kind"?

And don't laugh at such a possibility, O Ed. That has happened before:

Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions, walruses) is a subtaxon of Carnivora (dogs, cats, etc.) in the recent classifications I've seen.

Cetacea (dolphins, whales) is a subtaxon of Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates) in some recent classifications; Artiodactyla sometimes being renamed Cetartiodactyla.

The traditional classifications are partially based on rather obvious phenetic considerations; the newer ones, and Hominidae being made a subtaxon of Pongidae, are justified on cladistic grounds. And the success of doing cladistics is strong evidence of evolution.

And it is at least as possible that Ed is simply a brain in a lab that has fake sensory inputs calculated for it by some supercomputer complex.

A TOTAL non sequitur. See that thread for my response.

However, for all we know, Mr. G. could be a practical joker, and denying that could be "limiting God".

Ed

Due to the intelligent designer building in adaptability. What are the differences that evolution expects? Do you mean less apelike? Again you seem to be implying that Australian aborigines are more apelike because of their erectus characteristics. That is not very nice Oolon!

Quote:

OC: Also note that you ignored the main point I was making about WT 15000’s chin: It’s not that it recedes, it is that it lacks the characteristically human mental protuberance:

That is what a receded chin is.

Quote:

Ed: 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 [KNM-ER 1813] human. OC: Despite its cranial capacity of 510cc? More info on 1813 here.

Actually I stand corrected, Lubenow considers it a species of Australopithecus, I agree with that assessment.

Quote:

OC: Why is this creature not just what evolution anticipates? Why no mention in the bible of so many nearly-men and abnormal apes?

Why is that creature just what evolution anticipates? It doesnt mention nearly men because they didnt exist. And abnormal apes are irrelevant to its message, it is not a primatology text.

Quote:

Ed: Most anthropologists don't think a australopithicine could [grow to the height of ‘Turkana Boy’]. Oc: Sure. But he’s not an Australopithecine. How about an australopithecine’s descendants a hundred thousand generations on? Why might they not grow this tall? Let me remind you what selection can do:

That is not my statement, that is what anthropologists believe. Right, he is human, ie homo sapiens "erectus".

Quote:

Ed:I have already given you the dividing lines OC: Where? Indulge the slower ones in the class. Please repeat them.

see above.

Quote:

Ed:I can't give you any detailed measurements or such being I am not an anthropologist. So you merely trust that such measurements would vindicate you . Check your library for a copy of Aiello & Dean’s book. Meanwhile, here's a graph with some actual measurements:

Yes.

Quote:

OC: Why should it be that the earlier the fossil, the more it diverges from modern humans? Fossils are assigned to the same species when they differ from each other less than do members of modern species. H erectuses are all more like other erectuses than they are modern humans; habilises are all more like other habilises than they are erectuses, and so on. Yet the younger ones are more like the later species than earlier ones are. They are found in the evolutionarily expected chronological order. Please explain how creation expects this.

Adaptations to changes in the environment.


[b] So you cant refute my statement? I didnt think so.