I pay the 35 bucks a year to be a member of NCSE. If you don't want religiotards slipping superstitious nonsense into public school science class, as they are still trying to do, please support NCSE. They're our last line of defense.
Damn... Just listening to her speak, you can tell how brilliant she is, and she is such a good, clean speaker. God help us... This man who's talking to her is just plain ridiculous... And her answers are so conscise and amazing... God i hope there are more people like her in America.
Why do you say that? Australia is consistently in the top few in the world for public education, while America always ranks lower than many 3rd world nations...
Listen to the scientists. Mutations result in a loss of information in the genome. Read J. C. Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of Genome. Sanford has 25 genetic patents, and is the inventor of the gene gun. He thoroughly refutes the belief that evolution results from "good" mutations selection by nature. There are many reviews of Sanford's book on Amazon.
If you think evolutionary theory is a "lie" then you have not studied it. Please do, really. Check talkorigins(dot)org for basic information.
.
The theory says *nothing* about the origin of life and *nothing* about god or religion. You can believe in a religion and accept the scientific evidence for evolution at the same time.
Eugenie Scott is my hero. She can stand up to any creationist and does so whenever it is vital for her to do so (school boards, courts). She is a defender and source of the one advantage that nobody can take away from someone else, their education.
To bad the questioner has an ulterior motive (his personal religious view).
@pbaylis1 Can't get enough can you? All the evidence in the world points toward evolution, to the point that science and medicine are improved based upon models it predicts, and in that same period of time not one shred of evidence has been procured, despite massive effort, to raise creationism beyond the level of "dangerous superstitious pseudoscience". Seriously guy, you are a grossly misinformed nutjob.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, it is just evolution. Only ignorant fools that don't know what they are talking about use those terms.
It is like saying going from being a baby to being elderly person is impossible and "macro-aging", while going from an infant to toddler is possible and "micro-aging".
Then some idiot claims, you don't have proof for toddler to teen! Well, I would video tape aging 80 years, but that is unreasonable to actually ask someone to do.
Ohhh, here we go again. Look, I have no answer to people like you who try to take what we all know about evolution and try to extrapolate it into a theory of the origins of life. Please spare me and everybody else on this forum.
Natural selection has been proven. But extrapolating natural selection into a theory that accounts for all life in the universe is the big con. That path leads to abiogenesis, which you wouldn't touch with a ten foot barge pole.
@pbaylis1 Yes, well, I didn't intend to advance a proof of the origin of life. Perhaps I misread the intent of your post. However, far from hesitating to touch it, I think abiogenesis is a fascinating subject and should be embraced with passionate discourse. It's wide open to a thousand hypotheses.
I should have said: most atheists I've talked to try to avoid a discussion on abiogenesis and find some way to separate evolution from it, like that's not really where all paths lead if you accept a macro-ised version of natural selection to account for leaps across species.
@pbaylis1 Well, I believe I see from where your frustration arises. First, religion is irrelevant. I doubt it is only Atheists who tell you abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution. Any biologist, or lay person versed in biology, would tell you the same. Second, abiogenesis is not part of ToE. It is a necessary condition, but the theory does not include that question. Third, speciation is not typically a leap, it is a slow walk along divergent paths from a common starting point.
OK, let's call it speciation. By extrapolating natural selection into a theory of life via a long slow walk along divergent paths from a common starting point (nothing), one tries to have one's cake and eat it to. True scientists, without any agenda, are completely open to all posibilities. Atheists, on the other hand, profit from the confusion.
@pbaylis1 Well now you're just being obtuse. You've got it set firm in your head that abiogenesis absolutely must be part of any discussion on ToE, so there's no getting past that. Until you can get over that basic misconception, you will not be able to intelligently discuss either topic.
We have never seen anything created! Also, since every living thing has a flaw, then why hasn't the creator made anything new. If He can do it once then why not do it agagain? This is once reason why creationism cannot be considered science. You can not test it, repeat it, or observe it. So keep it out of the classroom.
As for their "how did life begin?" non-sense, that has nothing to do with evolution.
@Hopeful71 A M E N. I haven't met a single creationist that has actually done his or her research. They think they're doing research, but all they're doing is reading propaganda sites.
every "weakness" they identify has been completely rejected by the scientific community. i'll bet they cannot find a single piece of research (published in a respected biology journal) that argues in favour of their pseudo-weaknesses in the last 10 years.
you can't force your own ignorance into the school curriculum. the answer isn't ruining their education, its getting one of your own.
Having to waste your time with trying to teach brain-dead hicks basic science? Wow, it must be boring! And what's wrong with America, are they stuck in the dark ages still?
@winterstellar Not all of the US. Just the zealots. Unfortunately, the zealots have a lot of control and pull in the places that count. I look forward to the day, if it ever happens, when our education system isn't mucked about by zealots playing at science.
@winterstellar And what is wrong with YouTube, with brain-dead trolls taking an example of a few uneducated thousands, and assuming the backwardness of an entire nation of hundreds of millions of people, a nation that is a world leader in science and engineering? Let me think, The National Center for Science and Education, um, which "Nation" is it referring to, I wonder?
@Darusdei I don't know how you derived your question from my statement, but yes, having good institutes of higher education does make a population smarter.
man what a waste of time for a scientist of her stature. this is why america is falling behind the rest of the world. in many other countries, the scientists are either doing science or teaching science, not explaining basics to religious zealots.
@mynameisweiner it is true . An addition burden for scientists in America is they have to defend the idea of science to baccy chewing mono eyebrowed bible thumpers before they even get to do science. Dahno bird my arse ! Go to school tractor boy ! Can you see the look on her face at the end ?
@mynameisweiner I know. This was really depressing to see. But sooner or later the faith-heads will loosen their cold dead grip on this issue and lay waste to the trash heap of history.
The fact that this was going on in Texas should be reassuring though. Since this was in Texas its basically like a scared animal taking refuge in the last corner it has left to hide in.
@mynameisweiner - yes, it's is a terrible waste of her intellectual energy, but there are so many ignorant and just plain stoopid folks out there who need her patient, clear explanations (not that it does any good in many cases). She's unflappable and kindly in her thoughtful responses - a gentler side to the scientific worldview than say, a prickly Dennett. Thank gawd for Eugenie Scott.
The same Texas school board that has been wise enough to accept the wisdom of science as represented by Dr. Scott, has also just made similar progress in rejecting FROM THE LEFT a not so dissimilar challenge in the realm of Social Studies, thank goodness.
"These people" didn't want Thomas Edison and Golda Meir in history books and DID want "Rap" equated with Beethoven!!!
The 'weaknesses', the 'flaws', and the 'controversies' of evolution, as she mentions, consist of the details of the evolutionary process, the dominant driving forces (natural selection vs random mutation, etc), lineage, etc. It is not what most of these people seem to think, that the whole premise of evolution is 'on the verge of being disproven'.
If u don't have the time to spend years researching this primate subject. Then at least get a hold of Kenny Tewy on you tube he's on you're side but he is very knowledgeable about the so called human ancestry, he can help u.Tell him I sent you. He can send u tons of papers. I don't agree with him but I respect him because he has dedicated a lot of time actually trying to figure it out academically. Instead of relying on hearsay. Were going to have to agree to disagree. good luck man seriously.
I have incorrectly called the big toe a "thumb on the foot"... English is my second language so sometimes I make these mistakes, at least I have a valid excuse :). The point still stands:
1. You are yet to explain why the skull of A. afarensis rests on TOP of the spinal column if she was a knuckle-walker.
2. Nor have you addressed the lack of an opposable big toe*.
These two adaptations alone are significant toward bipedal locomotion and you failed to address the last two references.
To answer your last question the skull was not resting on the spine all of these fossils were fragmented some pieces were found miles away its a mish mash of bones and priori assumptions that make this game. When an intact skeleton is found I will go were ever the evidence leads. Again at some point we have to agree to disagree. take care. Adios amigo y buena suerte
I never said anything about feet. Don't you know the difference between toe's and thumbs you said the thumbs were pointed outwards. Listen if you're really interested in the subject of evolution take a take a few years of your life and dedicate your self to learning the finer points the who's what's where why's
Again you're refusing to face the findings by waving them off and ignoring them. You cant even register the homo habilis question. Grab the bull by the horns like you have a pair man.
I didn't wave off anything... we keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
Her inner ear indicates she was suited for tree climbing, not knuckle walking. Her wrists lack the locking mechanism which would allow her to walk on her knuckles.
Her skull rests on top of her spinal column, her feet don't have an opposable thumb, she is clearly well adapted to bipedal locomotion.
All these characteristics make her transitional... so grab the bull by the horns like you have a pair.
"Oxnard also claims that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans."
-- Clearly even Oxnard did think she was bipedal... all you have to do in order to see the names of some of the people who disagree with Oxnard is just check out the references on wikipedia. If you find it so important to have names, then I can spend 20-30 minutes on google, pull up all the relevant research and give you the names.
If you believe in this lineage this is you're right as an assumption as a concept but it is not an empirical scientific fact, and it requires a considerable amount of faith.
Its also interesting how you use the semantic interchange of apes and modern humans to make you're case. If we are apes why are we classified as homo meaning man. Whats even more astounding is that homo habilis is even more ape like than its predecessors. You're not alone in this. Many people just wave off the facts and hear only what they want to hear. If it fits the theory lets keep it, if it doesn't lets dismiss it. This is the main stay of the theory.
An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.
Now let's see how humans are classified: Primates--> Haplorrhini--> Simiiformes--> Catarrhini--> -=**Hominoidea**=- --> Hominidae--> Homininae--> Hominini--> Homo--> H. sapiens--> H. s. sapiens
So yes... we are classified apes, but the term is interchangeable and it can also describe chimpanzees and other primates.
The thread entitled American Scientist speaks of the poor quality of the fossil record that you say fits fine. I don't know who told you Lucy didn't have opposable thumb but you should cross check it because it is BS. Last but not least, I have been the only one supporting my view with verifiable scientific evidence I have given references and names. You have not done so. I just wanted to be clear.
I cross-checked it with the afarensis fossil foot... if you look at the fossil it's CLEAR that it does not have an opposable thumb. The thumb is pointing forward just like a modern human's thumb is pointing forward.
I gave two references to the articles discussing the bipedal locomotion of Ardi... one of these articles compares Ardi and Lucy... perhaps you missed them? I just want to be clear.
You're right I didn't receive references. Feel free to provide them. I not sure what opposable thumbs have to do with feet. In a book entitled Human Evolution which is a book written by By Camilo José Cela Conde, and Francisco José Ayala who are members of the National Academy of Sciences, in their peer reviewed book on pg 47 in a chapter entitled pliocenes hominids they state empirically that Australopithecus had opposable thumbs. By the way I have corresponded with Ayala in the past.
Ben... look at the history of comments, 11 hours ago I sent you this message:
"...search google for "Ardipithecus Ramidus - An Ancient Human Ancestor Surprise" (very good images and analysis of the skeleton)
Another really detailed article is "The pelvis of Ardipithecus ramidus" (this one actually compares with Lucy)"
An opposable thumb is one that can be used for grasping (like on your hand)... that's not the case with Lucy, I'll check the book later. I have to study now...
I'm not trying to bust your balls but I believe you brought the subject up. I must have missed you're answer on habilis also. What do you mean you looked at the fossil and you can see it doesn't have opposable thumbs when Ardi has even less skeletal remains are you a professional anatomist. In other words do you have a reference or is this your personnel lay opinion.
Ardi's reconstructed fossil shows an opposable thumb, while Lucy's fossil does not show an opposable thumb. My reference is the professional reconstruction of the fossil and the articles I provided you with about 11 hours ago.
I will comment when I have some time but before I do, how exactly does this statement help you're case. "Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not.
That part doesn't help me much, but keep reading down:
"Finally, there is 'an overwhelming body of evidence', based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes."
The reason why I asked is because Ardi was even more fragmented. No one has studied Lucy more than Zuckerman and later Oxnard. Fred spoors who wanted to prove Zuckerman wrong went a step further and did cat scans of the inner ear but determined it had the equilibrium of an ape. None of these men are creationist. Lucy also possesses the main characteristics that distinguish apes which is sexual dimorphism,
It is not surprising that Lucy shares characteristics with chimpanzees- after all it is a transitional fossil. I'm not saying that there is no debate about the Lucy, but the consensus indicates that has key characteristics which allow scientists to conclude she was bipedal.
Saying that Zuckerman and Oxnard disagree with other scientists is a good point, but their disagreement does not change the scientific consensus.
P1 does not prove that Ardi was an ape, nor does it prove that she was quadrupedal (knuckle-walker).
P2 and P3 simply show that there was debate over A. afarensis. Of course she is an extinct ape, we too are apes... what you're trying to say is that she is not only an ape, but a chimpanzee and that is clearly not the case.
She was bipedal, her skull rests on TOP of her spinal column, etc. Again, there is contradictory opinions, but the consensus does not support the idea that she was a chimp.
I never used the word chimp and you have answered the question with philosophy and priori assumptions, which is basically all anyone has. Why did her inner ear have the equilibrium of a knuckle walking ape and walk upright against her own equilibrium. What again were some of these these names that actually studied Lucy. I have heard about them before but I haven't received their names. Do you know who they are?
Of course you never used the word chimp, but when you say that Ardi or Lucy is closer to apes than to humans you might as well be saying that they're closer to mammals than to humans! Humans are classified as apes, so my only assumption is that whoever used that term was not aware of that and they really meant to say chimp instead.
I have already agreed with you that there is debate over the evidence, but the scientific consensus is clear- she was bipedal, even Oxnard said that!
I think you're confusing the word apes with primates when referring to man. Dinosaurs were bipedal, birds are bipedal especially flightless birds, some lizards are bipedal. The fact that Lucy had the ability to walk upright for short periods doesn't say anything. You never answered the question why would Lucy have the inner ear equilibrium of a knuckle walking ape and why do we see ware on her knuckles was she a boxer too? Why are her feat designed for grasping?
No... I think you're confusing the word ape with a primate and you don't know how humans are classified. Any primate that is a member of the Hominoidae superfamily is an ape.
The inner ear equilibrium of Lucy is better suited for aerobic maneuvers, nothing to do with knuckle walking. These are INTERMEDIATE characteristics.
You are yet to answer why is Lucy's skull resting on top of her vertebral column instead of in front (like the knuckle-walking chimps), or where is her opposable thumb?
Ok you're a monkey are you happy. Don't say you're not, monkey's are apes. You don't mind if I call you monky brains right, technically I would be correct. When you get married an have children classify your children on the birth certificate ass apes and the day that you let you're daughter marry an orangutan call me back and I will eat my words.
Monkeys are not apes... again, you seem to be confused about how classification works. I'll repeat it again: any primate that is a member of the Hominoidae superfamily is an ape. Show me one monkey that's classified as a Hominoidae.
All you have left now is immature arguments... so that's it? You claimed that I didn't answer your questions (I answered them multiple times), but you just ignored mine and started throwing out your immature arguments... grab the bull by the horns and act like what?
I looked at you're surprise article and it said Ardipithecus ramidus was only tentatively believed to be an ancestor of Australopithecus. You told me it was a fine fit. I also saw nothing stating anything about thumbs period. You have not answered my questions even though I repeated them several times until just now you mentioned the inner ear was suited for aerobic maneuvers please tell me were you got this info I defiantly want to cross check and the non opposable thumbs too.
It is a fine fit within the hierarchical distribution of animals, but that doesn't say if it was actually the ancestor A. afarensis. There might have been several closely related species that existed during that time, yet only one of them was actually the ancestor of Australopithecus.
I gave you two articles, the first one discusses Ardi, the second one discusses the pelvis of Ardi (and compares it to Lucy)... they don't talk about the opposable thumb of Lucy.
Now that's what i call semantic back peddling. So far the only thing you have sent me was an article that contradicts you're previous statement of a fine fit, now you give me this BS, and the article said nothing about an opposable thumb or lack of one. I think you're just throwing anything out there and hoping it will stick and you still cant answer the habilis question. You offer know references that back you up. Just someone else's opinion and thirty unnamed scientist who disagree
cont.. You keep telling me you answered the habilis question but you never have. You never sited were you got the opposoble thumbs info from and now you have changed it to mean the feet, even though I have given you numerous references that they were designed for tree climbing. Are you going to tell me you have cross referenced all that info already.
You should start reading my comments, an hour ago I wrote:
"Scientists suggest that Homo habilis should be re-classified as Australopithecus habilis."
Right... opposable toe, not thumb:
"Opponents of arboreal adaption dispute the degree of mobility in the A. afarensis ankle, and cite the loss of the opposable great toe, which has become aligned with the other toes, a clear adaptation to bipedality" p. 106 "Human evolution: an illustrated introduction" By Roger Lewin
You said homo habilis was the lineage. You did some research and you're right it should be reclassified. I hope I can get a little credit for forcing you to think. As far as the language ok ill take your'e word for it even though you sound fluent enough. The article you site is tentative at best but you have every right to put absolute faith in anything. I was lied to about piltdown man as a kid so Im very skeptical.
-- I never said such a thing. I only made one comment about homo habilis and it is that it should be reclassified.
I gave you four different articles, which one are you talking about? I didn't put any absolute faith in anything, I even said that I agree there is a debate about the topic, not only that but I gave you an article explaining the different sides of the debate. All you gave me were creationist quote mines.
Answer the question and I will be glad to talk about her cranial cavity. Were did you get the non opposable thumbs idea and why is habilis more ape like?
The opposable thumbs idea is actually right on the reconstructed skeleton: you can see a chimp skeleton and a clearly opposable thumb on the foot. You can also look at Ardi's opposable thumb right on the "Ardipithecus Feet" slide 7 of 9 on the link I gave you and you can compare it with A. afarensis (any reconstructed skeleton). A. afarensis doesn't have such an opposable thumb on the feet.
Scientists suggest that Homo habilis should be re-classified as Australopithecus habilis.
I thought you understood the science behind this. These are your examples. Tell me the truth, did you even know who Zuckerman was before today? Did you know lucy's feet were more well adapted for grasping tree branches than it was bipedal. No one is claiming it had full bipedal motion. If you know of a verifiable source then please tell me.
I didn't read them... nor did I know who Zuckerman was until today. I'm preparing for a mid-term today so I won't have time to read any of the articles today.
As far as afarensis feet being well adapted for grasping tree branches: they don't have an opposable thumb... their feet are streamlined and they walked by pivoting from heel to toe (like a human). When you look at Ardi you see an opposable thumb and a completely different rotation in order to accommodate bipedal locomotion.
Thick dental enamel may be a key hominid trait. All hominids have thick enamel, whereas all fossil and living apes (except those in the orang-utan lineage) have thin enamel. Because the fossil record of apes is so poor, we do not know whether the primitive condition for apes and hominids was thick or thin enamel. Indeed, how enamel thickness is to be measured and evaluated has generated many pages of debate.
Lucy's foot was very well adapted for upright locomotion, but Ardi has a large grasping toe. The large grasping toe lowers the efficiency of bipedal locomotion.
Ardi's skull rested on top of the spinal column, while a chimp's skill rests in front. Muscles attaching to the pelvis are reconfigured to enable better balance on two legs... yet all of those adaptions are noticeably more primitive than Lucy's.
Maybe I shouldn't say that it walked upright at "all times", but the evidence suggests that they spent most of their time either climbing trees or walking upright. Ardi's entire structure suggests that it walk upright, but not very efficiently.
There are several web sites that discuss these things... search google for "Ardipithecus Ramidus - An Ancient Human Ancestor Surprise" (very good images and analysis of the skeleton)
Another really detailed article is "The pelvis of Ardipithecus ramidus" (this one actually compares with Lucy)
I don't know what you mean when you say "evolution went backwards"... there is no concept of direction in evolution.
Ardi could have been related to our ancestors or it could have been the same species are our direct ancestors. What Ardi shows is that such ancestors existed, it shows that there are intermediate fossils between quadrupedal and bipedal apes just as evolution would predict.
U left out another possibility. It could be another animal like billions of others of that have gone extincted. With out any relationship period. You have to believe in evolution first and even then the records not clear.
Well, it's possible that it doesn't have a relationship with anything else, but only if we ignore the hierarchical distribution into which it so nicely fits.
But Ardi fits the hierarchical distribution, it's the right age, and it has all of the expected characteristics... if you have a better explanation, then I'm all ears (or eyes since this is over the internet).
The scientific standard is very clear testability.observability,falsifiability, repeatability. Evolution and many other historical sciences don't have this dynamic that is why scientific theories need to be consistent. The theory of macro evolution is a house of cards that can be changed easily with one discovery. This is the weakness of the hypothesis of evolution.
Well we've had thousands of discoveries since Darwin first presented the Theory of Evolution, yet the core principles of the theory remain unchanged: change of allele frequencies and natural selection results in evolution.
Macro evolution is the accumulation of micro evolution... but what you still haven't demonstrated is another reasonable explanation for the evidence that we have collected.
Homo habilis and homo erectus lived at the same time period just like the Australopithecus variations you gave. This makes no sense. It would be like future generations saying saying lions evolved into tigers when they are really just contemporary species. You give a offer a false evolutionary narrative.
Two diverging groups can easily overlap and I would even argue they should... if both species share a common ancestor or one is the direct ancestor of the other, then it's most certain that they had to overlap.
I love the tiger and lion example: suppose that ligers (hybrids between lions and tigers) were not infertile- now ligers are bigger and stronger than both lions and tigers, so natural selection selects them and tigers/lions go extinct... the liger overlapped with both tigers and lions!
Do you why Ardi has been regarded as rewriting evolutionary history? If something is predicted it would read Ardi confirms evolutionary history. Read between the lines young man.
Yes, I know why some people say that Ardi is "rewriting evolutionary history," because it corrects a previous assumption that humans evolved bipedalism in the African planes, instead Ardi shows that bipedalism possibly evolved in forest ares.
Did you read the same thing between the lines or did you just see blank space between the lines?
"Well, it's possible that it doesn't have a relationship with anything else, but only if we ignore the hierarchical distribution into which it so nicely fits"
"Yes, I know why some people say that Ardi is "rewriting evolutionary history," because it corrects a previous assumption that humans evolved bipedalism in the African planes, instead Ardi shows that bipedalism possibly evolved in forest ares"
So it fits nicely or it corrects previous assumptions/ predictability's. Which is it?
Both... it fits the hierarchical distribution very well and it corrects the previous assumption regarding where bipedalism evolved. I don't see a contradiction there...
You still haven't demonstrated what you believe to be the lineage of apes from Ardi to modern man. So I cant really comment by what you mean by it fits the hierarchy and are you aware that the narrative you draw has its secular non religious detractors. The word previous assumptions is a semantic play on the word predictability. At best were replacing previous assumptions with current assumptions.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
I appreciate the clarification on lineage. There seem to be a few problems with this example. The first two seem to be a dispute with the bio chronological dating methods used and seem to overlap. The variations of Australopithecus examples also exist in the same time period. The subject is to vast for you tube but I will send you some information that seems to be very inconsistent with the lineage you have shown. When I have some time ill finish explaining the last few examples.
The reason why its a problem is because it is not a linear progression they way you think it is. There still is no consensus as to which came first. Homo Habilis is even less bipedal and more ape like than Australopithecus.This makes no sense. I have also given you names of world renowned anatomist like Zuckerman who disagree with your example. My friend Kenny Tewy has a similar lineage on his page and we disagree also. I would have spent at least a few days verifying the info I gave.
Again... I still don't see how an overlap is problematic:
Diverging species co-exist for a period of time, but eventually the one that's less adapted will go extinct.
The structure of Ardi's wrists and fore-arms is not at all built for knuckle-walking; the skull rests on TOP of the spinal column; the muscles attachment points the legs and the pelvis are rearranged for bipedal locomotion. I already gave you two articles with make that conclusion...
So you don't see a problem with homo habilis being more ape like and less bipedal than its predecessors. Do you think you're more knowledgeable than Solly Zuckerman and his team of fifteen scientist that studied Australopithecus for over ten years. 2 simple questions.
I don't think I'm more knowledgeable than Solly Zuckerman... I'm only reporting what was discussed in the evidence which shows Astroalopithecus was very well adapted for bipedal locomotion and the inconsistency with Zuckerman's conclusions.
If the conclusion on homo habilis is as shady as Zuckerman's, then I wouldn't have a problem with it... I'd have to read the related articles in order to comment.
I can tell you didn't read the studies I sited. Zuckerman and his team studied Australopithecus for more years than anyone did. He didn't believe it to be an ancestor of man and many others agree. The current school of thought was that it might have shared a common ancestor with humans. Homo habilis is a different species and different subject. I don't know why you couldn't answer the question I posed concerning its even more ape like features than its predecessors.
Of course I can't answer the question on Homo habilis... you're asking me to discuss details which I don't know off the top of my head and I'm only given the information which you provided (i.e. I haven't verified it myself). Without doing further research I can't address those things.
I'm only addressing what I can back up with evidence.
The assumptions of exactly where bipedalism evolved are nearly irrelevant... what is relevant is that we have these transitional fossils which show that over time there is a progression from quadrupedal locomotion to bipedal locomotion in the hominid lineage.
You don't have to worry about extremist from the creationist side they have know control over academia. Kent Hovind is one of the biggest fire and brimstone creationist out there and even he doesn't believe in creationism being taught in public schools despite what u hear from the popular media. The question at hand is academic freedom and the fear that Neo Darwinist have in people who will start to realize the futility of the modern synthesis. They have boxed themselves into a static corner.
While the ideologues have been interested in the culture wars, science has suffered. My position is that if we keep telling kids its all wrapped up and there's no weaknesses.Then we do them a disservice. Maybe if we told them about the problems we could inspire these young minds to try to answer the fundamental questions that need to be resolved. Maybe creating interest among the young is not such a bad thing. Unfortunately anyone who does so is attacked as a fanatic. What a fine mess were in.
Dr. Richard Lewontin—Dr. Coynes mentor at Harvard—wrote Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
cont..We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
cont.. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
I decided to ask [NCSE Executive Director Eugenie Scott] some questions since I'd interviewed her colleague [NCSE President] Kevin Padian about the "evolution debate", and he'd hung up on me. ...
...When I introduced myself to Eugenie Scott, who was unfamiliar with my stories on evolution, I asked her what she thought about self-organization and why self-organization was not represented in the books NCSE was promoting?
She responded that people confuse self-organization with Intelligent Design and that is why NCSE has not been supportive.
I agree that the best way to defend evolution is with the evidence, but I've been following this debate for a long time (I'm sure you have too) and it's true that scientists defend from authority, but there is a reason for that: zealot arguments are at such low level that in order to correct them you have to teach them the fundamentals of science... why should scientists waste their time with such people?
The theory is being attacked by ideological zealots. Initially they wanted to replace evolution with religion, now due to multiple unsuccessful attempts they have have re-branded the effort and will simply be satisfied with making any dents in the credibility of the theory.
If scientists did research only in the areas that are not problematic, then where is this problematic evidence coming from? It's certainly not coming from the critics, because the critics don't do research at ALL!
When I spoke of Newtonian physics I wasn't necessarily speaking of the formation of planets although that can also apply. I was speaking of the way the galaxies behave over time the kind of trajectories we see and the way some don't seem to conform to Newtonian principles. There are many theories black holes, dark matter, string theories, and many more. Einstein and modern cosmologist in general have been questioning the limitations of gravity for over 80 years.
The trajectories of galaxies are more influenced by the expanding universe than by Newtonian Physics.
In any case, we use Newtonian Physics (or simply gravity) to explain how planetary systems formed, yet we are unable to conduct an experiment which shows the formation of a planetary system. For the same reason we are able to make that conclusion, we are also able to conclude that micro evolution translates into macro evolution.
Well do explain how regular biology can use math more than evolutionary biology... I would love to see how you figured that one out. As a matter of fact if we didn't have evolutionary biology, then I'm sorry to repeat this statement, but nothing in biology would make sense.
There is a reason why we have come to that conclusion... if we didn't know evolution, then we pretty much wouldn't be able to explain anything in biology. Furthermore, I use ToE on a daily basis to make trading strategies.
Of course the process for novel features is addressed- they evolve through the change of allele frequency and natural selection. The explanation of what the intermediate forms would actually be is given either by the fossil record or the currently existing intermediate/ring species... there is no other way to determine what they are.
In quantum mechanics you can't predict the position of an electron-positron pair because it's random: in evo we can't exactly predict where a mutation would occur
It is falsifiable... if we consistently saw a wide variety of fossils in incorrect strata, then we would be forced to conclude evolution is not true.
If we saw an inconsistent relationship between morphological similarities and genetic similarities, then we would have to conclude that evolution is false.
The history of life on earth could be different, but a hierarchical distribution would still exist and that hierarchical distribution is only possible through evolution.
"If we saw an inconsistent relationship between morphological similarities and genetic similarities, then we would have to conclude that evolution is false"
According to that statement the theory is dead. If you like when I have some time I will give you many examples of verifiable inconsistencies that have been peer reviewed for that matter. Poor choice of words if you advocate macro evolution.
When creationists contract diseases, do they go to creationist doctors?
HyperSchmizzle 1 month ago
The Force is strong with this one...
Mendokusai99 2 months ago
Nowhere else in the 1st world would any of those people be allowed to rise to positions of such influence.
WildcardHatesYou 4 months ago
I'm HOT for Genie SCOTT!!
gmawjune 4 months ago
Compare her to Sarah Palin!...
OldJong 5 months ago
I pay the 35 bucks a year to be a member of NCSE. If you don't want religiotards slipping superstitious nonsense into public school science class, as they are still trying to do, please support NCSE. They're our last line of defense.
ndrthrdr1 5 months ago
Such a classy woman - always a pleasure to hear her talk.
bushonomics 5 months ago
What a beautiful mind.
baldurus1 6 months ago
As Tyson commented once,USA can fallow path of the muslims.
rycka1983 6 months ago
I don't know how Eugenie Scott keeps her cool, except that perhaps she's accustomed to dealing with children.
YY4Me133 7 months ago
Comment removed
pbaylis1 7 months ago
great post - thank you
CommercialVehicle 8 months ago
Damn... Just listening to her speak, you can tell how brilliant she is, and she is such a good, clean speaker. God help us... This man who's talking to her is just plain ridiculous... And her answers are so conscise and amazing... God i hope there are more people like her in America.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 9 months ago
I'm American... and this is fucking embarrassing
MendozaD85 10 months ago
Dear America: You are 90% retarded. From Australia.
OrthodoxDarwinist 10 months ago
@OrthodoxDarwinist You ever looked at an IQ chart? I REALLY don't think THAT should be coming out of Australia. lol
crackerkiller89 9 months ago
@crackerkiller89
Why do you say that? Australia is consistently in the top few in the world for public education, while America always ranks lower than many 3rd world nations...
OrthodoxDarwinist 8 months ago
Comment removed
ironman197268 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Listen to the scientists. Mutations result in a loss of information in the genome. Read J. C. Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of Genome. Sanford has 25 genetic patents, and is the inventor of the gene gun. He thoroughly refutes the belief that evolution results from "good" mutations selection by nature. There are many reviews of Sanford's book on Amazon.
achilles197474 11 months ago
MY GRAND DADDY WAS NOT A MONKEY!!! No but your 487th cousin 315 times removed was.
panterguy 11 months ago 2
What a nice thoughtful woman, taking time out from a busy scientific career to teach these poor 'special' folks.
93tomb 11 months ago 4
How the F... can this be a debate in a developed country....religion is the poison of humanity
ueks69 1 year ago 4
OMG(oodness!) How can stupid people like these actually be members of a educational board...
buugiman78 1 year ago 3
@buugiman78 it's texas. nuff said. I feel like Genie is talking to a 3-year-old
currylee 1 year ago 3
I think I'm in love.
She's great and I wish she was younger and available.
sol3a1 1 year ago
If you think evolutionary theory is a "lie" then you have not studied it. Please do, really. Check talkorigins(dot)org for basic information.
.
The theory says *nothing* about the origin of life and *nothing* about god or religion. You can believe in a religion and accept the scientific evidence for evolution at the same time.
.
Can we please move on as a country?
hgh778 1 year ago
@hgh778 You can`t believe in fundamentalist Christianity and have ANY respect for the scientific evidence. They are clearly in conflict .
ilikezappa 1 year ago 3
Nation Geographic is not a peer reviewed journal
xmodrelic 1 year ago
Eugenie Scott is my hero. She can stand up to any creationist and does so whenever it is vital for her to do so (school boards, courts). She is a defender and source of the one advantage that nobody can take away from someone else, their education.
To bad the questioner has an ulterior motive (his personal religious view).
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@pbaylis1 Can't get enough can you? All the evidence in the world points toward evolution, to the point that science and medicine are improved based upon models it predicts, and in that same period of time not one shred of evidence has been procured, despite massive effort, to raise creationism beyond the level of "dangerous superstitious pseudoscience". Seriously guy, you are a grossly misinformed nutjob.
KevinReconAlpha 1 year ago 4
damn i like her!
apocalyptica55555 1 year ago
that guy is a moron
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago 4
Weak, weak, weak. PROVE that macro-evolution is true or STOP teaching it to my children. Don't blame creationists for pulling it apart.
pbaylis1 1 year ago
@pbaylis1
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, it is just evolution. Only ignorant fools that don't know what they are talking about use those terms.
It is like saying going from being a baby to being elderly person is impossible and "macro-aging", while going from an infant to toddler is possible and "micro-aging".
Then some idiot claims, you don't have proof for toddler to teen! Well, I would video tape aging 80 years, but that is unreasonable to actually ask someone to do.
nidodson 1 year ago 5
@nidodson
Ohhh, here we go again. Look, I have no answer to people like you who try to take what we all know about evolution and try to extrapolate it into a theory of the origins of life. Please spare me and everybody else on this forum.
pbaylis1 1 year ago
@pbaylis1 It's been proven, but you won't see it if you refuse to look. It's that simple.
alachabre 8 months ago
@alachabre
Natural selection has been proven. But extrapolating natural selection into a theory that accounts for all life in the universe is the big con. That path leads to abiogenesis, which you wouldn't touch with a ten foot barge pole.
pbaylis1 7 months ago
@pbaylis1 Yes, well, I didn't intend to advance a proof of the origin of life. Perhaps I misread the intent of your post. However, far from hesitating to touch it, I think abiogenesis is a fascinating subject and should be embraced with passionate discourse. It's wide open to a thousand hypotheses.
alachabre 7 months ago
@alachabre
I should have said: most atheists I've talked to try to avoid a discussion on abiogenesis and find some way to separate evolution from it, like that's not really where all paths lead if you accept a macro-ised version of natural selection to account for leaps across species.
pbaylis1 7 months ago
@pbaylis1 Well, I believe I see from where your frustration arises. First, religion is irrelevant. I doubt it is only Atheists who tell you abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution. Any biologist, or lay person versed in biology, would tell you the same. Second, abiogenesis is not part of ToE. It is a necessary condition, but the theory does not include that question. Third, speciation is not typically a leap, it is a slow walk along divergent paths from a common starting point.
alachabre 7 months ago
@alachabre
OK, let's call it speciation. By extrapolating natural selection into a theory of life via a long slow walk along divergent paths from a common starting point (nothing), one tries to have one's cake and eat it to. True scientists, without any agenda, are completely open to all posibilities. Atheists, on the other hand, profit from the confusion.
pbaylis1 7 months ago
@pbaylis1 Well now you're just being obtuse. You've got it set firm in your head that abiogenesis absolutely must be part of any discussion on ToE, so there's no getting past that. Until you can get over that basic misconception, you will not be able to intelligently discuss either topic.
alachabre 7 months ago 2
@alachabre
I wouldn't want to be part of a discussion of a small part that avoids the whole, like an ostrich with its head in the sand.
pbaylis1 7 months ago
@pbaylis1 Well ok then, let's not leave anything out. When Kipling writes,
"So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
We gives you your certificate, an' if you want it signed
We'll come an' 'ave a romp with you whenever you're inclined."
is he supporting or undermining the Theory of Evolution?
alachabre 7 months ago
@alachabre
And definitely not an alcoholic atheist with his head in the sand.
pbaylis1 7 months ago
" So we can prove that Dr. Haeckle's drawings that a-that a-uh-salamander became a fish became a pig, became sheep..." 2:14
Wow. This guy doesn't have the slightest clue.
He's got influence over people's children?
odinata 1 year ago 2
Correction-1:57
odinata 1 year ago
"The peppered moth theory" at 3:23.
Never heard of that "theory".
Fucking redneck moron.
odinata 1 year ago
Must be that so-called "dahno-burd".
ffairlane57 1 year ago
she and any other scientist can prove it with better evidence then required in court
patrickledford420 1 year ago
She's wonderful.
mtheory85 1 year ago
We have never seen anything created! Also, since every living thing has a flaw, then why hasn't the creator made anything new. If He can do it once then why not do it agagain? This is once reason why creationism cannot be considered science. You can not test it, repeat it, or observe it. So keep it out of the classroom.
As for their "how did life begin?" non-sense, that has nothing to do with evolution.
chachee99 1 year ago
Why do these people refuse to read books and studies but insist on spamming public forums with their ignorant questions?
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 A M E N. I haven't met a single creationist that has actually done his or her research. They think they're doing research, but all they're doing is reading propaganda sites.
tekproxy 1 year ago
have these idiots ever read a textbook??
every "weakness" they identify has been completely rejected by the scientific community. i'll bet they cannot find a single piece of research (published in a respected biology journal) that argues in favour of their pseudo-weaknesses in the last 10 years.
you can't force your own ignorance into the school curriculum. the answer isn't ruining their education, its getting one of your own.
xxzmikezxx 1 year ago
If only the creationism were put to this kind of scrutiny...
I wonder how the "rib theory" would fare under rigorous scientific analysis...??
leeroynaggins 1 year ago 6
Having to waste your time with trying to teach brain-dead hicks basic science? Wow, it must be boring! And what's wrong with America, are they stuck in the dark ages still?
winterstellar 1 year ago 58
@winterstellar Not all of the US. Just the zealots. Unfortunately, the zealots have a lot of control and pull in the places that count. I look forward to the day, if it ever happens, when our education system isn't mucked about by zealots playing at science.
happypitfiend 1 year ago
@winterstellar Some Americans are. Not all.
drumrnva 1 year ago
@winterstellar And what is wrong with YouTube, with brain-dead trolls taking an example of a few uneducated thousands, and assuming the backwardness of an entire nation of hundreds of millions of people, a nation that is a world leader in science and engineering? Let me think, The National Center for Science and Education, um, which "Nation" is it referring to, I wonder?
alachabre 9 months ago
@alachabre so because there are great universities in the u.s. makes the entire population somehow smarter?
how well did u.s. perform in the oecd pisa study on education? you performed below oecd avarage...
yeah, there's no problem, future seems bright... that's called lying to yourself.
Darusdei 9 months ago
@Darusdei I don't know how you derived your question from my statement, but yes, having good institutes of higher education does make a population smarter.
alachabre 8 months ago
man what a waste of time for a scientist of her stature. this is why america is falling behind the rest of the world. in many other countries, the scientists are either doing science or teaching science, not explaining basics to religious zealots.
mynameisweiner 1 year ago 81
@mynameisweiner it is true . An addition burden for scientists in America is they have to defend the idea of science to baccy chewing mono eyebrowed bible thumpers before they even get to do science. Dahno bird my arse ! Go to school tractor boy ! Can you see the look on her face at the end ?
ilikezappa 1 year ago
@mynameisweiner I know. This was really depressing to see. But sooner or later the faith-heads will loosen their cold dead grip on this issue and lay waste to the trash heap of history.
The fact that this was going on in Texas should be reassuring though. Since this was in Texas its basically like a scared animal taking refuge in the last corner it has left to hide in.
aswar87 1 year ago
@mynameisweiner - yes, it's is a terrible waste of her intellectual energy, but there are so many ignorant and just plain stoopid folks out there who need her patient, clear explanations (not that it does any good in many cases). She's unflappable and kindly in her thoughtful responses - a gentler side to the scientific worldview than say, a prickly Dennett. Thank gawd for Eugenie Scott.
toneemontaigne 1 year ago 2
"Ok so all living things today share a common ancestor, and lifeforms change over time and that change has led to the lifeforms that exist today.
So where's the proof that lifeform A which is alive today, turned into lifeform B which is alive today, turned into lifeform C which is alive today?"
Yeah, don't understand what evolution means and you're surprised you don't get an answer when you ask for proof of something that isn't evolution?
MyTemporaryAccount88 1 year ago 4
Ken Mercer is such an idiot!!! I cannot believe he asked if there was proof for instance that a salamander became a fish lol Make the stupidity stop!
Radetzky19 1 year ago 4
The same Texas school board that has been wise enough to accept the wisdom of science as represented by Dr. Scott, has also just made similar progress in rejecting FROM THE LEFT a not so dissimilar challenge in the realm of Social Studies, thank goodness.
"These people" didn't want Thomas Edison and Golda Meir in history books and DID want "Rap" equated with Beethoven!!!
SatchmoSings 1 year ago
The 'weaknesses', the 'flaws', and the 'controversies' of evolution, as she mentions, consist of the details of the evolutionary process, the dominant driving forces (natural selection vs random mutation, etc), lineage, etc. It is not what most of these people seem to think, that the whole premise of evolution is 'on the verge of being disproven'.
n800064447 2 years ago 3
idiot
alvein7 2 years ago
If u don't have the time to spend years researching this primate subject. Then at least get a hold of Kenny Tewy on you tube he's on you're side but he is very knowledgeable about the so called human ancestry, he can help u.Tell him I sent you. He can send u tons of papers. I don't agree with him but I respect him because he has dedicated a lot of time actually trying to figure it out academically. Instead of relying on hearsay. Were going to have to agree to disagree. good luck man seriously.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Ben,
I have incorrectly called the big toe a "thumb on the foot"... English is my second language so sometimes I make these mistakes, at least I have a valid excuse :). The point still stands:
1. You are yet to explain why the skull of A. afarensis rests on TOP of the spinal column if she was a knuckle-walker.
2. Nor have you addressed the lack of an opposable big toe*.
These two adaptations alone are significant toward bipedal locomotion and you failed to address the last two references.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
To answer your last question the skull was not resting on the spine all of these fossils were fragmented some pieces were found miles away its a mish mash of bones and priori assumptions that make this game. When an intact skeleton is found I will go were ever the evidence leads. Again at some point we have to agree to disagree. take care. Adios amigo y buena suerte
benthemiester 2 years ago
"Again at some point we have to agree to disagree."
-- I guess this is the point then... thanks for the debate.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
TEN FOUR THANX ALSO
benthemiester 2 years ago
I never said anything about feet. Don't you know the difference between toe's and thumbs you said the thumbs were pointed outwards. Listen if you're really interested in the subject of evolution take a take a few years of your life and dedicate your self to learning the finer points the who's what's where why's
benthemiester 2 years ago
Again you're refusing to face the findings by waving them off and ignoring them. You cant even register the homo habilis question. Grab the bull by the horns like you have a pair man.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I didn't wave off anything... we keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
Her inner ear indicates she was suited for tree climbing, not knuckle walking. Her wrists lack the locking mechanism which would allow her to walk on her knuckles.
Her skull rests on top of her spinal column, her feet don't have an opposable thumb, she is clearly well adapted to bipedal locomotion.
All these characteristics make her transitional... so grab the bull by the horns like you have a pair.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Can you name me 7 of these thirty scientist that supposedly proved the work of these men wrong.
benthemiester 2 years ago
"Oxnard also claims that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans."
-- Clearly even Oxnard did think she was bipedal... all you have to do in order to see the names of some of the people who disagree with Oxnard is just check out the references on wikipedia. If you find it so important to have names, then I can spend 20-30 minutes on google, pull up all the relevant research and give you the names.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
If you believe in this lineage this is you're right as an assumption as a concept but it is not an empirical scientific fact, and it requires a considerable amount of faith.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Its also interesting how you use the semantic interchange of apes and modern humans to make you're case. If we are apes why are we classified as homo meaning man. Whats even more astounding is that homo habilis is even more ape like than its predecessors. You're not alone in this. Many people just wave off the facts and hear only what they want to hear. If it fits the theory lets keep it, if it doesn't lets dismiss it. This is the main stay of the theory.
benthemiester 2 years ago
An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.
Now let's see how humans are classified: Primates--> Haplorrhini--> Simiiformes--> Catarrhini--> -=**Hominoidea**=- --> Hominidae--> Homininae--> Hominini--> Homo--> H. sapiens--> H. s. sapiens
So yes... we are classified apes, but the term is interchangeable and it can also describe chimpanzees and other primates.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
The thread entitled American Scientist speaks of the poor quality of the fossil record that you say fits fine. I don't know who told you Lucy didn't have opposable thumb but you should cross check it because it is BS. Last but not least, I have been the only one supporting my view with verifiable scientific evidence I have given references and names. You have not done so. I just wanted to be clear.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I cross-checked it with the afarensis fossil foot... if you look at the fossil it's CLEAR that it does not have an opposable thumb. The thumb is pointing forward just like a modern human's thumb is pointing forward.
I gave two references to the articles discussing the bipedal locomotion of Ardi... one of these articles compares Ardi and Lucy... perhaps you missed them? I just want to be clear.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
You're right I didn't receive references. Feel free to provide them. I not sure what opposable thumbs have to do with feet. In a book entitled Human Evolution which is a book written by By Camilo José Cela Conde, and Francisco José Ayala who are members of the National Academy of Sciences, in their peer reviewed book on pg 47 in a chapter entitled pliocenes hominids they state empirically that Australopithecus had opposable thumbs. By the way I have corresponded with Ayala in the past.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Ben... look at the history of comments, 11 hours ago I sent you this message:
"...search google for "Ardipithecus Ramidus - An Ancient Human Ancestor Surprise" (very good images and analysis of the skeleton)
Another really detailed article is "The pelvis of Ardipithecus ramidus" (this one actually compares with Lucy)"
An opposable thumb is one that can be used for grasping (like on your hand)... that's not the case with Lucy, I'll check the book later. I have to study now...
ozpowermo 2 years ago
I'm not trying to bust your balls but I believe you brought the subject up. I must have missed you're answer on habilis also. What do you mean you looked at the fossil and you can see it doesn't have opposable thumbs when Ardi has even less skeletal remains are you a professional anatomist. In other words do you have a reference or is this your personnel lay opinion.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I looked at the reconstruction of both fossils:
Ardi's reconstructed fossil shows an opposable thumb, while Lucy's fossil does not show an opposable thumb. My reference is the professional reconstruction of the fossil and the articles I provided you with about 11 hours ago.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Sure no problem that's always a good thing. Ill let you study. good luck
benthemiester 2 years ago
As I said... the scientific consensus is that A. afarensis is better adapted to bipedal locomotion than Ardipithecus ramidus.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
I will comment when I have some time but before I do, how exactly does this statement help you're case. "Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not.
benthemiester 2 years ago
That part doesn't help me much, but keep reading down:
"Finally, there is 'an overwhelming body of evidence', based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes."
ozpowermo 2 years ago
The reason why I asked is because Ardi was even more fragmented. No one has studied Lucy more than Zuckerman and later Oxnard. Fred spoors who wanted to prove Zuckerman wrong went a step further and did cat scans of the inner ear but determined it had the equilibrium of an ape. None of these men are creationist. Lucy also possesses the main characteristics that distinguish apes which is sexual dimorphism,
benthemiester 2 years ago
It is not surprising that Lucy shares characteristics with chimpanzees- after all it is a transitional fossil. I'm not saying that there is no debate about the Lucy, but the consensus indicates that has key characteristics which allow scientists to conclude she was bipedal.
Saying that Zuckerman and Oxnard disagree with other scientists is a good point, but their disagreement does not change the scientific consensus.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
POINT 1 Ardi was even more fragmented and less skeletal remains.
POINT2 Fred Spoors determined equilibrium of apes
POINT 3 Australopithecus demonstrated sexual dimorphism.
There is no proof that they were anything but extinct apes. One more thing habilis was even more ape like.
benthemiester 2 years ago
P1 does not prove that Ardi was an ape, nor does it prove that she was quadrupedal (knuckle-walker).
P2 and P3 simply show that there was debate over A. afarensis. Of course she is an extinct ape, we too are apes... what you're trying to say is that she is not only an ape, but a chimpanzee and that is clearly not the case.
She was bipedal, her skull rests on TOP of her spinal column, etc. Again, there is contradictory opinions, but the consensus does not support the idea that she was a chimp.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
I never used the word chimp and you have answered the question with philosophy and priori assumptions, which is basically all anyone has. Why did her inner ear have the equilibrium of a knuckle walking ape and walk upright against her own equilibrium. What again were some of these these names that actually studied Lucy. I have heard about them before but I haven't received their names. Do you know who they are?
benthemiester 2 years ago
Of course you never used the word chimp, but when you say that Ardi or Lucy is closer to apes than to humans you might as well be saying that they're closer to mammals than to humans! Humans are classified as apes, so my only assumption is that whoever used that term was not aware of that and they really meant to say chimp instead.
I have already agreed with you that there is debate over the evidence, but the scientific consensus is clear- she was bipedal, even Oxnard said that!
ozpowermo 2 years ago
I think you're confusing the word apes with primates when referring to man. Dinosaurs were bipedal, birds are bipedal especially flightless birds, some lizards are bipedal. The fact that Lucy had the ability to walk upright for short periods doesn't say anything. You never answered the question why would Lucy have the inner ear equilibrium of a knuckle walking ape and why do we see ware on her knuckles was she a boxer too? Why are her feat designed for grasping?
benthemiester 2 years ago
No... I think you're confusing the word ape with a primate and you don't know how humans are classified. Any primate that is a member of the Hominoidae superfamily is an ape.
The inner ear equilibrium of Lucy is better suited for aerobic maneuvers, nothing to do with knuckle walking. These are INTERMEDIATE characteristics.
You are yet to answer why is Lucy's skull resting on top of her vertebral column instead of in front (like the knuckle-walking chimps), or where is her opposable thumb?
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Ok you're a monkey are you happy. Don't say you're not, monkey's are apes. You don't mind if I call you monky brains right, technically I would be correct. When you get married an have children classify your children on the birth certificate ass apes and the day that you let you're daughter marry an orangutan call me back and I will eat my words.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Monkeys are not apes... again, you seem to be confused about how classification works. I'll repeat it again: any primate that is a member of the Hominoidae superfamily is an ape. Show me one monkey that's classified as a Hominoidae.
All you have left now is immature arguments... so that's it? You claimed that I didn't answer your questions (I answered them multiple times), but you just ignored mine and started throwing out your immature arguments... grab the bull by the horns and act like what?
ozpowermo 2 years ago
I looked at you're surprise article and it said Ardipithecus ramidus was only tentatively believed to be an ancestor of Australopithecus. You told me it was a fine fit. I also saw nothing stating anything about thumbs period. You have not answered my questions even though I repeated them several times until just now you mentioned the inner ear was suited for aerobic maneuvers please tell me were you got this info I defiantly want to cross check and the non opposable thumbs too.
benthemiester 2 years ago
It is a fine fit within the hierarchical distribution of animals, but that doesn't say if it was actually the ancestor A. afarensis. There might have been several closely related species that existed during that time, yet only one of them was actually the ancestor of Australopithecus.
I gave you two articles, the first one discusses Ardi, the second one discusses the pelvis of Ardi (and compares it to Lucy)... they don't talk about the opposable thumb of Lucy.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Now that's what i call semantic back peddling. So far the only thing you have sent me was an article that contradicts you're previous statement of a fine fit, now you give me this BS, and the article said nothing about an opposable thumb or lack of one. I think you're just throwing anything out there and hoping it will stick and you still cant answer the habilis question. You offer know references that back you up. Just someone else's opinion and thirty unnamed scientist who disagree
benthemiester 2 years ago
Ben,
First you said that I didn't give you references... yet I gave you the references 11 hours before that.
Then you said that I didn't answer your questions, but I answered them multiple times (see the comment trail).
Finally, here is another article detailing everything: "Interpreting the Posture and Locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis: Where Do We Stand?"
Show me the opposable thumb on the foot of A. afarensis, where is it?
BTW, when were you going to answer my questions?
ozpowermo 2 years ago
cont.. You keep telling me you answered the habilis question but you never have. You never sited were you got the opposoble thumbs info from and now you have changed it to mean the feet, even though I have given you numerous references that they were designed for tree climbing. Are you going to tell me you have cross referenced all that info already.
benthemiester 2 years ago
You should start reading my comments, an hour ago I wrote:
"Scientists suggest that Homo habilis should be re-classified as Australopithecus habilis."
Right... opposable toe, not thumb:
"Opponents of arboreal adaption dispute the degree of mobility in the A. afarensis ankle, and cite the loss of the opposable great toe, which has become aligned with the other toes, a clear adaptation to bipedality" p. 106 "Human evolution: an illustrated introduction" By Roger Lewin
ozpowermo 2 years ago
You said homo habilis was the lineage. You did some research and you're right it should be reclassified. I hope I can get a little credit for forcing you to think. As far as the language ok ill take your'e word for it even though you sound fluent enough. The article you site is tentative at best but you have every right to put absolute faith in anything. I was lied to about piltdown man as a kid so Im very skeptical.
benthemiester 2 years ago
"You said homo habilis was the lineage."
-- I never said such a thing. I only made one comment about homo habilis and it is that it should be reclassified.
I gave you four different articles, which one are you talking about? I didn't put any absolute faith in anything, I even said that I agree there is a debate about the topic, not only that but I gave you an article explaining the different sides of the debate. All you gave me were creationist quote mines.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Answer the question and I will be glad to talk about her cranial cavity. Were did you get the non opposable thumbs idea and why is habilis more ape like?
benthemiester 2 years ago
The opposable thumbs idea is actually right on the reconstructed skeleton: you can see a chimp skeleton and a clearly opposable thumb on the foot. You can also look at Ardi's opposable thumb right on the "Ardipithecus Feet" slide 7 of 9 on the link I gave you and you can compare it with A. afarensis (any reconstructed skeleton). A. afarensis doesn't have such an opposable thumb on the feet.
Scientists suggest that Homo habilis should be re-classified as Australopithecus habilis.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
I thought you understood the science behind this. These are your examples. Tell me the truth, did you even know who Zuckerman was before today? Did you know lucy's feet were more well adapted for grasping tree branches than it was bipedal. No one is claiming it had full bipedal motion. If you know of a verifiable source then please tell me.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I didn't read them... nor did I know who Zuckerman was until today. I'm preparing for a mid-term today so I won't have time to read any of the articles today.
As far as afarensis feet being well adapted for grasping tree branches: they don't have an opposable thumb... their feet are streamlined and they walked by pivoting from heel to toe (like a human). When you look at Ardi you see an opposable thumb and a completely different rotation in order to accommodate bipedal locomotion.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
In American Scientist
Thick dental enamel may be a key hominid trait. All hominids have thick enamel, whereas all fossil and living apes (except those in the orang-utan lineage) have thin enamel. Because the fossil record of apes is so poor, we do not know whether the primitive condition for apes and hominids was thick or thin enamel. Indeed, how enamel thickness is to be measured and evaluated has generated many pages of debate.
benthemiester 2 years ago
They walked upright at all times...
Lucy's foot was very well adapted for upright locomotion, but Ardi has a large grasping toe. The large grasping toe lowers the efficiency of bipedal locomotion.
Ardi's skull rested on top of the spinal column, while a chimp's skill rests in front. Muscles attaching to the pelvis are reconfigured to enable better balance on two legs... yet all of those adaptions are noticeably more primitive than Lucy's.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Maybe I shouldn't say that it walked upright at "all times", but the evidence suggests that they spent most of their time either climbing trees or walking upright. Ardi's entire structure suggests that it walk upright, but not very efficiently.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Chimps and gorillas can also walk upright but not very efficiently.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I was comparing Ardi to Lucy...
So compared to Lucy, Ardi's bipedal locomotion was less efficient, but compared to chimpanzees and gorillas it is much more efficient.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
How do you know this? Can you give me a reference conferring what you just said? Are you saying evolution went backwards?
benthemiester 2 years ago
There are several web sites that discuss these things... search google for "Ardipithecus Ramidus - An Ancient Human Ancestor Surprise" (very good images and analysis of the skeleton)
Another really detailed article is "The pelvis of Ardipithecus ramidus" (this one actually compares with Lucy)
I don't know what you mean when you say "evolution went backwards"... there is no concept of direction in evolution.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Ardi could have been related to our ancestors or it could have been the same species are our direct ancestors. What Ardi shows is that such ancestors existed, it shows that there are intermediate fossils between quadrupedal and bipedal apes just as evolution would predict.
U left out another possibility. It could be another animal like billions of others of that have gone extincted. With out any relationship period. You have to believe in evolution first and even then the records not clear.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Well, it's possible that it doesn't have a relationship with anything else, but only if we ignore the hierarchical distribution into which it so nicely fits.
But Ardi fits the hierarchical distribution, it's the right age, and it has all of the expected characteristics... if you have a better explanation, then I'm all ears (or eyes since this is over the internet).
ozpowermo 2 years ago
According to theses standards evolution can never be falsified.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Aah... yes... dazzle us with your understanding of the scientific standards!
ozpowermo 2 years ago
The scientific standard is very clear testability.observability,falsifiability, repeatability. Evolution and many other historical sciences don't have this dynamic that is why scientific theories need to be consistent. The theory of macro evolution is a house of cards that can be changed easily with one discovery. This is the weakness of the hypothesis of evolution.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Well we've had thousands of discoveries since Darwin first presented the Theory of Evolution, yet the core principles of the theory remain unchanged: change of allele frequencies and natural selection results in evolution.
Macro evolution is the accumulation of micro evolution... but what you still haven't demonstrated is another reasonable explanation for the evidence that we have collected.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Homo habilis and homo erectus lived at the same time period just like the Australopithecus variations you gave. This makes no sense. It would be like future generations saying saying lions evolved into tigers when they are really just contemporary species. You give a offer a false evolutionary narrative.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Two diverging groups can easily overlap and I would even argue they should... if both species share a common ancestor or one is the direct ancestor of the other, then it's most certain that they had to overlap.
I love the tiger and lion example: suppose that ligers (hybrids between lions and tigers) were not infertile- now ligers are bigger and stronger than both lions and tigers, so natural selection selects them and tigers/lions go extinct... the liger overlapped with both tigers and lions!
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Do you why Ardi has been regarded as rewriting evolutionary history? If something is predicted it would read Ardi confirms evolutionary history. Read between the lines young man.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Yes, I know why some people say that Ardi is "rewriting evolutionary history," because it corrects a previous assumption that humans evolved bipedalism in the African planes, instead Ardi shows that bipedalism possibly evolved in forest ares.
Did you read the same thing between the lines or did you just see blank space between the lines?
ozpowermo 2 years ago
areas* (sorry for the spelling mistake)
ozpowermo 2 years ago
"Well, it's possible that it doesn't have a relationship with anything else, but only if we ignore the hierarchical distribution into which it so nicely fits"
"Yes, I know why some people say that Ardi is "rewriting evolutionary history," because it corrects a previous assumption that humans evolved bipedalism in the African planes, instead Ardi shows that bipedalism possibly evolved in forest ares"
So it fits nicely or it corrects previous assumptions/ predictability's. Which is it?
benthemiester 2 years ago
Both... it fits the hierarchical distribution very well and it corrects the previous assumption regarding where bipedalism evolved. I don't see a contradiction there...
ozpowermo 2 years ago
You still haven't demonstrated what you believe to be the lineage of apes from Ardi to modern man. So I cant really comment by what you mean by it fits the hierarchy and are you aware that the narrative you draw has its secular non religious detractors. The word previous assumptions is a semantic play on the word predictability. At best were replacing previous assumptions with current assumptions.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens
ozpowermo 2 years ago
I appreciate the clarification on lineage. There seem to be a few problems with this example. The first two seem to be a dispute with the bio chronological dating methods used and seem to overlap. The variations of Australopithecus examples also exist in the same time period. The subject is to vast for you tube but I will send you some information that seems to be very inconsistent with the lineage you have shown. When I have some time ill finish explaining the last few examples.
benthemiester 2 years ago
How is the overlap in dating problematic if you're looking at the fossil record from evolutionary perspective?
ozpowermo 2 years ago
The reason why its a problem is because it is not a linear progression they way you think it is. There still is no consensus as to which came first. Homo Habilis is even less bipedal and more ape like than Australopithecus.This makes no sense. I have also given you names of world renowned anatomist like Zuckerman who disagree with your example. My friend Kenny Tewy has a similar lineage on his page and we disagree also. I would have spent at least a few days verifying the info I gave.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Again... I still don't see how an overlap is problematic:
Diverging species co-exist for a period of time, but eventually the one that's less adapted will go extinct.
The structure of Ardi's wrists and fore-arms is not at all built for knuckle-walking; the skull rests on TOP of the spinal column; the muscles attachment points the legs and the pelvis are rearranged for bipedal locomotion. I already gave you two articles with make that conclusion...
ozpowermo 2 years ago
So you don't see a problem with homo habilis being more ape like and less bipedal than its predecessors. Do you think you're more knowledgeable than Solly Zuckerman and his team of fifteen scientist that studied Australopithecus for over ten years. 2 simple questions.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I don't think I'm more knowledgeable than Solly Zuckerman... I'm only reporting what was discussed in the evidence which shows Astroalopithecus was very well adapted for bipedal locomotion and the inconsistency with Zuckerman's conclusions.
If the conclusion on homo habilis is as shady as Zuckerman's, then I wouldn't have a problem with it... I'd have to read the related articles in order to comment.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
I can tell you didn't read the studies I sited. Zuckerman and his team studied Australopithecus for more years than anyone did. He didn't believe it to be an ancestor of man and many others agree. The current school of thought was that it might have shared a common ancestor with humans. Homo habilis is a different species and different subject. I don't know why you couldn't answer the question I posed concerning its even more ape like features than its predecessors.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Of course I can't answer the question on Homo habilis... you're asking me to discuss details which I don't know off the top of my head and I'm only given the information which you provided (i.e. I haven't verified it myself). Without doing further research I can't address those things.
I'm only addressing what I can back up with evidence.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
The assumptions of exactly where bipedalism evolved are nearly irrelevant... what is relevant is that we have these transitional fossils which show that over time there is a progression from quadrupedal locomotion to bipedal locomotion in the hominid lineage.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
You don't have to worry about extremist from the creationist side they have know control over academia. Kent Hovind is one of the biggest fire and brimstone creationist out there and even he doesn't believe in creationism being taught in public schools despite what u hear from the popular media. The question at hand is academic freedom and the fear that Neo Darwinist have in people who will start to realize the futility of the modern synthesis. They have boxed themselves into a static corner.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Sorry... I forgot the *not* in there: yet it did *not* use its knuckles like chimps.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
While the ideologues have been interested in the culture wars, science has suffered. My position is that if we keep telling kids its all wrapped up and there's no weaknesses.Then we do them a disservice. Maybe if we told them about the problems we could inspire these young minds to try to answer the fundamental questions that need to be resolved. Maybe creating interest among the young is not such a bad thing. Unfortunately anyone who does so is attacked as a fanatic. What a fine mess were in.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Dr. Richard Lewontin—Dr. Coynes mentor at Harvard—wrote Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
benthemiester 2 years ago
cont..We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
benthemiester 2 years ago
cont.. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I decided to ask [NCSE Executive Director Eugenie Scott] some questions since I'd interviewed her colleague [NCSE President] Kevin Padian about the "evolution debate", and he'd hung up on me. ...
benthemiester 2 years ago
cont...
...When I introduced myself to Eugenie Scott, who was unfamiliar with my stories on evolution, I asked her what she thought about self-organization and why self-organization was not represented in the books NCSE was promoting?
She responded that people confuse self-organization with Intelligent Design and that is why NCSE has not been supportive.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Ardi is less human-like than Lucy in many ways:
It has opposable thumbs on the feet.
Lucy is much better evolved for bipedal locomotion than Ardi.
Ardi has a brain size between 300 and 350cc while Lucy's brain was 380-430cc.
Ardi has larger canines (associated with more primitive hominids).
Etc...
There are many other features which indicate it is less adapt to bipedal locomotion, yet it did use its knuckles like chimps.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Mortison,
I agree that the best way to defend evolution is with the evidence, but I've been following this debate for a long time (I'm sure you have too) and it's true that scientists defend from authority, but there is a reason for that: zealot arguments are at such low level that in order to correct them you have to teach them the fundamentals of science... why should scientists waste their time with such people?
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Mortison,
The theory is being attacked by ideological zealots. Initially they wanted to replace evolution with religion, now due to multiple unsuccessful attempts they have have re-branded the effort and will simply be satisfied with making any dents in the credibility of the theory.
If scientists did research only in the areas that are not problematic, then where is this problematic evidence coming from? It's certainly not coming from the critics, because the critics don't do research at ALL!
ozpowermo 2 years ago
When I spoke of Newtonian physics I wasn't necessarily speaking of the formation of planets although that can also apply. I was speaking of the way the galaxies behave over time the kind of trajectories we see and the way some don't seem to conform to Newtonian principles. There are many theories black holes, dark matter, string theories, and many more. Einstein and modern cosmologist in general have been questioning the limitations of gravity for over 80 years.
benthemiester 2 years ago
The trajectories of galaxies are more influenced by the expanding universe than by Newtonian Physics.
In any case, we use Newtonian Physics (or simply gravity) to explain how planetary systems formed, yet we are unable to conduct an experiment which shows the formation of a planetary system. For the same reason we are able to make that conclusion, we are also able to conclude that micro evolution translates into macro evolution.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Well do explain how regular biology can use math more than evolutionary biology... I would love to see how you figured that one out. As a matter of fact if we didn't have evolutionary biology, then I'm sorry to repeat this statement, but nothing in biology would make sense.
There is a reason why we have come to that conclusion... if we didn't know evolution, then we pretty much wouldn't be able to explain anything in biology. Furthermore, I use ToE on a daily basis to make trading strategies.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
Of course the process for novel features is addressed- they evolve through the change of allele frequency and natural selection. The explanation of what the intermediate forms would actually be is given either by the fossil record or the currently existing intermediate/ring species... there is no other way to determine what they are.
In quantum mechanics you can't predict the position of an electron-positron pair because it's random: in evo we can't exactly predict where a mutation would occur
ozpowermo 2 years ago
It is falsifiable... if we consistently saw a wide variety of fossils in incorrect strata, then we would be forced to conclude evolution is not true.
If we saw an inconsistent relationship between morphological similarities and genetic similarities, then we would have to conclude that evolution is false.
The history of life on earth could be different, but a hierarchical distribution would still exist and that hierarchical distribution is only possible through evolution.
ozpowermo 2 years ago
"If we saw an inconsistent relationship between morphological similarities and genetic similarities, then we would have to conclude that evolution is false"
According to that statement the theory is dead. If you like when I have some time I will give you many examples of verifiable inconsistencies that have been peer reviewed for that matter. Poor choice of words if you advocate macro evolution.
benthemiester 2 years ago