This is a discussion between me and a creationist that personal messaged me on Youtube. I want to post it here for the members of this forum to critique it. I would love to hear opinions about it. I am not sure if the discussions will continue, it is up to the creationist to message me back. I will update it whenever a new message is sent.
My handle on Youtube is jebus6kryst and the creationist's handle is Remensum.
My handle on Youtube is jebus6kryst and the creationist's handle is Remensum.
Remensum said:No pithecanthropes
I take it you are aware that the "transitional taxa" between the australopithecines and humans are no more?
Paleaontologists now accept that Homo habilis/rudolfensis were contemporaneous with very human-like Homo ergaster/erectus (Turkana Boy) and really no different from the gracile australoopithecines.
Yes, more fossils have emerged...but the pattern of descent has collapsed.
If you need the citations, just ask.
Aug 20, 2010
jebus6kryst said:Re: No pithecanthropes
Sorry I took so long to respond. I was in the middle of moving.
You are correct. A. habilis most likely lived with early Homo and was not the transitional form between the Australopiths and Homo. No citations needed because I remember reading about that when I first started college. You are not saying anything new. What is your point?
Do you really think that the theory of evolution hinged on A. habilis leading to the genus Homo? Alternatively, if we found the link between Australopiths and Homo would you accept evolution? Furthermore, the pattern of descent did not collapse with those findings, it only shows that old ideas were wrong and we do not have an accurate picture of the link between Australopith and Homo. This is not a shortcoming of the theory of evolution; it is a shortcoming of the geological record.
Can you do me a favor? Please define evolution in a biological context. The reason I ask this is that I have noticed that people that argue against evolution usually do not know the first thing about it.
Aug 28, 2010
Remensum said:Re: Re: No pithecanthropes
I am suggesting that there still exists no missing link between humans and their 'ape-like ancestors' It was Wood and Collard who first suggested that H habilis should be reclassified as A habilis (yes, citations are necessary in science):
The more work done on the Dmanisi fossils show them to be fully human, although likely symptomatic of a pathological condition like 'Homo floresiensis' which was found to be a cretinous Homo sapiens.
The theory of evolutionism is in ruins....it must be allowed to wither and die.
Oct 31, 2010
jebus6kryst said:Re: Re: Re: No pithecanthropes
I am still waiting for you to define evolution in a biological context. Until that happens, it will be hard to discuss this subject.
Furthermore, when I stated "no citation needed" I was referring to the fact that I did not need you to cite the articles about the age of A. habilis. I have already read them. You also did not answer my questions I asked when referring to A. habilis as well so I will repost them.
"Do you really think that the theory of evolution hinged on A. habilis leading to the genus Homo? Alternatively, if we found the link between Australopiths and Homo would you accept evolution?"
Now you are claiming that we have no fossils between humans and our last common ancestor with other apes. Surely, you jest. Have you forgotten all of the Australopithecine species that fit neatly into cladistical analyses?
Beyond that, it seems you are now claiming that the hominins discovered in Dmanisi were fully human. However, this claim goes un-cited. I wonder why? Could it be because the Dmanisi species illustrate a perfect transitional step between A. afarensis and H. erectus (Pontzer et al., 2010) or that the brains size of the Dmanisi species are smaller than any H. sapiens (Rightmire et al., 2006)? Their average brain size is smaller than H. erectus.
Furthermore, thank you for the Oxnard et al. paper, which was a very interesting read. They make a great argument. However, you do understand that even if the specimens on Flores were discovered to be a pathological H. sapiens that it would do nothing to disprove evolution, right? Oxnard et al. (2010) even agree that the jury is still out about the specimens found on Flores to determine if they are a new species or a pathological H. sapiens. They are just pointing out a hypothesis about these fossils that they are hoping to test against future discoveries.
In my opinion, finding more specimens is the key to the debate about H. floresiensis.
Oxnard C, Obendorf PJ, Kefford BJ, 2010 Post-Cranial Skeletons of Hypothyroid Cretins Show a Similar Anatomical Mosaic as Homo floresiensis. PLoS ONE 5(9): e13018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013018
Pontzer H, Bolian C, Rightmire, G, Jashashvili T, Ponce M, de Leon, P, Lordkipanidze D, & Zollikofer C. Locomotor anatomy and biomechanics of the Dmanisi hominins. Journal of Human Evolution. P. 492 -- 504
Rightmire,G.P.,Lordkipanidze,D.,Vekua,A.,2006.Anatomicaldescriptions, comparativestudiesandevolutionarysignificance of thehomininskullsfrom Dmanisi, RepublicofGeorgia.J.Hum.Evol.50,115e141.
Oct 31, 2010
Remensum said:Re: Re: Re: Re: No pithecanthropes
Let me say that I accept 'evolution' as a fact if it means the change in allelic frequencies over time. There is indeed a process of variation and selection in biology that contributes to some changes and adaptations.
But the theory of evolution goes beyond that - it insists that this observed process is responsible for all of the diversity of life and the entire proliferation of genetic information since the birth of the hypothetical last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
I see this as a *massive* extrapolation that is scientifically unsupported.
Now, if there were a true intermediate between 'apes' and 'humans' found repeatedly in the fossil record then I would have to concede that evolution is plausible. If the evolutionist hoax in 'Piltdown man' were not a forgery, then I would have to regard this as good evidence.
Unfortunately, the Dmanisi fossils (which are found in the wrong part of the world anyway) just don't do it. The Pontzer paper you cite reports that "the Dmanisi hind limb was functionally similar to modern humans, with a longitudinal plantar arch, increased limb length, and human-like ankle morphology."
The efforts to show that the Dmanisi people walked in a different way to modern humans has also been disputed.
and it has been found their spines were "thoroughly modern":
"The Dmanisi spinal column falls within the human range and would have comfortably accommodated a modern human spinal cord."
Yes, the brain size for two of the specimens (600-650cc) is very small but I suspect these were just microcephaliacs - one of them is missing his/her teeth. If we accept that the tiny-brained Homo floresiensis ( 340cc) is just a modern human with a pathological condition then we should not make too much emphasis on brain size.
Unfortunately, the Dmanisi remains expose the inanity of the evolutionist claims. They find something and declare it to be some great missing link. They THEN do the research and it looks less and less "transitional". We saw this with IDA and we saw this with A sediba. It is getting really annoying and tiresome.
Nov 01, 2010
jebus6kryst said:Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No pithecanthropes
Great, you know and accept the biological definition of evolution. Given that definition can you please explain to me the mechanism that stops it? You believe for some reason that evolution cannot produce life as we know it from the LUCA, yet provide no evidence to support that claim.
Humans are apes; we belong to the family Hominidae. Furthermore, we have many transitional fossils, such as the Australopiths, the Ardipiths, and several earlier species of Homo. Again, to rephrase my question: do you really believe that finding human transitional fossils is what the theory of evolution is hinging upon? You do realize that fossil evidence is only one piece of evidence that supports evolution. It is not even the best we have. There is far more genetic evidence.
Furthermore, Piltdown man? Really? You might want to get up to date on current debate in anthropological circles. You do not want to embarrass yourself.
First off, wrong part of the world? Where is it written in stone that the transitional fossils had to be found in Africa? Paleoanthropologists only believed that the fossil should be found in Africa, finding them in Dmanisi means nothing.
Second, Nice quote mine of the abstract (did you even read the article?), but in the very next sentence it states. "Other aspects of the foot, speciÃ¯Â¬Âcally metatarsal morphology and tibial
torsion, are less derived and similar to earlier hominins." Exactly as I stated.
Apparently, you did not read my source, nor the one you linked (seeing in that the one I linked to was the response to the paper you are citing). Furthermore, walking with more medial oriented feet would not be much different from a modern H. sapiens walk. That was not the point of the paper I cited. The point was that their feet are basal when compared to H. sapiens and earlier hominins. Thus the reason why the Dmanisi specimens represent a transition between the Australopiths and H. erectus.
I was not arguing about their spine, so I do not see the relevance of that comment. Of course a transitional specimen is going to have elements of what it once was and what it is to become.
You make another claim and provide no evidence to support it. What authority do you have to suspect that the Dmanisi specimens suffered any pathology? Tooth loss and rre-absorption of the bone that make up the jaw are expected from elderly individuals.
It would seems that the research being done on the Dmanisi specimens supports that it is a great example of a transitional fossil. I do agree with you about Ida and A. sediba, but scientist who cared more about making money than the science discovered both those. Both are examples of the scientists running to the press with something before their results are carefully vetted. The Dmanisi specimens are nothing like that. The Ardipithecus discovery was nothing like that.
Do you have any real arguments to make?
Nov 01, 2010
Remensum said:The hard facts
Obviously, you haven't read the literature which lists the myriad of natural limits to biological change. I don't have the time to give you a lecture, but I would hope you realize that variations on the same theme do not lead to new themes. If I were to tinker and tweak a gene coding for a digestive enzyme (protease) it is never ever going to become one for a light-sensitive protein (opsin). I have an accepted paper whose proofs are being prepared right now which shows this to be the case. I will send you the link when it is done. It effectively destroys much of the arguments of the Neo-Darwinists.
I'm sorry but there is no anagenetic relationship between the Ardipiths and Australopiths. That much has indeed been established. The theory of human evolution does require a nice sequence of transition to be found in the fossil record. 'Piltdown Man' was the worst hoax in science but the evolutionists just want to ignore this fact.
The Dmanisi fossils might be significant if they were found in East Africa. They were instead found in Georgia. This has led people to speculate that Homo habilis left Africa, evolved into Homo ergaster and then returned to Africa - complete nonsense.
The claim about their feet being more 'basal' is unsubstantiated. I read the paper and the authors state that "while Dmanisi metatarsal morphology differs somewhat from that of later Homo ,the Dmanisi foot appears functionally similar to that of modern humans. Among our comparative sample, the size and morphology of the Dmanisi talus is most like that of African H. erectus and modern humans."
Note that these scientists are desperately trying to spin the case for transition but are clutching at straws and minor differences. If you want to ignore the spine which is thoroughly modern then wallow in your own ignorance.
If you consider yourself to be an 'ape', I think you should mention this to your health insurers. It could lower your premiums as you would only need to see a qualified vet.
Nov 02, 2010
jebus6kryst said:Re: The hard facts
Nope I have not. Would you mind citing a few of those sources for me? I mean this should be easy since you are writing a paper about it. Most of the sources you used for it should be the same, no? Until that is done, I will just say claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. By the way, what journal are you submitting your paper too?
Well no shit there is not an anagenetic relationship between any fossil groups and living groups. That is not how evolution works and no one expects it to work that way. We are lucky to have fossils in the first place. Moreover, you are right; we know that many of the fossils could not lead to an anagenetic lineage for the simple fact that they are fossils of juveniles (e.g. Taung Child). You are creating a straw man.
Again, I must ask, why do you believe fossils are needed to prove any evolution, let alone human? We have enough genetic evidence to show human evolution and our relationship to other primates. Fossils are not needed, but I do think they are a lot of fun to dig up and look at.
Piltdown Man could have been the worse scientific hoax in history; I will give you that. It is a good thing that Paleoanthropologists using the theory of evolution exposed it as a hoax. Not one creationist involved.
Complete nonsense, why? Because you say so? What are your qualifications for making this statement? As I stated before the idea that the genus Homo evolving in Africa was not set in stone. They could have evolved anywhere and Georgia is not that far from Africa, where earlier hominins are found. Now if we were to find these specimens in South America, you would have a case.
That quote you provided from the article is golden. I do not understand the point of you quoting it to me when it supports my position. I think it might be that you do not realize that there are seven bones in a human foot (sic), not counting the toes. In addition, I do not think you realize that the quote covers exactly what I was stating. The talus is derived whereas the metatarsals are basal. Thank you for helping my argument and undermining your own. I could not have done it better myself.
I will wallow in the fact that something that is transitional has features of what it once was and what it is becoming. I guess you really do not understand what a transitional fossil would look like. The spine being derived and the feet being basal is exactly what we would expect. Again, thank you for undermining your own argument and strengthening mine.
Your appeal to ridicule only exposes your own ignorance of biology. Do you not agree with the classification of humans in the clade Hominidae? What evidence do you have to show that humans do not belong to this clade and what clade should they be in? Furthermore, how far back are you willing to argue that point? Do you not accept that humans are also primates, mammals, vertebrates, or animals?
Nov 02, 2010
Remensum said:Re: Re: The hard facts
Well, I suggest you read my paper if you can't be be bothered to do some basic research. If you like, I can email a private copy to you if you provide an address. As I say, the paper has been accepted by the journal Complexity and will soon be published by Wiley.
It demonstrates hat evolution at the level of genetics is extremely limited.
Now, if you believe that your precious theory does not require actual physical evidence to substantiate its spurious claims, then you are clearly not interested in science. The "fake apemen" video you responded to was spot on in debunking the nonsense about various fossil finds being missing links and direct ancestors. I remember being "taught" in school about how I was descended from Ramapithecus ( now known to be an ancient pongid).
You are focusing on one feature of the Dmanisi foot morphology that you interpret as fitting in with your own concept of primitive/derived traits. There is nothing to suggest the Dmanisi humans walked any differently than Homo ergaster in Africa:
Bennett, MR et al (2009). Early Hominin Foot Morphology Based on 1.5-Million-Year-Old Footprints from Ileret, Kenya Science Vol. 323. no. 5918, pp. 1197 -- 1201
These are essentially the same as those made by Homo sapiens.
The term "hominidae" is just taxonomical verbiage. Humans are NOT apes because they are :
i) Obligate bipeds
ii) Cannot brachiate.
iii) Cannot knuckle-walk
iv) Can use speech and language
v) Have semi-circular canals not suited for arboreal life.
vi) Are fully dextrous.
There are many more differences beyond these basic distinctions. The fact is that apes are arboreal creatures whereas we are terrestrial. Even those apes, such as Patas monkeys, that live on the ground retain their ape morphologies and behavior.
Nov 04, 2010
jebus6kryst said:Re: Re: Re: The hard facts
I can be bothered. Like I said in my previous message, please provide the citations you are talking about and I will look into them. Until that is done, I will simply state this again; claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. However, I do look forward to reading your paper when it is published.
The theory of evolution has a lot of physical evidence, the fossil record being just one piece. I never said it did not need any physical evidence. I simply pointed out that fossil evidence is not the best evidence we have. We have genetic and taxonomical evidence as well. If we did not have fossils of these hominins, we still would have evidence such as atavisms and ERVs to support the theory of evolution, not to mention all the observed speciation events.
I must say I love this statement from you: "I remember being 'taught' in school about how I was descended from Ramapithecus (now known to be an ancient pongid)." It seems like you are upset that science is a self-correcting process. Would you rather the anthropologists remained wrong and dogmatic about their beliefs like religion? New findings overturn old ideas in science, which is how science works.
This is the second (maybe third) time I have told you this, having basal metatarsals does not mean the hominins that possessed them walked any different from a modern human. That was not the point of the paper I cited you or the paper you cited back in response. Both of them agree that their walking pattern would have been essentially modern. You claimed to have read both the papers and if that is true, I must ask you to work on your reading comprehension.
Furthermore, of course the foot morphology made by H. erectus/ergaster would be essentially like H. sapiens, H. sapiens and H. erectus are identical (besides the robustness of the bones in H. erectus) post-cranially. What is the relevance of that paper to this discussion?
Humans are apes because they belong to the clade Hominoidea, there is a lot more to that than just taxonomical verbiage. Furthermore, I have to laugh at your claim of humans not being able to brachiate. Have you never seen kids playing on monkey bars? What do you think they are doing? I also laughed at your claim that all apes knuckle-walk. Orangutans and gibbons do not knuckle-walk (not to mention many of the fossil apes we have that did not knuckle-walk). Anyone taking a basic introductory level biological/physical anthropology class could have told you that.
Furthermore, you go on to expose your ignorance by stating that the Patas monkeys are apes. I have to say, that made me laugh the hardest. Can you not tell the difference between Cercopithecidae and Hominoidea? Now I must ask, are you familiar with cladistics? In addition, what are your qualifications for discussing hominin and primate evolution again? In order to understand the classification of Hominidae you need to know some basic facts about primates and cladistics. This message alone leads me to believe that you do not possess either.
Nov 04, 2010
Remensum said:Re: Re: Re: Re: The hard facts
You do realize that the "genetic evidence" cannot count. You can't say that because we share 50% of our DNA with a banana that we also share a common ancestor with a banana.We would expect to share more of our DNA in common with a chimp than with an amoeba - including ERVs because we would then share a common susceptibility. That doesn't prove anything. Anyway, for all the talk of a universal common descent, the theory of evolution simply simply simply cannot reconstruct a common ancestry at the molecular level. I challenge you or anyone else to provide a cladogram showing all the genes in the genome descending from a universal proto-ancestor gene.
And, yes, science is self-correcting but you don't expect to learn that pretty much everything you were taught at school has been overturned. How would you feel if you were among those kids lied to about 'Piltdown man' or 'Nebraska man'? If the evidence is still in flux and isn't well supported why is it included in the school curriculum?
Thank you for admitting that the post-cranial differences between 'Homo ergaster' and 'Homo sapiens' are minimal. The paper is significant because Turkana boy's feet were never preserved when he was dug up in 1984. And the fact is that Homo ergaster/erectus were cranio-dentally very similar to modern humans as well - with an endocranial capacity at the lower end of the Homo sapiens range (750-1250cc) compared to (900-1800cc).
The term "ape" is not a 'scientific' term. If I referred to Patas monkeys as 'apes' it is only to lump them in with their wider *kind*. Gibbons are known as "lesser apes" but are very monkey-like in appearance. Gorillas, macaques, chimps, bonobos, gibbons, baboons are all the same class of arboreal primate with distinctive features that we don't have.
The fact is that we are obligate bipeds - we use only one form of locomotion. Of course, if we were stupid we could try knuckle-walking or swinging from the trees but we are not *designed* for that kind of locomotion. The shoulder blades, ears and wrists of 'apes' are.
Nov 04, 2010
jebus6kryst said:Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The hard facts
Your understanding of the genetic evidence seems very limited. I am going to provide a video on how cladograms are created since I am no authority on the matter. That should clear up the issues you seem to be having with your understanding of how genetic evidence is interpreted. Furthermore, most cladograms created are based on genetic evidence. Therefore, your claim that universal common descent not being shown is simply false.
I agree. You do not expect everything that you were taught in school to be over turned. Yet it happens (e.g. Relativity). Science does not stand still and science does not knock on your door and tell you that things are changing. If you want to know the latest scientific knowledge, you have to actively seek it out. I graduated from high school five years ago and I do not expect everything I learned there to be set in stone and immutable.
First off, if I were one of those students lied to about Piltdown Man; I would feel that whoever preformed that hoax is nothing more than a charlatan. However, I would be happy that science is a self-correcting process and scientist using the theory of evolution exposed the hoax for the fraud it was. Piltdown Man is a good example of how the scientific method works.
I must laugh at the fact that you think any students were ever exposed to Nebraska Man. Stating something that foolish once again exposes how little you have researched into the field of anthropology.
Nevertheless, this gets to the crux of the problem does it not? You had a problem with Ida and A. sediba, yet neither of those were ever taught in any schools curriculum as evidence for evolution. They were vetted long before they ever could have made it into any textbook. So I must ask, what are you talking about here? What influx evidence is ever presented as evidence in a schools curriculum?
Yes. H. erectus has a smaller endocrinal capacity than H. sapiens. They also are lacking a chin, have far larger brow ridges, a sloping forehead, much larger teeth, and a larger more robust face (Conroy, 2005). Those are just the major differences in the cranial anatomy between H. erectus and H. sapiens. Furthermore, please cite the source for your low estimate for H. sapiens endocrinal capacity. According to my sources, it is 1200 -- 1700 (Conroy, 2005). That would mean that there is a small overlap in endocrinal capacity. I hope you are not trying to use humans with pathologies to decrease your minimum.
Kind is not a scientific term. If I referred to humans as apes, it is only to lump them in with their wider clade.
How exactly are gibbons monkey-like when they lack tails, brachiate (which you earlier claimed was a feature of being an ape), and are obligate fruit eaters?
What metric of measurement allows you to claim that gorillas and chimpanzees are the same class of arboreal primate as macaques and baboons, yet exclude humans? Are you aware that gorillas are not arboreal; they are a terrestrial primate?
Again, you do realize that our wrists and shoulder blades are more like that of chimpanzee or gorilla than any of those three are to a macaque or baboon.
However, you are right; we are obligate bipeds. You pointed out one of two major differences we share with the other apes. The second being our large brain (even large for an ape). Yet nothing you have shown so far counts as hard facts, in fact most of what you have stated does not even count as facts. Since it seems obvious you cannot tell the difference between different primates' clades I must ask again, what are your qualifications for stating most of the misinformation you have stated. A simple fact check on Google will expose most of your ideas about apes as being blatantly false. Furthermore, the term you want to use is adaptation not designed in that last paragraph.
I am still waiting for you to cite sources for your claims of limitations to the amount of change genes can go through and citations for the Dmanisi species having pathologies. I cannot remember if there is anything else. If you wish to continue this discussion, can you please cite those sources for me or admit to lying about them.
Conroy, G. (2001). Reconstructing Human Origins. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Nov 04, 2010
Remensum said:Really hard facts
No, you don't understand what i am referring to. I mean that there is no evidence for UCD as applied to gene families / classes: they cannot be traced back to a universal common ancestor. It is acknowledged that the various genes "independently evolved" whatever that means.You are referring to using genetics for reconstructing UCD for species.
'Piltdown Man' was the worst hoax in science and was perpetrated because Darwinists desperately wanted evidence to fit in with their theory. It is an example of the lengths they went to do achieve this. Watch NOVA's great documentary on it:
The endo-cranial capacity for modern humans is typically 1000-1500cc, but the range can go down to 900cc and even as high as 1800cc or more.
Burenhult G. (1993): The first humans: human origins and history to 10,000 BC. New York: HarperCollins
However, modern microcephaliacs have brain sizes of only 600cc and, of course, children have smaller brains than adults. Don't forget that the best fossil find for Homo ergaster is a *boy* from Kenya (Turkana Boy). Also Dmanisi 2700 (600cc) is apparently that of a pre-pubescent child because its wisdom teeth are missing. The completely toothless specimen is D3444 but it could just be some old guy rather than some freakoid.
Gorillas can and do brachiate - have you never been to a zoo before? They may spend a lot of time on the ground, like Patas monkeys, but they are built for arboreal life - check out their semi-circular canals. All apes and monkeys (however you want to classify them) have scapulas designed for this activity. Humans do not. sorry.
Anyway, I doubt you are able to grasp ANY of this but here are some papers on the natural limits to gene evolution. You asked for it. These are just a few:
1) Genetic linkage
Betancourt, A. J (2002) Presgraves, D. C. Linkage limits the power of natural selection in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99.
Barton NH.Genetics (1995). Linkage and the limits to natural selection;140(2):821-41.
Comeron, JM; Williford, A; Kliman, RM. (2008) The Hill-Robertson effect: evolutionary consequences of weak selection and linkage in finite populations. Heredity.;100(1):19-31.
2) Antagonistic pleiotropy
Sarah OP (2004). Two steps forward, one step back: the pleiotropic effects of favoured alleles. Proc Biol Sci , Vol. 271, No. 1540. pp. 705-714.
3) Antagonistic epistasis
Sanjuà¡n R, Nebot MR. (2008) A network model for the correlation between epistasis and genomic complexity.PLoS One.16;3(7):e2663
4) Protein folding/stability
Murphy, R; Tsai, A. (2007) Protein Folding, Misfolding, Stability, and Aggregation. Misbehaving Proteins pp 3-1.
Taverna DM, Goldstein RM (2000).The evolution of duplicated genes considering protein stability constraints. Pac Sym ComputBiol;69-80.
5) Genetic redundancy
Hanada, K et al (2009) Evolutionary Persistence of Functional Compensation by Duplicate Genes in Arabidopsis. Genome Biology and Evolution ;Vol. 2009:409.
Skipper, M.(2003).Compensation or innovation? Nature Reviews Genetics 4, 80.
Lenski, RE; Barrick, JE; Ofria, C.(2006) Balancing Robustness and Evolvability. PLoS Biol.;4(12):e428.
I could go on and on.
Nov 04, 2010