|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/06/2005 : 06:29:22 [Permalink]
|
Funky-lookin' li'l dude, ain't he?
I must reserve judgment until (if) the mummified corpse comes to light and is examined a qualified pathologist -- don't bet on pubic hair 'till you can count the papillion d'amour living in it.
I hate to be picky (no I don't -- I love it!), but in the article Pedro was refered to as an 'artifact'. This is incorrect, unless the mummy was made up in someone's garage. Which is an interesting possibility, incidently. I wouldn't know how to go about it, but some remarkable things have been done with dead animals.
Do you have access to the x-rays taken of it?
Again, good luck! I hope that you are successful, but I rather doubt you'll falsify the ToE with it. But if you do, you'll collect the Nobel Prize (and might could loan me some money  ).
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2005 : 10:44:52 [Permalink]
|
| Take a look closer on the site and you will find the x-rays. Two of them to be exact. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2005 : 12:46:29 [Permalink]
|
I see I scanned to quickly -- small fonts tend to make me do that. I'd thought those were drawings -- my bad!
Not very definitive, I think. Perhaps it's just me and my layman's eye, but I can't seem to make out the pelvis nor a clavical. I also count some twenty nine or thirty vertabrae from what appears to be the area of the coccyx to the back of the skull rather than the base. The collarbones seem to go too high. I also can't seem to get a symetrical rib count -- probably due to the quality of the x-rays. Also, the length of the arms appear to rival or exceed that of the legs and I cannot find the second bone in the lower leg -- again, not a good x-ray.
Perhaps B'gal will comment om this -- she knows far more about it than I.
I wonder what a modern CAT scan would show.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2005 : 14:18:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I wonder what a modern CAT scan would show.
Same. I hope they find the thing. I'd very much like to see a full CAT/PET scan and maybe an MRI in addition to some modern xrays.
And again I ask... what, specifically, kind of "problem" do you propose that Pedro will cause for evolution IF he is found to be a real adult (as opposed to child with a disease) hominid?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2005 : 20:46:56 [Permalink]
|
Bibleland, I noticed on your site a review for a book on fossils and one of the quotes in the review states the following:
quote:
Modern science states the further back you go in the fossil record the less complex are the organisms.
"Modern science" states nothing of the sort. This statement is just plain wrong.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 02/06/2005 20:47:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2005 : 21:36:23 [Permalink]
|
Check out this newspaper clipping, in which the reporter (or whoever penned the caption) asserts that Pedro "has the scientists wondering, some of which declare that it is the only known specimen of mankind at that time."
At what time? Radiocarbon dating wasn't used until 1954 (see the Piltdown Man hoax), and the clipping is from 1950. So the only way to know what time Pedro was from would have been the context in which he was found. In a cave. He wasn't buried under umpty-ump layers of silt. And by 1950, he'd been removed from that context for some 18 years. I'm fairly confident in my conclusion that there's no way any scientist worth his diploma would ever have stated that Pedro "is the only known specimen of mankind at that time."
Was the Casper Star-Tribune a tabloid? Or were they just pandering to sensationalism (a behaviour I'm sure wasn't invented in the last 50 years)? Or were the scientists they spoke with talking outside their field(s) of expertise (happens all the time, see the Discovery Institute's list of 300 scientists who disagree with evolution). Most likely of all, the reporter (or whoever) only spoke with Goodman, who made the claim about what "scientists" declare, in order to hype the mummy and pump the public for more money. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 11:39:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Bibleland, I noticed on your site a review for a book on fossils and one of the quotes in the review states the following:
quote:
Modern science states the further back you go in the fossil record the less complex are the organisms.
"Modern science" states nothing of the sort. This statement is just plain wrong.
Most of you are as we are, not scientists and may from time to time need correcting. We do listen to all your comments and appreciate them. Let me ask this. If science is not saying that all life forms that evolve are going from a less complex to more complex then what would be a more correct statement? Can I say that evolutionists believe that organisms go from higher to lessor forms too and that it is a hodge podge with no telling what the out come will be? Is it all predicated on the particular enviornment the organism is in? Help me on this one.
Regarding your question on how proving Pedro to be a full grown man will help disprove evolution. The mummy only questions evolution in the sense of where does he fit in? If there are other minnie mummy's and there are at least 6, where does a whole tribe of these fit in? We believe man was created perfect and we have de-evolved into what we are today. You believe the opposite. Yes? No? I'm interested in what you believe. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 12:22:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
Most of you are as we are, not scientists and may from time to time need correcting. We do listen to all your comments and appreciate them. Let me ask this. If science is not saying that all life forms that evolve are going from a less complex to more complex then what would be a more correct statement? Can I say that evolutionists believe that organisms go from higher to lessor forms too and that it is a hodge podge with no telling what the out come will be? Is it all predicated on the particular enviornment the organism is in? Help me on this one.
All is predicated upon the environments different organisms find themselves a part of. Evolution has no direction. If more complexity for an organism improves its reprodeuctive success, its descendants will probably (but not necessarily) be more complex. If less complexity aids reproduction, then less-complex organisms will find themselves to have an advantage.
And it all depends on how you measure "complexity." Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but some ferns have more than 600 pairs. By that measure, humans are vastly less complex than plants which have been around for far longer.
But besides all that, scientists would be hard-pressed to state that today's bacteria are more (or less) complex than bacteria from 3 billion years ago. All that can be said, really, is that their shapes weren't dramatically different.
Everything that is alive today is the result of about four billion years of evolution. While people may talk about "lower" life forms, that's nothing more than a popular distinction between creatures which display consciousness and self-awareness and those that don't, and not a biological distinction. And when scientists talk about "primitive" structures or organs, they're talking about things which evolved before other things, not about the complexity of those things.quote:
Regarding your question on how proving Pedro to be a full grown man will help disprove evolution. The mummy only questions evolution in the sense of where does he fit in? If there are other minnie mummy's and there are at least 6, where does a whole tribe of these fit in?
As an off-shoot. The idea that all of humanity evolved from those mummies is disproven by the context in which Pedro was found (Wyoming).quote:
We believe man was created perfect and we have de-evolved into what we are today. You believe the opposite. Yes? No?
No. Evolutionary theory doesn't deal with judgement calls like "perfection." Like Popeye, we are what we are. While we might think, on an egotistical basis, that tool use and language are "better" than not having those abilities, we've got no evidence that (for example) A. afarensis wouldn't or couldn't survive and thrive in today's world (assuming all modern humans went missing, of course).quote:
I'm interested in what you believe.
Well, evolutionary theory isn't a "belief," though you may not have meant to imply that.
[Edited to fix quoting - Dave W.] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 13:31:20 [Permalink]
|
You see humans as losing perfection, we see perfection as an unobtainable goal because perfect in one environment is a disaster in another environment. So due to the fact that the planet is an unstable environment, perfection in it is only temporary till the weather changes or until something more perfect comes along and eats you.
If say nuclear war or an asteroid or whatever killed off all of the humans. We could not classify humans as a success in that case, bacteria however would still be counted with scientific notation. So in a sense I believe that the most successful organisms are the most adaptable and least likely to be destroyed. Humans are in the middle of the pack I'd guess on the survivability list.
Of coruse comparing sulfer eating high pressure bacteria to stomach bacterias is like comparing humans to frogs.
Neat fact: All of the bacteria on the planet would create a slimy film 10m thick if placed on the surface of the planet....might be 10 feet but either way thats alot of slime.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 13:45:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I see I scanned to quickly -- small fonts tend to make me do that. I'd thought those were drawings -- my bad!
Not very definitive, I think. Perhaps it's just me and my layman's eye, but I can't seem to make out the pelvis nor a clavical. I also count some twenty nine or thirty vertabrae from what appears to be the area of the coccyx to the back of the skull rather than the base. The collarbones seem to go too high. I also can't seem to get a symetrical rib count -- probably due to the quality of the x-rays. Also, the length of the arms appear to rival or exceed that of the legs and I cannot find the second bone in the lower leg -- again, not a good x-ray.
Perhaps B'gal will comment om this -- she knows far more about it than I.
I wonder what a modern CAT scan would show.
The pelvis is visible on the image on the left. The clavicles are there. The ribs are bizarre but then it isn't the normal, "take a breath, stand straight", angle.
I'm still at a loss as to how this poor soul is supposed to refute evolution?quote:
Shapiro felt uncomfortable with his conclusions. If he sided with some who believed Pedro was a 60-year-old full grown male then he'd have the job of placing him in an evolutionary family tree that has little room for such a creature
This is just silly. I guess they've never seen deformed people. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/07/2005 13:50:21 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 13:57:26 [Permalink]
|
After 20 pages of google images, this was the only full body X-ray I could find. It is of a fetus. The comparison though, suggests further the mummy X-ray, short of being deformed, is not that unusual.
I don't see any epiphyseal plates on the long bones suggesting a full grown person, but then we are looking at an image of the x-rays, not the films.
Here is the only epiphyseal plate visible on an X-ray after pages of review to find one. Ignore the fact the x-ray is really of a bone lesion.
Once again, so what? |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/07/2005 14:13:03 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 14:06:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Like Popeye, we are what we are.
*Ahem* That's "we yar what we yar," Dave...  |
|
|
|
Baza
New Member
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 14:07:33 [Permalink]
|
| The x-rays are poor to be sure. howver this doesn't look human to me. There should be 7 cerviacal vertebre and I can see only five perhaps 6. Also the cervical vertebre shoulddecrease in size as they arise from the thoracic vertebrae, forming a wedge shape. These seem uniform. There also seem to be a strange number of thoracic vertebre with ribs attached. in humans there are the remnants of ribs at 11 and 12 but on this specimen they appear to attach on all twelve. The skull indeed does appear ancephalic but it seems to be very distorted. We could do with better xrays preferably a Ct scan to image it or better a skilled anatomist with a knife. I suspect probly a good vet would be required here. Probably a monkey or similar as the coxxyx area does seem to end quite abuply as if a tail or similar has been removed. |
Baza |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 14:09:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
*Ahem* That's "we yar what we yar," Dave...
I never could get the Popeye accent correct. Which is why you'll rarely hear me state one of my favorite "Borg" sayings: "I am Popeye of Borg, prepare to be askrimilgated." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 14:35:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Baza
The x-rays are poor to be sure. howver this doesn't look human to me. There should be 7 cerviacal vertebre and I can see only five perhaps 6. Also the cervical vertebre shoulddecrease in size as they arise from the thoracic vertebrae, forming a wedge shape. These seem uniform. There also seem to be a strange number of thoracic vertebre with ribs attached. in humans there are the remnants of ribs at 11 and 12 but on this specimen they appear to attach on all twelve. The skull indeed does appear ancephalic but it seems to be very distorted. We could do with better xrays preferably a Ct scan to image it or better a skilled anatomist with a knife. I suspect probly a good vet would be required here. Probably a monkey or similar as the coxxyx area does seem to end quite abuply as if a tail or similar has been removed.
You could be right.
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/seven.html#anchor1844988
quote:
The human vertebral column consists of 33 vertebrae divided into five functional regions.
1. Seven cervical vertebrae, easily recognized by their transverse foramina, form the skeleton of our neck. The joints (articular surfaces) between cervical vertebrae are very mobile.
2. Twelve thoracic vertebrae, mobile only in the coronal plane, support the ribs.
3. Five robust lumbar vertebrae in the lower back are tightly articulated to withstand the weight of the torso.
4. Five sacral vertebrae fuse to form the sacrum, the component of the axial skeleton in the pelvis.
5. Four caudal vertebrae extend downward from the sacrum. In adults these caudal vertebrae unit to form the coccyx, a hidden human tail that partially blocks the inferior pelvic aperture.
Viewed from the side, humans have a series of four curvatures. The dorsal outline of the cervical and lumbar regions are concave while the thoracic and sacral regions are convex. The forward curve of the lumbar region is called lordosis and that of the thoracic region is called kyphosis.
Chimpanzees generally to have one more thoracic, one less lumbar vertebra, and one less caudal vertebra than do humans. Both normally have seven cervical vertebrae and normally the combined thoracic, lumbar, and sacral regions consists of 22 vertebrae. Chimpanzees lack the extreme curves of the human column, and the angle between the lumbar and sacral region is more acute .
Human Mean Thoracic:12 Lumbar:5 Sacral:5.2 TLS: 22.2 Caudal: 4.0
Chimpanzee Mean Thoracic:13.2 Lumbar:3.6 Sacral:5.7 TLS:22.5 Caudal3.3
Human Range Thoracic:11-13 Lumbar:4-6 Sacral :4-7 Caudal:2-5
Chimpanzee Range Thoracic:12-14 Lumbar 3-4 Sacral :4-8 Caudal:2-5
Also, the forearms look long compared to the humerous.quote:
Short limbs with leg and arm comparable - quadrupedal and arboreal
Long limbs with leg and arm of equal length - quadrupedal and terrestrial
Very long limbs with leg and arm of comparable length - quadrupedal and arboreal with an emphasis on quadrupedal climbing and suspension
Arm longer than leg - brachiation and arboreal
Arm longer than leg - quadrupedal knuckle-walking and fist walking
Leg longer than arm - leaping and arboreal
Leg longer than arm - bipedalism
Differences in the pelvis reflect the differences between the habitual bipedal locomotion of humans and quadrupedal movements of chimps . The pelvis of the two primates have radically different form and locomotor function. The relative width of the iliac blade (width/length x 100) is much larger in humans (125.5) than in chimpanzees (66.0). The human ilium is broad and low, while the chimp ilium is narrow and high. The human has a barely noticeable iliac pillar or thickening which extends from the iliac tubercle to the acetabulum. The human has an anterior inferior iliac spine. The human acetabulum is larger, reflecting the larger head of the femur, and the superior border of the acetabulum is reinforced to sustain the pressure of bipedal walking. The inferior border of the ilium near the auricular surface forms a greater sciatic notch in humans. The auricular surface is larger in the human. The ape sacrum is long and narrow
The human chest consists of 12 paired ribs that articulate with the vertebral column. Ribs I through VII attach ventrally to the sternum. Ribs VIII through X terminate in cartilage extensions that eventually fasten to the sternum. Ribs XI and XII have free distal ends. The sternum is composed of six flat bones that fuse in adults to three units, the manubrium (segment I), body (segments II through V), and xiphoid process (segment VI). In some persons, especially in old age, the three units of the sternum may fuse to each other.
Consistent with their extra thoracic vertebra, chimpanzees usually have one extra rib (13 pairs). The human rib cage is slightly broader for its depth than the chimpanzee and the human thorax is less funnel-shaped. Chimpanzee ribs are also somewhat rounder in cross-section than human ribs
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/07/2005 14:37:03 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
