|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2011 : 09:37:18 [Permalink]
|
From justintime:
I am a Renaissance man.
That comment almost made me spit out what I was drinking. that's the funniest statement I have read all morning |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
 |
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 10:20:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by alienist
From justintime:
I am a Renaissance man.
That comment almost made me spit out what I was drinking. that's the funniest statement I have read all morning
|
You are not the first to say reading my post takes the bite out of the bitter morning coffee. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 12:00:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
I have presented what Dr Lovejoy said in his interviews, articles and video. It is your inability to grasp the full significance of Dr Lovejoys discovery and the implications he raises that is causing you such grief. Dr Lovejoys in his video said Darwin was wrong about evolution. I have not added or taken anything away from Dr Lovejoys works. Whatever your confusion is it is caused by your poor comprehension of Dr Lovejoys work. Even the titles are straight from the links to Dr Lovejoys articles and interviews etc. |
I have fully grasped the significance of Tim White’s discovery, and Owen Lovejoy’s observations about Ardi’s bipedalism. And it’s really cool!
When he says that Darwin was wrong, well... So were many others. And that's completely understandable. Anyone who looked at modern apes and thought that our last common ancestor looked more like them than us was wrong. Those people didn’t have Ardi to look at. That’s how science works. I never once said that Darwin had it right and Lovejoy is wrong. Lucy also changed the way we look at our evolution, because she was surprisingly fully bipedal as far back as 3.7 million years ago. Bipedal like we are. Her footprints look like ours! (She had a brain no larger than a chimpanzee.) Many other fossil species that we NOW have also changed the way we look at human evolution. I have already explained that.
justintime}
As for the Indian Photographer Akhil Bakshi. He is more than a photographer. You should have check his qualifications a little more thoroughly. Link: http://www.writers.net/writers/57444
|
There is not one thing in that biography that indicates that Akhil Bakshi is an expert in paleontology, anthropology or any other ology. A guys opinion is all it is, and it’s a stupid one.
So do you think Ardi was a human? Or do you think that the author was being hyperbolic?
So do you think Ardi was human? Or do you think the author was being hyperbolic?
We’ve been through this. The WSJ science writer was again being hyperbolic in his claim.
Again, he’s talking about MODERN apes. And yes, that was the common model before Ardi. What he isn’t saying is that our common ancestor was NOT an ape.
Now unless you think that Ardi was human, than calling our last common ancestor to chimps human is obviously not accurate. So pointing to articles that make that claim (even though Lovejoy isn't) is not a problem with my comprehension and clearly a problem with yours.
And just so you know, I don't claim the expert knowledge of the people who do work like White, Johanson and Lovejoy. But it's my favorite subject in all of science and I have kept up on the twists and turns in physical anthropology since I left school. This is not a new subject to me. I know who the players are. Ardi was NOT Owen lovejoy's discovery. He was brought in because his specialty is bipedalism in fossil hominid species. He was also brought in to help describe Lucy. My guess is I know a little more about this stuff than you do. No. I'm not an expert. But I know when the media is making claims for headlines that are unwarranted in this area.
Watch this video!
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 12:06:49 [Permalink]
|
justintime, the only way your assertion can be correct is to assume that humans existed more than 4 million years ago.
Is this what you're saying? (Or, to be more precise: is this what you think Lovejoy is saying?) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 12:28:42 [Permalink]
|
| I've been trying to find where Darwin wrote that humans came from chimps. That's the only way that Ardi could have shown him to be wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 12:35:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by alienist
From justintime:
I am a Renaissance man.
That comment almost made me spit out what I was drinking. that's the funniest statement I have read all morning
|
You are not the first to say reading my post takes the bite out of the bitter morning coffee.
|
We're I'm laughing _at_ you, not with you.
(edit: It's been pointed out to me that I don't speak for everyone. Some are just happily ignoring you altogether.) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/27/2011 07:48:35 |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 12:54:45 [Permalink]
|
| It's rather odd how people who are against Darwin's theory of evolution think that just because one aspect of the theory is incorrect, the whole theory is wrong and should be discarded. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 13:03:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I've been trying to find where Darwin wrote that humans came from chimps. That's the only way that Ardi could have shown him to be wrong.
|
Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Human Evolution
Darwin set out first to make his argument that humans had evolved from apes. Darwin studied the comparative anatomy and embryology of our own species in relation to that of gorillas, chimps, and orangutans. He pointed out that humans had rudimentary structures which were really vestiges of our past lives. He pointed out that humans have a tailbone, even though we have no tail. He brought up how wisdom teeth in small-faced Europeans were decreasing in size and structure, and that very often their only “purpose” was to become infected and painful. Some of us can wiggle our ears, and some of us can flex our scalp muscle. He used all of these converging lines of evidence to conclude that humans were most closely related to the African apes- the gorilla and the chimpanzee- and that the common ancestor of all three animals would be found in Africa.
He concludes, rather eloquently, “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term “man” ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance… man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.”
Darwin briefly outlines a few hypotheses about how humans originated. We adopted a bipedal stance, for example, in order to carry tools and weapons. We now know that the origin of bipedalism pre-dates the origin of obvious tool use and manufacture by a wide margin, but Darwin’s tool-carrying hypothesis has inspired many other similar hypotheses. He suggested that we had lost our tail as the result of our upright posture: We needed more support for our viscera, and so the tail bones were co-opted as muscle attachment sites. He even suggested that we- and especially females- had become hairless as an ornamental adaptation which made us more attractive to the opposite sex. |
Well… I don’t know. The only apes he had to study were modern apes. But he does go on to say “ape-like creature.” Then again, since modern apes were all he had as a point of comparison, it might be assumed that he meant that we came from a creature that more resembled modern apes than us. In fact, that seems likely. I think that's what Lovejoy is saying. He's saying that we came from a creature that had features, both those we consider ape-like in the modern sense, and a lot more human-like than we once thought. So modern apes evolved as much or more than we did since the split. That's the part that Darwin got wrong. So did everyone else, pretty much. The thing is, that common ancestor didn't look at all human. Were talking about features. For example, Ardi suggests that the ancestor was almost completely arboreal. And it wasn't a biped. (Maybe for short distances, but even a chimp can do that.) But it had features that could adapt to bipedalism much easier than we once thought. And it wasn't stiff backed like modern apes. It wasn't a nuckle walker. And so on...
I'm not sure what justintime is actually saying because he keeps moving the goal posts.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 13:09:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
It's rather odd how people who are against Darwin's theory of evolution think that just because one aspect of the theory is incorrect, the whole theory is wrong and should be discarded.
|
Well... For all of his shenanigans, I don't think that's what justintime is saying. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 13:20:22 [Permalink]
|
| Who? Oh, him. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 13:56:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Well… I don’t know. The only apes he had to study were modern apes. But he does go on to say “ape-like creature.” Then again, since modern apes were all he had as a point of comparison, it might be assumed that he meant that we came from a creature that more resembled modern apes than us. In fact, that seems likely. I think that's what Lovejoy is saying. He's saying that we came from a creature that had features, both those we consider ape-like in the modern sense, and a lot more human-like than we once thought. So modern apes evolved as much or more than we did since the split. That's the part that Darwin got wrong. So did everyone else, pretty much. The thing is, that common ancestor didn't look at all human. Were talking about features. For example, Ardi suggests that the ancestor was almost completely arboreal. And it wasn't a biped. (Maybe for short distances, but even a chimp can do that.) But it had features that could adapt to bipedalism much easier than we once thought. And it wasn't stiff backed like modern apes. It wasn't a nuckle walker. And so on...
I'm not sure what justintime is actually saying because he keeps moving the goal posts |
This is most certainly what's going on-- but I'd stress again that while Ardi was more "human-like" the question is "than what?" and that's the key. Because no one can look at an actual "artist's reconstruction" and think that that creature is, by any measure, "human". As you note, Lovejoy himself talks about Ardi being not fully bipedal, and largely arboreal. And Ardi was after our last common ancestor with chimps and apes!
So all Lovejoy is saying is that whatever our common ancestor was, it seemed to not to resemble something that looked more like a gorilla, was was more likely a creature that was a plantigrade [i.e. walking with the whole foot touching the ground], quadrupedal [i.e. not walking upright, and using all four limbs in locomotion] arboreal [i.e. tree-dweller] that lacked modern ape-like developments for locomotion (like tree-hanging and swinging).
That's quite different then saying that apes came from humans, and if you can't grasp that, then you have bigger problems. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 14:54:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by podcat
It's rather odd how people who are against Darwin's theory of evolution think that just because one aspect of the theory is incorrect, the whole theory is wrong and should be discarded.
|
Well... For all of his shenanigans, I don't think that's what justintime is saying.
|
Thank you again Kil.
Here is the Phylogeny of Primates. This is based on Darwins Evolution Theory.
What we see in the chart are chimpanzees and humans branching from a common ancestor around about 6 million years. All the earlier branching of monkeys and apes pointed to a common ancestor that was something between a monkey and ape or chimpanzee like.
Dr Lovejoy mentions this early understanding of Darwin's evolution theory.
Dr Lovejoy wrote
"The most striking thing is everybody in the world upto now has thought we have evolved from something that was generally chimpanzee like..It turn out that chimpanzees have evolved from something that is more human like. And so the evolution we see is very much the reverse of what we thought. |
Why? If you look at the phylogeny chart. Chimpanzees are our closes cousins before the split. It was thought our common ancestor were quite possibly something inbetweenh an ape and monkey or chimpanzee like. But with the discovery of Ardi it pushes human like ancestors closer to the branching point or split between humans and chimpanzees.
With the discovery of Ardi (bipedalism, feet and hand structure) at about 4.4-4.7 million years old. Ardi provides Dr Lovejoy clues our common ancestor of (chimps and humans) were closer to human like than chimpanzee like because Ardi was human like and as early as 5 million years ago. So ancestors of Ardi also had to be close to human like than ( an inbetween monkeys or apes) or chimpanzee like. Note Dr Lovejoy does not claim Ardi is the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, but the closest fossil we have that indicates that common ancestor was more human like.
Dr Lovejoy wrote
It turns out that chimpanzees have evolved from something that is more human like. And so the evolution that we see is pretty much the reverse of what we thought. |
Why Dr Lovejoy thinks Darwin is wrong?
| Dr Lovejoy wroteDarwin did not have any fossils. The only fossils he had were Neanderthals. His theory was pretty good. Darwin argued that as canine developed we took up tools. Brain got big. Because we began to use tools. And that was his algorithm for evolution. |
But Ardi again proves such human like development happened close to 5 million years ago and not a gradual evolution development in humans.
Like I said before.
1. There are plenty of believers in the monkey theory.
2. There are just as many believers in the Chimpanzee, human, ape theory.
3. Then there is Ardi a true complete fossil that just proves the above two theories cannot be true also. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 16:40:20 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
But Ardi again proves such human like development happened close to 5 million years ago and not a gradual evolution development in humans. |
We had plenty of evolving to do to become human. Just not as much as we thought.
justintime:
Like I said before.
1. There are plenty of believers in the monkey theory.
2. There are just as many believers in the Chimpanzee, human, ape theory.
3. Then there is Ardi a true complete fossil that just proves the above two theories cannot be true also. |
We share a common ancestor with monkeys. That split occurred much farther back on the family tree. Ardi says nothing about that.
We share a common ancestor with all of the apes. Those splits occurred at various times leading to gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, and the last common ancestor that we shared was with chimpanzees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
Ardi does not falsify our current family tree. Of course, it could be falsified. And there have been modifications in taxonomy over the years. We need a lot more fossils to get the complete picture. What Ardi does falsify is what we thought our last common ancestor looked like.
Edited a little. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 17:34:26 [Permalink]
|
I know the order of main biological classifications is:
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
From what you posted, is there a further subdivision besides those seven? |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
| Edited by - podcat on 10/26/2011 17:42:41 |
|
|
 |
|
Evolution Questions
