newhope101
Active Member
Yeah...I usually ignore him, unlesss I am super bored. I am sure some posters are content to pass the time just being a nuisance and nothing more.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What does the fossil record say?
- Thread starter Youtellme
- Start date
Yeah...I usually ignore him, unlesss I am super bored. I am sure some posters are content to pass the time just being a nuisance and nothing more.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Why should he when he's speaking the truth.? The story you hold dear is from an early pagan mythological story "written in stone".... not only the creation myth but the deluge myth as well but in reality none of this has anything to do with the current topic.....
newhope101
Active Member
But you LOVED it at the time...and you went on and on about it even though we wanted you to drop it at the time and not use it because we realized it wasn't helping your case...NOW...you have to drop it because OUR researchers showed you "the way"......You're calling it "crap modeling" even though you were on it like a pit bull on steak....I told you then to drop it and it, in itself was modeling....but NO....you kept it up...Now look at you back peddling....
I do not need to backpeddal at all. Mteve still has no evidence of cohorts and that has not changed.
What has changed is as good a use it can be to my stance I am not prepared to back falsified data, even if it supports me. There have been many reports of Mtdna contamination with male sperm. It is not slight at all. I think researchers just keep wanting to use it for some self serving reason. Mteve is also based on computer modelling and therefore is built on a foundation of straw much like most of what you present as evidence. It just is not worth backing.
Now we are talking about fossil evidence on this thread.
Did you know that Orangutans and humans are the only great apes to have thick tooth enamel? Other similarities to humans that orangs have are long hair, male facial hair, private face to face mating and the ability to construct beds. These are not shared with chimps. There are at least 28 well corroborated such features between orangs and humans compared with perhaps as little as one unique feature shared between humans and chimpanzees.
Did you know that taxonomically humans, orangutans and australopithecines can form a clade, with gorillas and chimps in another, due to these shared features?
Did you know that Anoiapithecus had modern facial features similar to hominidae and is dated to 12 millions ago in Europe, way before Ardi at 4.4, who did not have hominidae facial features yet walked upright?
Did you know that Anoiapithecus belongs to the Dryopithecus family, that had a large brain, gracile jaw thinly enamelled molars, walked like a chimp but on the flat of its hands?
Did you know that many of the so called fossil specimens are identified as belonging to the homo line based on thickness of tooth enamel, skull shape and facial features and computer models?
Do you realise that it is likely that a researcher will use any fossil find as a human ancestor while not really being able to tell what it really is? Hence many reclassifications.
Seriously, there is so much variety in non human primates, now extinct, that it is highly unlikely that researchers are getting any of them right in relation to human ancestry to ape men, or anything else for that matter.
You neither know nor care to learn about how things are really done, do you, NewHope?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Why do you feel the need to prove our point?
Alceste
Vagabond
fantôme profane;2329164 said:
Not even that. Her own offering states quite clearly the teeth could be as young as 200,000 years, which fits in with our current impression of the timing of migrations out of Africa just fine. It does not assert our origins are in Israel. Not even close.
Alceste
Vagabond
OMG, did she really just claim that fruit flies lack the genetic capacity to adapt? Really? Only a click away from Google Scholar?
Unbelievable. I've never seen anything quite like it, even here.
"Fruit fly" mutation - Google Scholar
Unbelievable. I've never seen anything quite like it, even here.
"Fruit fly" mutation - Google Scholar
wilsoncole
Active Member
Do YOU "know how things are really done?" - does any one human?
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
wilsoncole
Active Member
So why in the world are you contributing to the diversion?
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
David M
Well-Known Member
No...she does not.
Both chimps and Gorillas have molars that are pretty much parallel while Lucy does not, they are more angled but less so than humans. There is no gap behind the canine, just like in humans and while Lucy's jaw shows prognathism it is less pronounced than in chimps or gorillas.
Considering how easy it is to find images of the jaw of Lucy and those of chimps and gorillas I wonder why you think you can make such ridiculous statements and not have people correct you with the facts.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
yes, it's called nDNA...
Only modern apes... but chimps and gorillas are not that far off from us in terms of tooth enamel thickness... but this thickness is more a reflection of diet. If you are going to use enamel thickness to judge relationships, then you really need to change your definition of kinds.
Bonobos (aka. Pygmy Chimps) and Gorillas also do face to face mating... All apes make beds including chimps.
You seem to be misinformed about apes biology and behavior.
If clades were determined by only three features perhaps... but cladograms/phylogenetic trees are produced with a minimum of 20 features and often a hundred or more.
Again... why are you focusing on a single feature? No paleontologist focuses on a single feature because it's misleading.
If you know anything about morphology you can see it isn't like a hominid but is a more basal ape. And the face is not that much like ours... It's much flatter more like a snub nosed monkey.
So what? Anoiapithecus was not Dryopithecus.
Anoiapithecus has thick enamel on it's teeth for example.
From the actual paper: Among others, Anoiapithecus shares with all afropithecids a thick-enameled condition (Fig. 1G), with a RET value of 20, which is in the upper range of Griphopithecus alpani from Paşalar (11). This feature is further combined with other shared dentognathic features, such as low dentine penetrance, globulous and nonperipheralized cusps with restricted basins, thick and rounded crests, a robust mandible, and a procumbent premaxilla.
A unique Middle Miocene European hominoid and the origins of the great ape and human clade â PNAS
Usually at least 10 features of the skull such as the placement of the Foramen Magnum.... as well as features of other bones found such as the hip, leg, spine, wrist, ankle and on and on. Tooth enamel thickness isn't a very good measure. Which is why that story of the Israeli teeth isn't that exciting until the DNA is sequenced.
Now you're just making stuff up... Anoiapithecus was never proposed as a human ancestor. It is a hominoid, the group that includes all the modern apes and ourselves.
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Newhope is jumping the shark.... making conclusions based on language that isn't fully comprehended.
One study commented that the mandibular ramus of the jaw was more "gorilla like" than other hominids. That is, that the jaw had a very tall ramus to attach large chewing muscles... apparently it's just a hop, skip and jump along the twisted logic road to get to Lucy having a "gorilla jaw".
wa:do
Please provide papers that substantiate this claim. I won't bother with the rest of the post but this is a glaringly ridiculous assertion. It does happen in some non-human animals (molluscs for example) but there is only one documented case of human paternal mtDNA passed on resulting in mitochondrial myopathy and sterility (see Parental Inheritance of Mitochondrial DNA in NJAM). So this is not only an overwhelmingly rare case it also resulted in the inability to perpetuate the genome.
While there is some controversy just how rare the phenomena is the evidence points to sperm mtDNA being wiped out by nuclear encoded proteins and they're rarely passed on paternally. Even if it occurs more often than the evidence points to thus far the implications of paternal mtDNA drastically altering timelines for human evolution or diminishing the accuracy of the many "Mitochondrial Eve" studies is, as Ladoukakis attests in Heredity,
Myself and dozens of others here have corrected your misunderstanding of mtDNA Eve and Y-Adam time and time again (but none so eloquently or brilliantly as post #390 itt).
RedOne77 said:
You may refer to the Wiki' entry 'cause it's just fine as far as that goes, but my post is better because after reading it you will be filled with more gratitude towards me than a magically healed leper did towards Jesus:
The initial reaction in 1912 to the mandible and skull fragment were actually skeptical- the Brits were enthusiastic as the finding supported the presence of pleistocene hominid fossils in Britain and this satisfied a nationalistic attitude, while French and American scientists remained unconvinced. But several scientists were immediately dismissive and questioned the legitimacy of the find(s) right off the bat. Some even suggested, accurately it turns out, that the jawbone and skull piece were from two different specimens. By 1930 the Piltdown specimen was marginilized and was not even considered relevant to hominid evolution whatsoever- it was simply an anomaly that neither added nor detracted from paleo-anthropology. The Piltdown fossils were so irrelevant they didn't even have one doctoral dissertation written about them.
As early as 1913, less than a year after the Piltdown discovery, David Waterston recognized the morphological incompatability between the cranium and the jaw and noted that the jaw was identical to a chimpanzees. In 1915 Gerrit Miller studied the casts of Piltdown and realized the jaw was a fossil chimpanzee (see Miller's The Piltdown Jaw). Boule and Ramstrom shortly followed suit (see Strauss The Great Piltdown Hoax for the cited papers as well as a comprehensive history of Piltdown).
By 1950 Piltdown was pretty much ignored and by 1953 the fraud was revealed by scientists using the fluorine absorption test (the very same dating method creationists dismiss unless it's the Piltdown hoax they're talking about). Its interesting to note that even a staunch defender of the Piltdown find like Earnest Hooton catalogued all of the anatomical discrepancies that clearly showed the fossils were hoax yet he was too naïve to suspect intentional fraud (see pp. 312-313 of Up From the Ape):
"Now the temporo-mandibular joint in Eoanthropus is a deeply excavated glenoid cavity with a high articular eminence before it, as in modern man. Condyles of the human shape are required to fit into the glenoid fossae. Unfortunately, the condyle is missing from the half of the mandible recovered. So it cannot be proved that the jaw belongs with the skull by fitting it to the temporo-mandibular joint. This absence of the condyle has afforded yet another opportunity for the separatists to affirm the lack of kinship between mandible and brain-case. They allege that the lower jaw, being almost wholly simian in shape, should be equipped with an apelike condyle that would not fit the modern type of glenoid fossa in the temporal bone. A further difficulty lies in the fact that a long projecting canine tooth, evidently a lower canine, has been recovered, and we should expect jaws with protruding apelike canines to be fitted to the shallow articular plateaus of the anthropoid rather than to the deeply excavated glenoid fossae of modern man. In order to fit the simian jaw to the human socket, we must model upon the mandible a humanly shaped condyle that is incongruous with the rest of the bone. This little difficulty need not, however, embarrass us. If nature puts conjoined human and anthropoid parts into the same organism, some compromise has to be made at the junctures."
Hooton was also instrumental in cataloguing alleged morphological differences between races and more than any other anthropologist of his era contributed to the pseudoscience of racial classification and promulgated racist myths that continue to linger. Point being the evidence was pretty clear early on, but a minority of scientists unwilling to accept the malicious prank hypothesis who were also so dogmatically wrapped up in their false preconceptions about race and evolution propped up Piltdown long after the majority had recognized it as an aberration and likely irrelevant.
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
It it gorilla-like. It is not exactly a gorilla jaw. That doesn't matter anyway. The fact is that we found a 3.2 million old walking ape indicating that she is a transitional fossil. Evolution predicted walking apes, and that is what we see. I simply don't see how her jaw is even relevant.
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
I like the argument you made. Could you give me a link or image that explains your point or goes into detail?
David M
Well-Known Member
Had to dig around a bit but here is some more info.
http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/
You can see casts of the jaw here:
http://www.boneclones.com/KO-036-J.htm
http://www.boneclones.com/BC-124.htm
Heres one with more detail on comparative primate anatomy.
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/seven.html
Last edited:
newhope101
Active Member
What gets me the most is having to provide research on info I speak to all the time. I came here knowing very little and still assume most of you guys know more. I am wrong. I spend most of my time justifying simple statements I expect you to understand and have knowledge of. It is incredibly boring. Then if I dont reply I get accused of something or other thats not nice.
Here is some info on Lucy. Hopefully you are satisfied
Copyright © 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
Anthropology
From the Cover
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
Yoel Rak,* Avishag Ginzburg,* and Eli Geffen
Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.
Also　
Wiki Lucy Australopithecus.. additional research is cited in Wiki
The discovery of this hominid was significant as the skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes and of bipedal upright walk akin to that of humans, providing further evidence supporting the view that bipedalism preceded increase in brain size in human evolution,[5][6] though other findings have been interpreted as suggesting that Australopithecus afarensis was not directly ancestral to humans.[7] In 1994, a new hominid, Ardi, was found, pushing back the earliest known hominid date to 4.4 million years ago, although details of this discovery were not published until October 2009.[8]
Other findings
A study of the mandibular structure of a number of specimens of Au. Afarensis indicated that Lucy's jaw was rather unlike other hominins, having a more gorilla-like appearance.[18] Rak et al. consider that this mandible structure arose "independently in gorillas and hominins", but that Au. Afarensis is therefore "too derived to occupy a position as a common ancestor of both the Homo and robust australopith clades".[7]