Look I want certainty,
I want knowledge now that in 1000 years time will still be the same.
I do not want to waste my time on trying to keep educating myself with all these new ideas that may change next year.
That is why when I want knowledge I go to a two thousand year old book written by anonymous authors who knew very little about physics, biology or any of that "changeable" stuff.
The bible as knowledgeable now as its always been
I want to play the guitar like Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page. But I don't want to learn or practice or challenge myself or work. I just want all that skill, knowledge and experience dumped right in my lap without any effort.
It's been interesting, since here's what this says re: the brain situation: "...a newer endocast specimen title Stw 505 has been examined, and many believe that it supports Dart's hypothesis, but this aspect of Taung is still highly debated, and many still believe it has ape-like placement.[30]"
And I say, ok. hmm
I also found this description about bipedalism "Walking on two legs distinguished the first hominids from other apes, but scientists still aren’t sure why our ancestors became bipedal." (But it seems they're sure our ancestor(s) did evolve to become bipedal. But they can't figure why. As if there was a reason?
Many finer features of ancient fossil creatures and lifestyles are poorly understood and hence under debate since we cannot easily infer them from the bone data. That is expected. I do not consider wiki articles to be reliable in such technical matters. For the article you posted, the hypothesis was tentative and was only advanced in 2012 as is clearly written.
The bones show the evolutionary history of progressively increased bipedal adaptation. The reasons are of course not directly observables from the bone structures. So?
Thar would be the only meaningful conclusion to support your argument. Problems, disagreements, and controversy are always a part od the advancing knowledge of ALL science, but the foundation of agreement remains concerning the science of evolution without question.
NO, you are unethically selectively interpreting the article from a dishonest Creationist perspective.
The controversies in the science of evolution involve academic disagreements in the constant advancements in evolutionary sciences, and NOT questioning the foundation of evolution itself, or the basic evolutionary tree referenced, and the place of the australopithincus Group. of species.
If the child grew up spending most time in the savannas, the skin would more likely be darker than depicted.
In anthropology, it's the bones that we focus in on, not so much artist's reconstructions. The reason why the latter is done is because most lay people want a general picture of what the organism may have looked like.
Yes, I did as much as possible.
So the following is not true? (From The Australian Museum) --
"Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.
The more correct definition is the Homo Group or Hominoidea. Describing and defining the evolution of humans as the Great Apes (I consider poor terminology) is different from calling humans simply 'apes,' which I avoid. I accept that humans are a member of the 'Great Apes Group, but not simply humans are apes.
Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea)
We most closely resemble our immediate primate ancestors than apes.
This ape group can be further subdivided into the Great Apes and Lesser Apes."
Humans are apes – ‘Great Apes’ - The Australian Museum
Your splitting frog hairs and changing the subject instead of addressing the primary argument. The classification of the The Taung child is Australopithecus africanus has been classified without question as an individual of the species of the Australopithecus Group. The article you cited did not question that specific classification as you asserted.
The article dealt with the new discoveries and problems in the evolution of Australopithecus africanus involving only the Australopithecus Group and not the evolution of the Hominoids. My previous reference clearly showed the evolutionary relationship between the Home Group and the Australopithecus Group
If you wish to deal Hominoid evolution start another thread.
There are some similarities but also some differences, with one major one being where the foramen magnum is located, whereas with chimps and gorillas it's far more to the rear of the skull, whereas the Aa brain was closer to center, the latter of which is conducive to upright posture.
To be brief, there's no confusing any Aa skull and skeleton to that of any current ape or ape ancestor as the Aa's had evolved enough away from a probably common ancestor so as to have some distinct human-type features.
Yes, I did as much as possible.
So the following is not true? (From The Australian Museum) --
"Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.
The more correct definition is the Homo Group or Hominoidea. Describing and defining the evolution of humans as the Great Apes (I consider poor terminology) is different from calling humans simply 'apes.'
Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea)
Your splitting frog hairs instead of addressing the primary argument. The classification of the The Taung child is Australopithecus africanus has been classified without question as an individual of the species of the Australopithecus Group. The article you cited did not question that specific classification as you asserted.
I answered your basic question of the thread in post #3.
"Citing deficiencies in how the Taung fossil material has been recently assessed..."
"The authors also debate the previously offered theoretical basis for this adaptation..."
That's very interesting.
Yes there is debate over the adaptation of the changes in the brain development, but this is a specific debate concerning the evolution of Australopithecus africanus, which is normal in science concerning new discoveries, and does not question the taxonomy of the Australopithecus africanus, nor the evolution of the hominin over millions of years.
. . . but has nothing to do with questioning the taxonomy of the Taung Child fossil, which remains universally accepted.
Yes there is debate over the adaptation of the changes in the brain development, but this is a specific debate concerning the evolution of Australopithecus africanus, which is normal in science concerning new discoveries, and does not question the taxonomy of the Australopithecus africanus, nor the evolution of the hominin over millions of years.
. . . but has nothing to do with questioning the taxonomy of the Taung Child fossil, which remains universally accepted.
Yes. As usual, you are speaking for yourself as a scientist who believes as you do. I understand that.
Are you saying that all scientists agree with you on this, and do "not question the taxonomy of the Australopithecus africanus, nor the evolution of the hominin over millions of years."?
Can you please provide the data verifying that claim?
Also, can you point out the particular post, where your repeating the "has nothing to do with questioning the taxonomy of the Taung Child fossil" is relevant, and a coherent response to that post.
Thank you.
Yes. As usual, you are speaking for yourself as a scientist who believes as you do. I understand that.
Are you saying that all scientists agree with you on this, and do "not question the taxonomy of the Australopithecus africanus, nor the evolution of the hominin over millions of years."?
Can you please provide the data verifying that claim?
Also, can you point out the particular post, where your repeating the "has nothing to do with questioning the taxonomy of the Taung Child fossil" is relevant, and a coherent response to that post.
Thank you.
The article you cited described the classification of Taung child Australopithecus africanus without question.
Fro the article you cited.
"By subjecting the skull of the first australopith discovered to the latest technologies in the Wits University Microfocus X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) facility, researchers are now casting doubt on theories that Australopithecus africanus shows the same cranial adaptations found in modern human infants and toddlers – in effect disproving current support for the idea that this early hominin shows infant brain development in the prefrontal region similar to that of modern humans."
The article deals with the question of the cranial adaptation evolution of Australopithecus africanus as compared to human in the Homo Group. Again the question is comparing the cranial development between a representative of the Australopithecus Group and the Homo Group.
Show where in the article where the author of the research questions the taxonomic classification of the Taung child.
"The Taung Child (Australopithecus africanus) has historical and scientific importance in the fossil record as the first and best example of early hominin brain evolution. It was recently proposed that Taung exhibits adaptive morphology (e.g., persistent metopic suture and open anterior fontanelle), permitting important postnatal brain growth late into infancy. As Taung provides the only purported pre-Homo fossil evidence for the suggested adaptive mechanism, we test the hypothesis that it displays these features. Using new high-resolution images and in silico exploration, we did not observe the hypothesized form of these features. If delayed metopic suture closure were adaptive, for example, permitting substantial postnatal brain growth and alleviating an obstetric dilemma, there is no evidence this mechanism evolved before Homo."
Life did not come about by evolution. Evolution is not a theory explaining the origin of life.
I do not understand why creationists need to be told this so often.
Perhaps you have learned something. I do not know. But that confusion over the origin of life and the evolution of life seems beyond the skill of creationists to understand.
I think that this is a 'God of the gaps' argument. Scientists still don't know how life originated from non-living matter, therefore creationists can argue that God must have 'breathed life' into the first organisms.
Life did not come about by evolution. Evolution is not a theory explaining the origin of life.
I do not understand why creationists need to be told this so often.
Perhaps you have learned something. I do not know. But that confusion over the origin of life and the evolution of life seems beyond the skill of creationists to understand.
I know what you're saying. But, moving along, they say water is on other planets, water?? So now let's see...maybe in a trillion years or so animal life will come about, with the right combo of elements. Mutate enough to become gorillas, elephants, fishes and, of course the human species? I know! Maybe astronauts will scatter a mix of molecules and the mutations will start. I suppose you may say it's possible. Likely??
I know what you're saying. But, moving along, they say water is on other planets, water?? So now let's see...maybe in a trillion years or so animal life will come about, with the right combo of elements. Mutate enough to become gorillas, elephants, fishes and, of course the human species? I know! Maybe astronauts will scatter a mix of molecules and the mutations will start. I suppose you may say it's possible. Likely??
Life did not come about by evolution. Evolution is not a theory explaining the origin of life.
I do not understand why creationists need to be told this so often.
Perhaps you have learned something. I do not know. But that confusion over the origin of life and the evolution of life seems beyond the skill of creationists to understand.
Who's confused? Not me. I know that evolutionists do not consider the start of whatever (life?) on the earth to be part of what they say they absolutely know is -- evolution. They claim evolution has nothing to do with how life began. (Isn't that true?) Or, at best, it's a totally different subject, somehow not to be considered in reference to the evolution theory. (No wonder.) As if one item morphed (evolved after a while - to other things). (No proof.) Be that as it is, that is why I asked about water on other planets. It doesn't confuse me at all. That there are things called planets, yet no two are exactly alike, I'm figuring some evolutionists might project that "life" can start after a fortuitous chance-like meeting of elements. Kind of like maybe flying in from another area of space. See? Yes, this discussion has thoroughly helped about many things said to have come about by evolution.
Who's confused? Not me. I know that evolutionists do not consider the start of whatever (life?) on the earth to be part of what they say they absolutely know is -- evolution. They claim evolution has nothing to do with how life began. (Isn't that true?) Or, at best, it's a totally different subject, somehow not to be considered in reference to the evolution theory. (No wonder.) As if one item morphed (evolved after a while - to other things). (No proof.) Be that as it is, that is why I asked about water on other planets. It doesn't confuse me at all. That there are things called planets, yet no two are exactly alike, I'm figuring some evolutionists might project that "life" can start after a fortuitous chance-like meeting of elements. Kind of like maybe flying in from another area of space. See? Yes, this discussion has thoroughly helped about many things said to have come about by evolution.
Scientists do no believe they absolutely know anything. Fundamentalist believers claim to know scientists are wrong and their view is absolutely right.
Still waiting for you to respond to my posts and stay on subject.
Life did not come about by evolution. Evolution is not a theory explaining the origin of life.
I do not understand why creationists need to be told this so often.
Perhaps you have learned something. I do not know. But that confusion over the origin of life and the evolution of life seems beyond the skill of creationists to understand.
Scientists do no believe they absolutely know anything. Fundamentalist believers claim to know scientists are wrong and their view is absolutely right.
I do not believe I said scientists are wrong, if I did, it certainly was not in reference to every area of science, that's for sure. You may have decided from my quotes or questions, but the proof is in the results, changing tenets, pudding. I am going over the theory (of evolution) with those like yourself who truly believe in it. Ernst Haeckel, as some know, put forth the notion that the human fetus goes through stages of animal evolution, including fish, while it is in the womb.
Scientists do no believe they absolutely know anything. Fundamentalist believers claim to know scientists are wrong and their view is absolutely right.
Still waiting for you to respond to my posts and stay on subject.
I'm not sure why you think I think my view is always absolutely right. Especially since (1) I am not God, and (2) I am human. Oh, and I'm not sure what YOU mean when you indicate that you think I am a fundamentalist.
The article you cited described the classification of Taung child Australopithecus africanus without question.
Fro the article you cited.
"By subjecting the skull of the first australopith discovered to the latest technologies in the Wits University Microfocus X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) facility, researchers are now casting doubt on theories that Australopithecus africanus shows the same cranial adaptations found in modern human infants and toddlers – in effect disproving current support for the idea that this early hominin shows infant brain development in the prefrontal region similar to that of modern humans."
The article deals with the question of the cranial adaptation evolution of Australopithecus africanus as compared to human in the Homo Group. Again the question is comparing the cranial development between a representative of the Australopithecus Group and the Homo Group.
Show where in the article where the author of the research questions the taxonomic classification of the Taung child.
"The Taung Child (Australopithecus africanus) has historical and scientific importance in the fossil record as the first and best example of early hominin brain evolution. It was recently proposed that Taung exhibits adaptive morphology (e.g., persistent metopic suture and open anterior fontanelle), permitting important postnatal brain growth late into infancy. As Taung provides the only purported pre-Homo fossil evidence for the suggested adaptive mechanism, we test the hypothesis that it displays these features. Using new high-resolution images and in silico exploration, we did not observe the hypothesized form of these features. If delayed metopic suture closure were adaptive, for example, permitting substantial postnatal brain growth and alleviating an obstetric dilemma, there is no evidence this mechanism evolved before Homo."
None of this has any relevance to my post.
The article was cited by someone else. I found a few quotes interesting.
You don't know what evidently, because your citations are not only irrelevant but incoherent to anything in my post.
"Citing deficiencies in how the Taung fossil material has been recently assessed..."
"The authors also debate the previously offered theoretical basis for this adaptation..."
That's very interesting.
How is anything you said relevant to that?
Explain please.
Also, you did not answer my question... again.
You just make sweeping claims... again Are you saying that all scientists agree with you on this, and do "not question the taxonomy of the Australopithecus africanus, nor the evolution of the hominin over millions of years."? Can you please provide the data verifying that claim?
From experience, I don't expect you can support your claim. That would not prevent you from continuing to make them though.
So I don't expect you to answer the question. Your unsupported claims will just keep coming.
@YoursTrue
I am reading this article - quite interesting. .. quite long.
Maybe, some of its contents may interest you.
Here is an excerpt...
For a century, every fossil discovery that could potentially be taken as evidence of an evolutionary connection between human beings and some “lower form” had precipitated a large number of mutually contradictory interpretations from ostensibly authoritative voices, often wildly divergent in their assessments of the fossil’s significance. More often than not, and certainly more often than Clark took to be the norm in most scientific fields, this proliferation of views had descended into “controversies of a polemical nature.
Scientists, being human, were liable to have very personal reactions to evidence concerning human origins, and the interpolation of such personal feelings into the assessment of fossil evidence led to a loss of objectivity and the propagation of as many interpretations as there were persons to do the interpreting. The personal, emotionally charged connection that investigators felt towards their own interpretations tended to inhibit their ability to dispassionately consider other possibilities, and often resulted in the undue use of polemical language. Disputants often claimed to be dispassionate in their respective assessments of the evidence, Clark pointed out, but their raucous dissensus gave them the lie.
Here is what I learned...
Raymond Dart, a professor in anatomy made the claim that "Australopithecus africanus" was an evolutionary ancestor of human beings, linking our species to a distant past in which our anatomical similarity to the apes was much more conspicuous.
More fossils were found with similar resemblance, which were dubbed Australopithecines. Debates over these fossils continued from then until now. With some considering these fossils to be nothing more than "another type of ape".
Such debates also related to the change to the “Modern Synthesis” or “Neo-Darwinian Synthesis”.
Abstract
Recent debates between proponents of the modern evolutionary synthesis (the standard model in evolutionary biology) and those of a possible extended synthesis are a good example of the fascinating tangle among empirical, theoretical, and conceptual or philosophical matters that is the practice of evolutionary biology. In this essay, we briefly discuss two case studies from this debate, highlighting the relevance of philosophical thinking to evolutionary biologists in the hope of spurring further constructive cross-pollination between the two fields.
The sort of vigorous debate briefly sketched above is, we suggest, both typical of many areas of biology (including discussions on species concepts and on a number of ecological theories) and an excellent example of a dialogue at the interface of empirical biology, theoretical biology, and philosophy of biology. These are issues that can be settled decisively neither on empirical grounds (it is hard to imagine what sort of evidence, on its own, could possibly do that) nor even on a theoretical (as opposed to a broader conceptual) level—say, framed in the kind of mathematical terms that are the bread and butter of population genetic theory. The reason for this is that some of the crucial issues are conceptual (i.e., philosophical) in nature and hinge on not just matters of definition (what, exactly, counts as a paradigm?) but also on the entire framework that biologists use to understand what it is that they are doing (e.g., what is the relationship between systems of inheritance and natural selection, or, in multilevel selection theory, what counts as a level and why?). Kuhn (1962) famously referred to this as the “disciplinary matrix” characterizing a given field of inquiry.
Abstract The “modern synthetic” view of evolution has broken down, at least as an exclusive proposition, on both of its fundamental claims: (1) “extrapolationism” (gradual substitution of different alleles in many genes as the exclusive process underlying all evolutionary change) and (2) nearly exclusive reliance on selection leading to adaptation. Evolution is a hierarchical process with complementary, but different modes of change at its three large-scale levels: (a) variation within populations, (b) speciation, and (c) very long-term macroevolutionary trends. Speciation is not always an extension of gradual, adaptive allelic substitution, but may represent, as Goldschmidt argued, a different style of genetic change—rapid reorganization of the genome, perhaps nonadaptive. Macroevolutionary trends do not arise from the gradual, adaptive transformation of populations, but usually from a higher-order selection operating upon groups of species. Individual species generally do not change much after their “instantaneous” (in geological time) origin. These two discontinuities in the evolutionary hierarchy can be called the Goldschmidt break (change in populations is different from speciation) and the Wright break (speciation is different from macroevolutionary trending that translates differential success among different species).
A new and general evolutionary theory will embody this notion of hierarchy and stress a variety of themes either ignored or explicitly rejected by the modern synthesis: e.g., punctuational change at all levels, important nonadaptive change at all levels, control of evolution not only by selection, but equally by constraints of history, development, and architecture — thus restoring to evolutionary theory a concept of organism. — The Editor
According to Gundling, under the earlier model the traits Australopithecines shared with both humans and apes were not seen as decisive evidence of common ancestry. With the theoretical changes wrought under the Modern Synthesis, such evidence became far more compelling and the Australopithecine’s claim to a near relation with human beings was thereby improved.
So basically, the acceptance of Australopithecus as a human ancestor was due to the theoretical changes that occurred in evolutionary biology decades after the initial discovery of their fossils.
That's talking eighty years.
One author interprets Gundling's view regarding credibility of claims in science (particularly regarding Australopithecus), "the credibility of the claim of Australopithecine ancestry was chiefly determined by its plausibility within the evolutionary biology."
He writes, Quote... The story I will tell is broader than this, following a methodological point set out by Shapin in his analysis of the place of credibility in the social studies of science (“credibility and the validity of a proposition ought to be one and the same.” ): “In principle, there is no limit to the considerations that might be relevant to securing credibility, and, therefore, no limit to the considerations to which the analyst of science might give attention.” The theoretical context of a claim might be relevant, just as, following Clark, the emotion with which a claim is put forward and defended might be relevant. The important thing, as Shapin writes, is that “the relevance of nothing can be ruled out in advance of empirical inquiry. The point of asking after credibility is not to criticize certain things as being inappropriate to the determination of credibility in paleoanthropology or to defend others as necessary to the alignment of credibility with truth or any other necessary precondition. The point is to find out, through empirical investigation of the documentary record, how scientists interested in human evolution negotiated the terms of the Australopithecine’s inclusion or exclusion from the human family tree”
Shapin’s inquiries into the nature of credibility serve as a good model to help orient us in what is a very broad framework of analysis. Admitting that “the picture framed by the unqualified study of credibility is just too big,” Shapin makes a number of distinctions to help identify the issue at stake. One set of useful distinctions concern what he calls “economies of credibility,” and one such economy he is that which obtains between experts and laity: How do claims made by scientific experts achieve credibility, or fail to do so, among the general public? Another is the economy obtaining between expert groups in different fields: How might a claim developed and accepted by paleoanthropologists achieve credibility among astrophysicists? Lastly, there is the economy of credibility obtaining between individual specialists within a scientific field. This essay will be largely concerned with this last type of economy as it manifested itself among specialists in human evolution during the Australopithecine debates, though issues pertaining to the other economies will occasionally interpolate themselves.
Unquote
This article mentions a lot about interpretations of evidence, the issue of personal relationships among scientists, personal insecurities, ambitions and motives of scientists, and how such relationships affected the dynamics of credibility in the debate, etc. They are human, after all.
However, to get back to Dart and the Australopithecine debates.
Dart pointed to a few observations, which led him to conclude that "Taung child" was a human ancestor - neither chimpanzee nor gorilla. One "who had parted ways with the ancestors of the living apes", on its way to a "glorious bipedal, big-brained future".
He pointed to features bearing more of a resemblance to humans than to apes.
He pointed to the position of the foramen magnum - the aperture through which the spinal column passes from the neck into the skull, noting that it was positioned farther forward on the base of the skull than in apes, although not so far forward as is seen in humans. Thus making the argument for a transition to bipedalism... as well as other features.
He also argued than an ape-like creature from the Central African jungles would have been subject to pressures to evolve in a human direction in order to survive. Natural selection.
Dart proposed creating an entirely new taxonomic family - Homo-simiadae, to accommodate his interpretation of Australopithecus as neither an ape nor a human, but a form that bridged the evolutionary gap between the two.
Leading British experts in the science of human evolution rejected all of those interpretations.They "questioned the evidential basis of his claim that Australopithecus was a human ancestor rather than just an interesting new form of ape", even though crediting him with high praise.
One wrote... “the fact that the fragments came immediately under notice of so competent an anatomist as Prof. Dart establishes confidence in the thoroughness of the scrutiny to which they have been subjected.”
Another... “no one is more competent than Prof. Dart to observe the evidence and interpret it.”
One of the leading experts, in response to Dart pointing out the position of the foramen magnum, said this... “We cannot be certain of posture until we find a bone of the lower limb. One cannot see any character in the skull which justifies the supposition of an erect posture.”
That, coming from a leading scientist. So what does that say about much of the conclusions drawn from pieces of skull, jawbone, and very little fossilized parts?
