Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
If I see this chart one more time, I'm gonna kill myself.
There's nothing special about it:
A) Was surprised [to death] when he heard about evolution.
B) Bragged about his gold tooth to the wrong people.
C) Thought that blasting cap was his hearing aid.
D) Died of sinus infection.
E) Messed with Mike Tyson.
F) Got too close to a nuclear reactor.
G) Messed with Bruce Lee.
H) Died of natural causes.
I) Lived a sinister life.
J) Musta been a surgeon.
K) Must been J's assistant.
L) Wore an outfit like Alunya's too long.
M) Died laughing at evolution.
N) Messed with Chuck Norris.
A lot of work goes into reconstructing fossil skeletons, and while a lot of fossil evidence is fragmentary, the fossil record for hominids is quite good.
but with every new discovery, the human evolutionary family tree only gets more diverse, not necessarily clearer. there are gaps and co-existences and anomalies and enigmas, unlike the famous ape to man-with-briefcase illustration, it does not simply happen in a straight line.
Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff
Besides, just look at those skulls again (particularly the side view). The differences, particularly in cranial capacity are patently obvious.
it shrinks sometimes and grow others.
this photo isn't evidence. it's propoganda:
how far do you want to go? --> -->
the (roughly) correct photo of those skulls would in fact be this:
[the purple lines are where no clear missing link has been found.]
here is the accurate timeline these skull fossils are placed in:
(apologies for the size)
see, not complete, not certain, not in-your-face FACT.
in the original photo the skulls were just cherry-picked to make it look as if they all evolved in a straight line, like that infamous horse-evolution series, which the museum of natural history had to take down.
the modern chimp skull (A) doesn't even belong on this limb of the tree.
but with every new discovery, the human evolutionary family tree only gets more diverse, not necessarily clearer.
Do you have a point? Do you have a citation and evidence that this trend exists?
Originally Posted by catzrfluffy
there are gaps and co-existences and anomalies and enigmas, unlike the famous ape to man-with-briefcase illustration, it does not simply happen in a straight line.
The "ape to man-with briefcase" was never science. That was a popularization that illustrates a general trend. Science has never said hominids evolved in a "straight line". Thats an idiotic misrepresentation of the issue.
Originally Posted by catzrfluffy
it shrinks sometimes and grow others.
What is? The general trend is towards a shape that supports bipedalism and an enlarged brain case
Originally Posted by catzrfluffy
this photo isn't evidence. it's propoganda:
Thats nice. virtually every paleontologist in the world disagrees with you.
Originally Posted by catzrfluffy
how far do you want to go?
What?
Originally Posted by catzrfluffy
the (roughly) correct photo of those skulls would in fact be this:
[the purple lines are where no clear missing link has been found.]
here is the accurate timeline these skull fossils are placed in:
(apologies for the size)
Yes, I'm going to just assume you are a paleontologist, you are clearly better qualified to reorganize the order of the hominid transition fossils. You ignore carbon-dating, and clearly have not the slightest clue what you are talking about
Originally Posted by catzrfluffy
see, not complete, not certain, not in-your-face FACT.
Which is that you aren't familiar with the Hominid transition fossils in the slightest
Originally Posted by catzrfluffy
in the original photo the skulls were just cherry-picked to make it look as if they all evolved in a straight line, like that infamous horse-evolution series, which the museum of natural history had to take down.
the modern chimp skull (A) doesn't even belong on this limb of the tree.[/quote]
You of course, can back up everything you say with scientific evidence from a peer-review journal of paleontology?
Originally Posted by catzrfluffy
that inaccurate photo wasn't 'evidence' at all.
point proven.
Translation: I say its wrong, therefore I win.
Last edited by laconicstudent; 9th October 2009 at 12:37 AM.
but with every new discovery, the human evolutionary family tree only gets more diverse, not necessarily clearer. there are gaps and co-existences and anomalies and enigmas, unlike the famous ape to man-with-briefcase illustration, it does not simply happen in a straight line.
I never said it did. And I never claimed that that particular photo of skulls is meant to represent a straight line.
The point is that it does represent a general trend with time, most notably an increasing brain size and receding jawline.
it shrinks sometimes and grow others.
The general trend is an increase in brain size from ~500cc at the time of Australopithecus to about ~1400cc for modern humans. If you were to find something more closely resembling a modern human skulls from 3-5 million years ago, that would throw a giant curveball into the evolution of human species. But of course, that isn't found.
the (roughly) correct photo of those skulls would in fact be this:
<snip>
see, not complete, not certain, not in-your-face FACT.
in the original photo the skulls were just cherry-picked to make it look as if they all evolved in a straight line, like that infamous horse-evolution series, which the museum of natural history had to take down.
Actually, the skulls were put in order of age (except for the chimp), which is also evident in the images you posted.
the modern chimp skull (A) doesn't even belong on this limb of the tree.
Agreed, but it's meant to illustrate that apes from several million years ago would have had skulls more similar to modern chimps, particularly with respect to brain size. Then hominids branched off and evolved into modern humans. That picture also illustrates some stark differences between the chimp skull and Australopithecus skulls as well.
that inaccurate photo wasn't 'evidence' at all.
point proven.
What point? You haven't disputed any of the facts in the slightest, particularly the trend of increasing brain size over time. In fact, to quote Talk Origins on the subject:
There are a number of clear trends (which were neither continuous nor uniform) from early australopithecines to recent humans: increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. There are no clear dividing lines between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the early Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modern sapiens.
And of course, this is just the fossil evidence. The genetic evidence is a whole 'nother story, also supporting the shared ancestry of humans and other primates.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Thank you catzrfluffy. It's so refreshing to get a sincere, thoughtful response in these threads rather than the tired antics of the village idiot.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
What is? The general trend is towards a shape that supports bipedalism and an enlarged brain case.
In the photo, at least it appears, that the skulls sometimes shrink, and they sometimes get bigger.
Originally Posted by laconicstudent
Yes, I'm going to just assume you are a paleontologist, you are clearly better qualified to reorganize the order of the hominid transition fossils. You ignore carbon-dating, and clearly have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Actually I just used the timeline from here Handprint : Ancestral Lines and put the photos of the skulls in the places they were dated at.
The family tree says those skulls are on seperate branches, not one from another.
Originally Posted by laconicstudent
Which is that you aren't familiar with the Hominid transition fossils in the slightest.
I was only using already written information from other sources.
Originally Posted by laconicstudent
You of course, can back up everything you say with scientific evidence from a peer-review journal of paleontology?
The original skull image came from here Fossil Hominid Skulls Anthropology.net
here are some quotes regarding the placement of the chimpanzee skull at the beginning:
"I have some slight problems with this image, though. The biggest problem, and a common misconception I see in regards to understanding human evolution, is the whole we descended from chimpanzees train of thought."
"So IF WE MAKE THAT POINT CLEARLY, and that it is usually generalized rather than specialized forms that give rise to new lineages, then the chimp can be useful for comparisons. But the caveats are important; we do not wish to imply that humans are derived chimps!"
how far do you want to go?
blue-billed-duck > platypus > otter
You appear to be confusing superficial morphology with how classification actually occurs. The bill of the platypus is more a pair of leathery lips than a ducks bill. Also bird and mammal lines of descent split hundreds of millions of years ago when reptiles gave rise to dinosaurs, which lead to birds and mammal like reptiles that lead to mammals.
Monotremes, which include the echidna as well as the platypus (along with extinct species) have reptilian characteristics (posture, cloaca, egg laying) as well as mammalian characteristics (mammary glands and fur).
Otters are a weasel that have adapted to the water from a previously fully terrestrial form (as have other mammals like whales and pinnipeds).
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
In the photo, at least it appears, that the skulls sometimes shrink, and they sometimes get bigger.
If you want to see the originals - including notation of brain capacity, see the original, original source of the photos. The skulls don't actually get bigger and smaller over time, there is a gradual increase in brain capacity over time.
Originally Posted by catzrfluffy
The original skull image came from here {snip link}
here are some quotes regarding the placement of the chimpanzee skull at the beginning:
"I have some slight problems with this image, though. The biggest problem, and a common misconception I see in regards to understanding human evolution, is the whole we descended from chimpanzees train of thought."
"So IF WE MAKE THAT POINT CLEARLY, and that it is usually generalized rather than specialized forms that give rise to new lineages, then the chimp can be useful for comparisons. But the caveats are important; we do not wish to imply that humans are derived chimps!"
Actually the original image of the lineup for comparison comes from Doug Theobald's 29 Evidences essay specifically the section I've just linked to and the purpose was to show gradual morphological changes in hominid skulls over time (including brain capacity and he explains why the chimp skull is included in the lineup.
Originally Posted by Doug Theobald
One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.
Bold mine.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
aw thankyou
perhaps i should have though it through more before i posted though
(your avatar amuses me)
Thanks. Squeek for catzrfluffy earmouse. "Squeek!"
I'm getting ready to do some monotonous work and your post has given me some mental stimulation before I get started. Glad to have you participating here.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
) 
Squeek for catzrfluffy earmouse. "Squeek!"
Linear Mode
