Characteristics

[mark kennedy]

Lining up skulls so they prove your theory is only evidence that you are lining up skulls so they prove your theory.

Wow, the Old Talk Origins hall of skulls, that's original. What that won't tell you is that the human brain is nearly three times bigger and almost twice as dense as the Chimpanzee's. What it cannot tell us is where are the Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? There are literally hundreds of hominid fossils but for the Chimpanzee we have three, maybe four teeth. If Chimpanzees were not alive today there would be no evidence that they every existed.

 

[USincognito]

Wow, the Old Talk Origins hall of skulls, that's original.

The skulls are both real and extant. They also demonstrate morphological change over time. Why shouldn't it continue to be used?

What that won't tell you is that the human brain is nearly three times bigger and almost twice as dense as the Chimpanzee's.

What Mark won't admit is this is nothing more than person incredulity on his part. He also won't tell you that it's possible an increase in the human brain resulted from a mutation in a gene regulating jaw muscle development.
From smaller jaws to larger brains? | Penn Current
MYH16 gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What it cannot tell us is where are the Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? There are literally hundreds of hominid fossils but for the Chimpanzee we have three, maybe four teeth.

Mark won't tell you that he's been getting an answer to this question for years now (the environment in which they live is not conducive either to fossilization or the recovery of fossils).

eta - just found this Facebook regarding mutations and brain development.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...olution-and-why-the-genome-project-missed-it/

Two groups led by Evan Eichler and Franck Polleux have found that humans, alone among all animals, have three extra copies of a gene called SRGAP2, which is involved in brain development. The second of these copies, SRGAP2C, is particularly interesting because it affects the development of neurons, and produces features that are distinctively human. It also emerged between 2 and 3 million years ago, during the time when our brains became much bigger.​

 

[biggles53]

I live in a 14th story apartment

Then you're obviously an arboreal ape...

 

[mark kennedy]

The skulls are both real and extant. They also demonstrate morphological change over time. Why shouldn't it continue to be used?

Some things never change I guess..

What Mark won't admit is this is nothing more than person incredulity on his part. He also won't tell you that it's possible an increase in the human brain resulted from a mutation in a gene regulating jaw muscle development.
From smaller jaws to larger brains? | Penn Current
MYH16 gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't ask about the jaw...

Mark won't tell you that he's been getting an answer to this question for years now (the environment in which they live is not conducive either to fossilization or the recovery of fossils).

Which is strange since the vast majority of the hominid fossils were found in close proximity to the savannas where the Troglodytes live now. There are also orangutans and Eurasian primates from...hey you know what, I gave up chasing this in circles a long time ago.

eta - just found this Facebook regarding mutations and brain development.
A duplicated gene shaped human brain evolution… and why the genome project missed it : Not Exactly Rocket Science

Two groups led by Evan Eichler and Franck Polleux have found that humans, alone among all animals, have three extra copies of a gene called SRGAP2, which is involved in brain development. The second of these copies, SRGAP2C, is particularly interesting because it affects the development of neurons, and produces features that are distinctively human. It also emerged between 2 and 3 million years ago, during the time when our brains became much bigger.​

Ok, based on a comparison of the SRGAP2 in humans to Chimpanzees the wild speculation based on pure presupposition is a favorable effect from a random mutation, imagine that. Guess proof isn't really required when you got presupposition working for you.

Looked at some actual scientific data on the subject of mutations in the SRGAP2, it's the strangest thing. The effects of mutations are things like
autism, schizophrenia and psychopathy. The only beneficial ones are the ones described as happening millions of years ago based on the differences between Chimpanzees and Humans. That doesn't sound like an explanation, that sounds like begging the question of proof.

Anyway, thanks for the fallacious logic, what would science do without that kind of circular logic?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

No one is claiming those processes don't exist. Now try changing a banana into an apple. It should be easily accomplished.

So.... you want me to demonstrate to you a biological change that would falsify evolution in order to support evolution?

Your silly and ignorant request just backfired.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lining up skulls so they prove your theory is only evidence that you are lining up skulls so they prove your theory.

Handwaving away the empirical evidence is only evidence of your fundamentalist religious beliefs blocking your rational reasoning.

 

[USincognito]

Some things never change I guess..

Yeah, like your insistence that ERVs are nearly extinct in humans because you misunderstood what "human lineage" meant... for 7 years.

I didn't ask about the jaw...

Look, I'm not going to spoon feed this to you so:
- It effects the jaw muscle, not the jaw itself.
- If you have large jaw muscles, they have to attach somewhere. Guess where that is.
- If the muscles are smaller and less developed, the areas where they once were attached are unencumbered. Guess what they are free to do then.

Which is strange since the vast majority of the hominid fossils were found in close proximity to the savannas where the Troglodytes live now.

What? Common chimps don't live on savannas or very near them. They live in jungles in central and west Africa. The hominid fossil sites are in east Africa.

There are also orangutans and Eurasian primates from...hey you know what, I gave up chasing this in circles a long time ago.

You mean other populations that also live in jungles and forests - environments not conducive to fossilization nor the recovery of fossils?

Ok, based on a comparison of the SRGAP2 in humans to Chimpanzees the wild speculation based on pure presupposition is a favorable effect from a random mutation, imagine that. Guess proof isn't really required when you got presupposition working for you.

I'll take the analysis of actual experts in the field over some self-appointed expert whose argument boils down to "I don't believe it".
Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication

It is intriguing that the general timing of the potentially functional copies, SRGAP2B and SRGAP2C, corresponds to the emergence of the genus Homo from Australopithecus (2–3 mya). This period of human evolution has been associated with the expansion of the neocortex, use of stone tools, as well as dramatic changes in behavior and culture (Jobling et al., 2004).​

Looked at some actual scientific data on the subject of mutations in the SRGAP2, it's the strangest thing. The effects of mutations are things like autism, schizophrenia and psychopathy. The only beneficial ones are the ones described as happening millions of years ago based on the differences between Chimpanzees and Humans. That doesn't sound like an explanation, that sounds like begging the question of proof.

Nice well poisoning. Because mutations can cause problems in some instances therefore no mutation could ever have had a beneficial effect. And where did you find this "actual scientific data" suggesting that mutation in SRGAP2 cause autism, schizophrenia and psychopathy? Or, as usual, are you misunderstanding something you read elsewhere?

Anyway, thanks for the fallacious logic, what would science do without that kind of circular logic?

Let's see. You didn't understand the significance of MYH16 and you did a bunch of furious handwaving for SRGAP2C and I'm the one engaging in fallacious logic.

 

[EternalDragon]

Something that occurred to me while I was at work, ED.

Okay, you seem to accept that finches are related, despite their different beaks. And you accept that tigers and housecats are related. And you can even accept that crocodile fish are related to tiktaalik, even though that's completely wrong, but for the sake of argument, we'll pretend it's not.

So you seem to be able to gauge whether two animals are related by comparing their anatomies. But you say, quite often, that similarities aren't evidence of relation. So if that's the case, then how do you determine relation between two animals?

I've never said that, ever. What I have said is that similarities does not mean evidence for evolution and that is about all evolution theory has to stand on.

And I don't mean speciation or natural selection "evolution". I mean like the common ancestor, everything is related, dinosaurs morphing into birds and apes into men, we come from fish, Darwinian evolution. The fantasy stuff mixed into the theory.

 

[lasthero]

What I have said is that similarities does not mean evidence for evolution and that is about all evolution theory has to stand on.

So you've never said that 'similarities are only evidence of similiraties' or something to that effect?

And I don't mean speciation or natural selection "evolution". I mean like the common ancestor, everything is related, dinosaurs morphing into birds and apes into men, we come from fish, Darwinian evolution.

First off, birds are dinosaurs and men are apes.

That's all speciation, though. If you can accept that small changes can happen over a short period of time, then it only logically follows that big changes are going to happen over a big amount of time. No one is saying that dinosaurs gave rise to birds in only a few generations - these were millions and millions of years of gradual, almost imperceptible changes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wow, the Old Talk Origins hall of skulls, that's original. What that won't tell you is that the human brain is nearly three times bigger and almost twice as dense as the Chimpanzee's.

Why is this a problem?

What it cannot tell us is where are the Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record?

In the ground.

There are literally hundreds of hominid fossils but for the Chimpanzee we have three, maybe four teeth. If Chimpanzees were not alive today there would be no evidence that they every existed.

We would list chimpanzees just like we do the other dead ends of the hominid tree such as Paranthropus.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've never said that, ever. What I have said is that similarities does not mean evidence for evolution and that is about all evolution theory has to stand on.

You can say it all you want, but you are still wrong. Patterns of similarities have always been evidence supporting evolution.

I mean like the common ancestor, everything is related, dinosaurs morphing into birds and apes into men, we come from fish, Darwinian evolution. The fantasy stuff mixed into the theory.

We have transitional fossils for all of those.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'll take the analysis of actual experts in the field over some self-appointed expert whose argument boils down to "I don't believe it".
Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication

It is intriguing that the general timing of the potentially functional copies, SRGAP2B and SRGAP2C, corresponds to the emergence of the genus Homo from Australopithecus (2–3 mya). This period of human evolution has been associated with the expansion of the neocortex, use of stone tools, as well as dramatic changes in behavior and culture (Jobling et al., 2004).​

Actually it comes down to it doesn't happen in reality. I was just curious if there was anything new going on in here, guess not.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually it comes down to it doesn't happen in reality.

Prove it.

 

[OllieFranz]

Mark won't admit is this is nothing more than person incredulity on his part. He also won't tell you that it's possible an increase in the human brain resulted from a mutation in a gene regulating jaw muscle development.

There may be a scientific explanation for Mark's personal incredulity over hominid transitionals. It's called the Uncanny Valley. We mostly see it in fields like animation and robotics. As a cartoon person or a robot looks and acts more and more like a real human, we treat them more and more like a real person until they get to a point just slightly short of being indistinguishable from a living human being. Suddenly that very slight difference gives us the creeps. Big time.

It may have developed as a self defense mechanism from certain diseases. It would explain why descriptions of vampires, zombies and the like often sound like descriptions of rabies, malaria and the like. But it can also trigger the same sort of sorites problems that some suggest may be the reason for the purity laws in Leviticus, only bringing into question what is a human. After all, you would not want to commit bestiality by mistake, would you?

Uncanny Valley in Wikipedia

Note: just to be clear, I am not defending Mark's conclusions, just his emotional and instinctive initial reaction.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Sorry if I'm nagging you but...

EternalDragon: Was I right when I said you would accept evolution if we discovered a chimp-like creature with human habits, like weapons and clothes?

 

[lasthero]

Sorry if I'm nagging you but...

Don't hold your breath. ED has this funny habit of skipping over certain questions.

 

[EternalDragon]

Sorry if I'm nagging you but...

Like what? I'm not answering a hypothetical.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like what? I'm not answering a hypothetical.

You are unwilling to do science?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Like what? I'm not answering a hypothetical.

Why not?

 

[EternalDragon]

You are unwilling to do science?

Are we talking about Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus? I know they like to make their reconstructions of Homo Habilis look ape like with nostrils, fur and hair.