Another new hominid fossil

[Mallon]

Which skull would this fossil most closely resemble?

Humans. Here's a list of cranial synapomorphies shared by humans and Australopithecus supporting my argument:
- simian shelf of mandible absent
- vertical slope of mandibular symphysis
- posteriorly divergent postcanine tooth rows
- incisors much smaller than molars
- diastema absent
- first premolar same size as second premolar
- deep palate
- enlarged external auditory meatus
- reduced supraorbital torus
- reduced protrusion of face

Now here's a list of postcranial synapomorphies shared by humans and Australopithecus further supporting my argument:
- spinous process of thoracic vertebrae angled strongly toward tail
- postzygapophyses displaced beyond caudal margin of centrum in 11th and 12th thoracic vertebrae
- spinous processes of 2nd and 3rd lumbar vertebrae not angled toward tail; square
- transverse width of centrum of 2nd to 5th lumbar vertebrae greater than its length and height
- five fused vertebrae in sacrum
- width of sacrum equal to length of sacrum
- weakly developed lateral supracondylar ridge of humerus
- weakly developed lateral condule of humerus
- radial and ulnar shafts straight
- proximal extension of olecranon process absent
- equal height and width of post-acetabular ilium
- greater sciatic notch forms a tight, narrow curve
- greater trochanter does not extend as far proximally as femoral head when femoral shaft is vertical
- transverse width of medial malleolus of tibia less than 1/4 transverse width of entire distal end of tibia
- medial process of talus medial and plantar to tibial facet absent

Now it's your turn, mark. What suite of shared, derived characters do you think unites chimps and Australopithecus? Let's compare lists and see whose argument is better supported by the evidence.

The fact that this thing has a chimpanzee size brain is irrelevant even though it's the greatest giant leap in our mythical lineage from the apes. To ignore the size and complexity of the human brain is a deliberate attempt to dodge the null hypothesis even Darwin accepted as a logical disproof of his theory.

Again, I'm not ignoring brain size. I admit that Australopithecus had a brain size closer to that of chimps than to modern humans. You're the one ignoring evidence because you're the one who wants to focus solely on brain size while ignoring the rest of the skull and skeleton.
And that's another thing: Yes, Darwin thought his theory hinged on slow, gradual change, and if it could be shown that evolutionary change did not occur in small, incremental steps, he thought that his theory of evolution via natural selection would be falsified. But this isn't the case. Darwin was totally ignorant about genetics, which had not established itself as a rigorous field of biology until long after Darwin's death. Darwin particularly had no knowledge of regulatory genes (like Hox genes), which can produce large, quantum changes in phenotype with just small changes to the genes. So it isn't true that large, rapid evolutionary changes in phenotype falsify Darwin's theory after all. Your understanding that it does is long out of date. Please drop that tired old strawman.

Don't have it available right now but it was published in Nature...sorry.

I had a feeling.
In the future, if you're going to make a far-out claim, please have the citation handy so we can follow it up. We can't verify your claim, so it's meaningless for the purposes of this discussion.

I neither accept nor do I reject the whale evolution thing, my central focus is human evolution since that is the only issue that conflicts with Christian theology. I am pretty consistent, even atheistic materialists catch on to that about me.

Which "radical" evolutionary transitions do you accept, mark? And what kind of evidence do you refer to in support of such transitions? You're very critical of the methodology employed by evolutionists for inferring common ancestry, so I want to know how your methodology for inferring common ancestry differs from our own. Please spell it out explicitly.

No, that's a classic ad hominem attack assuming ignorance on the part of Christians that do not swallow Darwinism whole. If you do not make the first a priori assumption of universal common descent you are assumed to be ignorant aka incredulous.

Accusing you of committing a logical fallacy is not an attack on your person, mark. It's pointing out a flaw in your line of reasoning. Your reasoning as it applies to the evolution of the human brain isn't flawed because you do not accept evolution; it's flawed because it's an argument based on what we do not know, as opposed to what we do know. By definition, that's an argument from ignorance, or an argument from negative evidence, if you prefer.

First tell me plainly, do you accept that if things in common (homologies) are proof for common ancestry the differences are proof against? Then we can get into these cladistic analysis.

First, homology isn't defined as "things in common". Convergences are also "things in common", but they are most certainly not homologies. Homologies are characters that pass these three tests:
- they must be similar (e.g., developmentally arising from the same germ layers)
- they must not occur more than once in the same organism
- they must define a single clade on a cladogram (i.e., they must be synapomorphies)

Again, read the de Pinna paper here: http://www.ib.usp.br/hennig/depinna1991.pdf
And if you're really serious about learning about homology, read Brian Hall's book on the subject. There's a long history of thought behind the topic of homology that I don't get the impression you appreciate.

Second, I have to question your assertion that differences between individuals are somehow "proof against" common ancestry. After all, we expect to see differences between related taxa. Is the fact that you look different from your brother "proof against" your both being the offspring of your dad? Is the fact that chihuahuas look different from wolves "proof against" their being descended from a common canine ancestor? No.
Again, the best way to infer degree of relatedness is to construct a character matrix that emphasizes both similarities and differences between taxa, and to examine whether the resulting cluster analysis (cladogram) supports our hypothesis about the relatedness of different taxa. This methodology makes use of both differences and similarities when inferring phylogenetic relationships.

How about Darwin's?

The theological premise in this argument -- that the apparent uniformity of certain biological patterns is inconsistent with the freedom of a creator to act as he wishes -- is nowhere better illustrated than in Darwin's book on the "contrivances" of orchids. After reviewing the homologies of orchids and ordinary flowers, Darwin appeals to our intuitions about what God would have done in this case:

Can we feel satisfied by saying that each Orchid was created, exactly as we now see it, on a certain "ideal type:" that the omnipotent Creator, having fixed on one plan for the whole Order, did not depart from this plan: that he, therefore, made the same organ to perform diverse functions -- often of trifling importance compared with their proper function -- converted other organs into mere purposeless rudiments, and arranged all as if they had to stand separate, and then made them cohere? Is it not a more simple and intelligible view that all the Orchideae owe what they have in common, to descent from some monocotyledonous plant....? (Charles Darwin, On the Various Contrivances by Which Orchids Are Fertilized by Insects)​

The Place of Darwinian Theological Themata in Evolutionary Reasoning

I don't want to know someone else's thoughts on homology, mark. I want to know YOUR thoughts on homology because you're the the one who has a problem with homology arguments. And yet you yourself make homology arguments when you compare fossil species to modern ones (like the braincases of chimps and australopithecines). You also must accept homology as applies to your so-called "radical" post-Flood evolutionary scenarios -- how else would you infer them?
So please tell us about your definition of homology, mark. When is it acceptable to make homology arguments? When is it unacceptable? When do you invoke "inverse logic" arguments? Please detail your rigorous methodology here so we can be clear about your stance on the issue. I want to hear all this in your own words, rather than the words of someone else.

How about this one?...
Or these?...
Or this?...

First, we were discussing the cladistic method for inferring phylogenies. The copy-and-paste job you replied with above has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I can't help but wonder whether you even know what we're discussing, here, or if you're purposely trying to confuse the issue by doing the ol' Gish Gallop.
Second, your response is still an argument from ignorance. You're simply pointing to gaps in our knowledge about how evolution happened and concluding that those gaps mean evolution could not have happened. You're not addressing the positive evidence we do have for human evolution; rather, you're pointing to the evidence we don't have. That's a logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Third, the type of argumentation you're applying here is a god-of-the-gaps theology. You're pointing to gaps in our knowledge of the evolutionary past and saying that God therefore must have performed a miracle in order to account for those gaps. That's bad theology because it limits God's actions to what we don't understand as opposed to what we do understand.

 

[mark kennedy]

Humans. Here's a list of cranial synapomorphies shared by humans and Australopithecus supporting my argument:
- simian shelf of mandible absent
- vertical slope of mandibular symphysis
- posteriorly divergent postcanine tooth rows
- incisors much smaller than molars
- diastema absent
- first premolar same size as second premolar
- deep palate
- enlarged external auditory meatus
- reduced supraorbital torus
- reduced protrusion of face

Now here's a list of postcranial synapomorphies shared by humans and Australopithecus further supporting my argument:
- spinous process of thoracic vertebrae angled strongly toward tail
- postzygapophyses displaced beyond caudal margin of centrum in 11th and 12th thoracic vertebrae
- spinous processes of 2nd and 3rd lumbar vertebrae not angled toward tail; square
- transverse width of centrum of 2nd to 5th lumbar vertebrae greater than its length and height
- five fused vertebrae in sacrum
- width of sacrum equal to length of sacrum
- weakly developed lateral supracondylar ridge of humerus
- weakly developed lateral condule of humerus
- radial and ulnar shafts straight
- proximal extension of olecranon process absent
- equal height and width of post-acetabular ilium
- greater sciatic notch forms a tight, narrow curve
- greater trochanter does not extend as far proximally as femoral head when femoral shaft is vertical
- transverse width of medial malleolus of tibia less than 1/4 transverse width of entire distal end of tibia
- medial process of talus medial and plantar to tibial facet absent

Now it's your turn, mark. What suite of shared, derived characters do you think unites chimps and Australopithecus? Let's compare lists and see whose argument is better supported by the evidence.

Now make those comparisons to chimpanzees.

Again, I'm not ignoring brain size. I admit that Australopithecus had a brain size closer to that of chimps than to modern humans. You're the one ignoring evidence because you're the one who wants to focus solely on brain size while ignoring the rest of the skull and skeleton.

Because it's a vital organ and the single most important feature that separates us from apes. You are ignoring it just like you ignored the comparison of the requisite gene evolution.

And that's another thing: Yes, Darwin thought his theory hinged on slow, gradual change, and if it could be shown that evolutionary change did not occur in small, incremental steps, he thought that his theory of evolution via natural selection would be falsified. But this isn't the case. Darwin was totally ignorant about genetics, which had not established itself as a rigorous field of biology until long after Darwin's death. Darwin particularly had no knowledge of regulatory genes (like Hox genes), which can produce large, quantum changes in phenotype with just small changes to the genes. So it isn't true that large, rapid evolutionary changes in phenotype falsify Darwin's theory after all. Your understanding that it does is long out of date. Please drop that tired old strawman.

Darwinism has never established itself as a rigorous field of biology and it had a head start, what's your point. I have asked you repeatedly if you accept the inverse logic of homology arguments and you never once answered. The fact of the matter is you don't and all the evidence, no matter what it is, is piled around your Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. What you are preaching here is atheistic materialism and calling it evolution or science. If you don't like me quoting Darwin then don't try preaching Darwinism to me.

I had a feeling.
In the future, if you're going to make a far-out claim, please have the citation handy so we can follow it up. We can't verify your claim, so it's meaningless for the purposes of this discussion.

It's far from meaningless but I understand if you want to be condescending while you have me at a disadvantage. Don't worry though, I won't forget it.

Which "radical" evolutionary transitions do you accept, mark? And what kind of evidence do you refer to in support of such transitions? You're very critical of the methodology employed by evolutionists for inferring common ancestry, so I want to know how your methodology for inferring common ancestry differs from our own. Please spell it out explicitly.

Your talking in circles, I have neither the time nor the patience for this kind of fallacious rhetoric.

Accusing you of committing a logical fallacy is not an attack on your person, mark. It's pointing out a flaw in your line of reasoning. Your reasoning as it applies to the evolution of the human brain isn't flawed because you do not accept evolution; it's flawed because it's an argument based on what we do not know, as opposed to what we do know. By definition, that's an argument from ignorance, or an argument from negative evidence, if you prefer.

An ad hominem attack is fallacious as well as a personal insult. If falls flat when it's exposed which is all I ever have to do with the bulk of evolutionist arguments. When you specifically and exclusively attack personal credulity you are using fallacious reasoning betraying a lack of confidence in the actual evidence. By staying focused on it you may get a lot of applause from your Darwinian stage directors but in the end it's a pretentious stage show melodrama, nothing more.

First, homology isn't defined as "things in common". Convergences are also "things in common", but they are most certainly not homologies. Homologies are characters that pass these three tests:
- they must be similar (e.g., developmentally arising from the same germ layers)
- they must not occur more than once in the same organism
- they must define a single clade on a cladogram (i.e., they must be synapomorphies)

Spare me the psuedo-semantics, answer the question. Do you accept the inverse logic?

Again, read the de Pinna paper here: http://www.ib.usp.br/hennig/depinna1991.pdf
And if you're really serious about learning about homology, read Brian Hall's book on the subject. There's a long history of thought behind the topic of homology that I don't get the impression you appreciate.

I'm about a year behind on my reading as it is, I don't think I'm going to waste my time on this stuff if you don't have a standard for a logical disproof. Answer the question.

Second, I have to question your assertion that differences between individuals are somehow "proof against" common ancestry. After all, we expect to see differences between related taxa. Is the fact that you look different from your brother "proof against" your both being the offspring of your dad? Is the fact that chihuahuas look different from wolves "proof against" their being descended from a common canine ancestor? No.
Again, the best way to infer degree of relatedness is to construct a character matrix that emphasizes both similarities and differences between taxa, and to examine whether the resulting cluster analysis (cladogram) supports our hypothesis about the relatedness of different taxa. This methodology makes use of both differences and similarities when inferring phylogenetic relationships.

It assumes universal phylogenetic relationships about all of life. Darwinian logic applies to all life, even life on other planets that have never been discovered. It's not a conclusion, it's an a priori assumption.

I don't want to know someone else's thoughts on homology, mark. I want to know YOUR thoughts on homology because you're the the one who has a problem with homology arguments. And yet you yourself make homology arguments when you compare fossil species to modern ones (like the braincases of chimps and australopithecines). You also must accept homology as applies to your so-called "radical" post-Flood evolutionary scenarios -- how else would you infer them?

Answer the question.

So please tell us about your definition of homology, mark. When is it acceptable to make homology arguments? When is it unacceptable? When do you invoke "inverse logic" arguments? Please detail your rigorous methodology here so we can be clear about your stance on the issue. I want to hear all this in your own words, rather than the words of someone else.

It's a simple question Mallon, a child could understand.

First, we were discussing the cladistic method for inferring phylogenies. The copy-and-paste job you replied with above has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I can't help but wonder whether you even know what we're discussing, here, or if you're purposely trying to confuse the issue by doing the ol' Gish Gallop.

Flattery will get you no where, I have a deep admiration for Gish. Now answer the question.

Second, your response is still an argument from ignorance. You're simply pointing to gaps in our knowledge about how evolution happened and concluding that those gaps mean evolution could not have happened. You're not addressing the positive evidence we do have for human evolution; rather, you're pointing to the evidence we don't have. That's a logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are begging the question of proof on your hands and knees and yet have the nerve to accuse me of an argument from ignorance, that's a hoot. I'm not talking about gaps in natural history, I'm talking about the lack of a molecular mechanism directly observed or demonstrated as a bases for established scientific fact and theory. Darwinism provides neither and your desperate clinging to these pedantic clutch phrases betrays both a lack of confidence is science and depletion of the extent of your knowledge on the subject.

I always know when I have you guys, when you start chanting these Darwinian mantras your done.

Third, the type of argumentation you're applying here is a god-of-the-gaps theology. You're pointing to gaps in our knowledge of the evolutionary past and saying that God therefore must have performed a miracle in order to account for those gaps. That's bad theology because it limits God's actions to what we don't understand as opposed to what we do understand.

The only gaps in knowledge I am arguing are the ones in your fallacious rants. You have abandoned science in the thread and probably every other objective standard for proof, scientific or otherwise. Now we have departed the realm of science and never passed close to Christian theism, we have entered the Darwinian theater of the mind.

Trust me when I tell you Mallon, your arguments for evolution are symptomatic of a far more serious malady. Your problem is not with evolution or creationism, you have a problem with the Scriptures.

Have a nice day
Mark

P.S. Answer the question

 

[Melethiel]

Um...he did answer the question...

 

[Mallon]

You're obviously getting pretty hot under the collar. Please take a deep breath and calm down.

Now make those comparisons to chimpanzees.

That's your job, mark. You're the one making the argument that Australopithecus is closer to chimps than to humans, so it's your job to defend your claim. Come up with your own list of independent features shared exclusively by Australopithecus and chimps and we'll see whose hypothesis is better supported by the weight of the evidence. You say you've done the research, so please show us.

Because it's a vital organ and the single most important feature that separates us from apes.

Says who?
There are many features besides the brain that makes humans different from other apes. Our modified hips allow us to be fully bipedal, for example. Besides, as I said before, showing that Australopithecus has a brain more similar in size of that of chimps than to that of humans only shows that large brains evolved in the human lineage after the split from Australopithecus.
Your emphasis on brain size is completely subjective.

Your talking in circles, I have neither the time nor the patience for this kind of fallacious rhetoric.

Asking you what, to your mind, constitutes evidence for common ancestry isn't fallacious rhetoric, mark. It's an honest question. You say that you reject arguments from homology, yet at the same time, you say that you accept instances of "radical" evolution. How do you infer such evolution if you reject homology? I have no idea. Please tell me. It is entirely pertinent to the discussion we're having here.

Spare me the psuedo-semantics, answer the question. Do you accept the inverse logic?

I did answer the question, you just didn't like the answer: You don't understand what homology is. That's why I went on to explain why homology is not simply a synonym for "similarity" as you seem to think. And that's also why I went on to explain why your so-called "inverse logic" of homology is wrong. Differences between individuals are not "proof against" their being related. Like I said, you look different from your siblings, but that is not proof against your being related.
If you're looking to falsify common ancestry, then you need to find an example of an organism that does not fit within the nested hierarchy of life. Find me a dog with chloroplasts or an insect with bird's wings. Such chimaeras cannot be explained by evolution.
Pointing to differences between organisms only shows that they might not be as closely related as we once thought. To wit: you're more different from your cousin than you are from your brother, but those differences aren't evidence against your being related to your cousin. They just mean you're not as closely related to your cousin as you are to your brother, with whom you share more features in common.
That's why I don't accept your "inverse logic", mark. It doesn't make any sense.

You are begging the question of proof on your hands and knees and yet have the nerve to accuse me of an argument from ignorance, that's a hoot. I'm not talking about gaps in natural history, I'm talking about the lack of a molecular mechanism directly observed or demonstrated as a bases for established scientific fact and theory.

I get that. And I'm saying that if you won't accept the evidence for evolution until every evolutionary "molecular mechanism" is revealed by science, then you should accept NO evolution at all -- not even your "radical" evolutionary scenarios -- because we simply don't yet understand every molecular step that led to the evolution of dogs, let alone humans. You're being inconsistent by applying one set of standards to human evolution and different set to everything else.

Darwinism provides neither and your desperate clinging to these pedantic clutch phrases betrays both a lack of confidence is science and depletion of the extent of your knowledge on the subject.

Hmmm. I'm a post-candidacy PhD student in evolutionary biology. I spent four years in undergraduate school, learning hands-on about fossils and fruit fly genetics in the lab. I've written theses. I've published papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I've presented my research at conferences all around the world. I'm receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in government funding.
Before you accuse me of having a lack of confidence in my science and of being depleted in knowledge, could you please remind me of your scientific credentials, mark?

Trust me when I tell you Mallon, your arguments for evolution are symptomatic of a far more serious malady. Your problem is not with evolution or creationism, you have a problem with the Scriptures.

I don't have a problem with the Scriptures. Just your interpretation of them.

 

[mark kennedy]

You're obviously getting pretty hot under the collar. Please take a deep breath and calm down.

I'm calm, what's on your mind?

That's your job, mark. You're the one making the argument that Australopithecus is closer to chimps than to humans, so it's your job to defend your claim. Come up with your own list of independent features shared exclusively by Australopithecus and chimps and we'll see whose hypothesis is better supported by the weight of the evidence. You say you've done the research, so please show us.

I have, I do and I will again only to have it ignored. You need to stop and consider why it is that a chimpanzee skull can be so easily dismissed and readily ignored. There is also one possibility that you are missing entirely, chimpanzee ancestors are getting passed off as ours.

Says who?

The question is rhetorical, let's move on.

There are many features besides the brain that makes humans different from other apes. Our modified hips allow us to be fully bipedal, for example. Besides, as I said before, showing that Australopithecus has a brain more similar in size of that of chimps than to that of humans only shows that large brains evolved in the human lineage after the split from Australopithecus.
Your emphasis on brain size is completely subjective.

It's anything but subjective, there is an objective standard for the means by which one species can evolve into another. Radical acceleration is not an option when the most common effect of changes at a molecular level are deleterious. I have made the argument with well supported lines of evidence that there was a giant leap just under 2 mya. Just once I would like for an evolutionist to admit that there is a problem here.

Asking you what, to your mind, constitutes evidence for common ancestry isn't fallacious rhetoric, mark. It's an honest question. You say that you reject arguments from homology, yet at the same time, you say that you accept instances of "radical" evolution. How do you infer such evolution if you reject homology? I have no idea. Please tell me. It is entirely pertinent to the discussion we're having here.

I don't reject homology but I readily accept the inverse logic. You seem to miss the point that I take the Bible literally which has important implications for natural history. Evolution is a living theory, life only proceeds from previous living systems. In order for the dramatic adaptive radiation following the flood to have happened would have required a level of genetic variability that creatures no longer have due to an accumulation of mutations. In short I think that evolutionists have it backwards and gradulism was a wrong turn.

I did answer the question, you just didn't like the answer: You don't understand what homology is. That's why I went on to explain why homology is not simply a synonym for "similarity" as you seem to think. And that's also why I went on to explain why your so-called "inverse logic" of homology is wrong. Differences between individuals are not "proof against" their being related. Like I said, you look different from your siblings, but that is not proof against your being related.

When you look at the alleles that is proof positive of being related, the differences are proof against. That's as basic as you get and you just denied the straight forward logic that is not even in question in medical science. That's why I am not going to bother with some Baysian analysis since the assumption of universal common ancestry is a given, never to be question, regardless of the evidence.

If you're looking to falsify common ancestry, then you need to find an example of an organism that does not fit within the nested hierarchy of life. Find me a dog with chloroplasts or an insect with bird's wings. Such chimaeras cannot be explained by evolution.

I have one, you said the differences don't matter.

Pointing to differences between organisms only shows that they might not be as closely related as we once thought. To wit: you're more different from your cousin than you are from your brother, but those differences aren't evidence against your being related to your cousin. They just mean you're not as closely related to your cousin as you are to your brother, with whom you share more features in common.
That's why I don't accept your "inverse logic", mark. It doesn't make any sense.

You don't accept it because if you do it's grounds for falsification, something that can never be allowed. An a priori assumption is an intuitively percieved, self evident fact. You really don't want to admit that you are basing your entire world view on an assumption that is not shared by most people. That is how chimpanzee ancestors are being passed of as human ancestors, every peice of evidence must fall in line with your naturalistic assumptions.

I get that. And I'm saying that if you won't accept the evidence for evolution until every evolutionary "molecular mechanism" is revealed by science, then you should accept NO evolution at all -- not even your "radical" evolutionary scenarios -- because we simply don't yet understand every molecular step that led to the evolution of dogs, let alone humans. You're being inconsistent by applying one set of standards to human evolution and different set to everything else.

Some features are changable but genes involved in vital organs don't respond well to changes. This is not something I'm pulling off the top of my head, it's an inescapable fact.

Hmmm. I'm a post-candidacy PhD student in evolutionary biology. I spent four years in undergraduate school, learning hands-on about fossils and fruit fly genetics in the lab. I've written theses. I've published papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I've presented my research at conferences all around the world. I'm receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in government funding.

So with all of that education and work experience you spend your time arguing in circles with laymen. Why?

Before you accuse me of having a lack of confidence in my science and of being depleted in knowledge, could you please remind me of your scientific credentials, mark?

I have none and I need none. There is nothing scientific about this. This whole buisness you call evolution is really nothing more then an a priori assumption. Now I really never had time for college, I had to work to support my family. I have studied what I can about genetics and paleontology and what I have found is that the evidence is misrepresented.

I don't have a problem with the Scriptures. Just your interpretation of them.

Sure, you have no problem until someone wants to take them literally. The genology of Matthew makes fine numerology but if someone makes the claim that it's a literal blood line you have a problem with the interpretation. Well I have a problem with modernists who dismiss the Scriptures while professing to believe them. I don't really care what you believe about the early chapters of Genesis until you wander into essential doctrine.

Christianity is a faith rooted and grounded in history and traditionally never abhered to these modernist rationalization of the clear testimony of Scripture.

You don't accept the inverse logic because you are begging the question of ancestry, which is why these chimpanzee ancestors are being passed off as transitionals. The alternative was never entertained as even a remote possibility, you are preaching metaphysics not practicing good science.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

I have, I do and I will again only to have it ignored. You need to stop and consider why it is that a chimpanzee skull can be so easily dismissed and readily ignored. There is also one possibility that you are missing entirely, chimpanzee ancestors are getting passed off as ours.

I'm not "missing" the possibility that australopithecines are chimp ancestors -- I'm addressing it directly by trying to involve you in a morphological comparison with me. I've shown that in many respects, australopithecines are more like humans than chimps, which completely flies in the face of your notion that chimps and australopithecines are more closely related to one another than either group is to humans. Your job now is to show that, in fact, australopithecines and chimps are more like one another than either group is to man. Let's put your hypothesis to the test. That's science.

It's anything but subjective, there is an objective standard for the means by which one species can evolve into another. Radical acceleration is not an option when the most common effect of changes at a molecular level are deleterious.

So which "radical" instances of evolution that you subscribe to don't involve commonly deleterious mutations? And how do you know they don't? I would really love to know more about which evolutionary scenarios you accept because right now it seems to me that you haven't thought much about it.

I have made the argument with well supported lines of evidence that there was a giant leap just under 2 mya. Just once I would like for an evolutionist to admit that there is a problem here.

Here's a plot of cranial capacity vs. time:

Where's the "giant leap" you're referring to?

I don't reject homology but I readily accept the inverse logic.

So what are the criteria for accepting or rejecting "inverse logic"? When it is okay to accept similarities as evidence for common ancestry and when is it not? I suspect your answer to this follows below...

You seem to miss the point that I take the Bible literally which has important implications for natural history. Evolution is a living theory, life only proceeds from previous living systems. In order for the dramatic adaptive radiation following the flood to have happened would have required a level of genetic variability that creatures no longer have due to an accumulation of mutations. In short I think that evolutionists have it backwards and gradulism was a wrong turn.

Right, so you are saying that you begin with the ASSUMPTION that the Bible is literal throughout and then interpret the world to fit within that literalist framework. That's pretty standard neocreationist fare. AiG admits to as much on their website. They reject any "apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology... if it contradicts the scriptural record."
But how do you know your starting assumption is correct if you won't allow any evidence to contradict it? How do you know that, say, Genesis is an historical creation account if you won't allow that assumption to be tested with evidence from creation? If your entire understanding of biology ultimately stems from your interpretation of Genesis, why waste your time arguing with me about evidence at all? Why not just say that evolution disagrees with you because your faith is rooted in a particularly literalist interpretation of Genesis and leave it at that? If that's the case, then there is clearly nothing I could ever show you that would ever change your mind. It's already made up. (Incidentally, Luther couldn't be convinced that the earth orbited the sun for the same reason.)
We'll talk about the assumptions that go into evolution in a sec...

When you look at the alleles that is proof positive of being related, the differences are proof against.

Again, that line of reasoning is obviously wrong. Your alleles will always differ from those of your parents, so differences between your alleles and those of your parents are obviously not evidence against your being related to them. The only thing differences can tell us about is degree of relatedness. Your DNA is more like that of your parents than that of your cousin, so we conclude that you are more closely related to your parents than to your cousin. We don't conclude that you are not related to your cousin.

That's why I am not going to bother with some Baysian analysis since the assumption of universal common ancestry is a given, never to be question, regardless of the evidence.

Actually, the only assumption made by the theory of evolution is the same one made by science in general: That patterns observed in nature are explainable with reference to observable, measurable processes. So if you're going to reject evolution on that account, then you had might as well reject all science and go live in a cave somewhere.
Evolution itself is most definitely NOT an assumption. It stems from a very clear pattern that we can see in nature: life is arranged as a nested hierarchy. For example, all apes have fur and mammary glands, but not all animals with fur and mammary glands are apes; all animals with fur and mammary glands have claws or nails, but not all animals with claws or nails have fur and mammary glands; all animals with claws or nails have lungs, but not all animals with lungs have claws or nails; all animals with lungs have jaws, but not all animals with jaws have lungs... etc... etc... etc... The pattern I'm describing can be illustrated as such:

The only explanation that predicts such a pattern is descent with modification (evolution). Special creation does not predict this pattern. Evolution would be falsified if an organism could be found that violates this pattern because evolution predicts that no such organism should exist.
And that's why evolution isn't an assumption.
And if you won't take it from me, take it from your fellow neocreationists like Dr. Todd Wood:
Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution

You don't accept it because if you do it's grounds for falsification, something that can never be allowed.

No, I explained in clear terms why I don't accept the "inverse logic" of what you call "homology". I did previously in this thread, and I did in this same post above. I reject it because it is clearly not evidence against common ancestry. It is simply evidence for degree of relatedness.

Some features are changable but genes involved in vital organs don't respond well to changes. This is not something I'm pulling off the top of my head, it's an inescapable fact.

Right... and those mutations that are detrimental are immediately weeded out of the gene pool. This means that, over time, the admittedly rare beneficial mutations will accumulate in the gene pool.

So with all of that education and work experience you spend your time arguing in circles with laymen. Why?

Sometimes I wonder. Bored, I guess. Or maybe I'm procrastinating because I don't want to learn about eigenshape analysis right now.

I have none and I need none. There is nothing scientific about this. This whole buisness you call evolution is really nothing more then an a priori assumption.

And now you know why it's not.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not "missing" the possibility that australopithecines are chimp ancestors -- I'm addressing it directly by trying to involve you in a morphological comparison with me. I've shown that in many respects, australopithecines are more like humans than chimps, which completely flies in the face of your notion that chimps and australopithecines are more closely related to one another than either group is to humans. Your job now is to show that, in fact, australopithecines and chimps are more like one another than either group is to man. Let's put your hypothesis to the test. That's science.

Starting with the cranial capacity there is no comparison and I have already seen the fossil, it has distinctive marks of a chimpanzee. You have a very serious problem and instead of dealing with the difficulties you are resorting to one why rhetoric that does little to persuade. Now if you want to put this above board and as a professional scientist you would like to define your central term, answer this question. What are the working definitions for 'evolution' and 'science'. Then we can start sorting out the burden of proof.

So which "radical" instances of evolution that you subscribe to don't involve commonly deleterious mutations? And how do you know they don't? I would really love to know more about which evolutionary scenarios you accept because right now it seems to me that you haven't thought much about it.

Amazing, all the exchanges we have had and you still have no idea what I'm doing on here. Here is a classic one:

The notothenioid trypsinogen to AFGP conversion is the first clear example of how an old protein gene spawned a new gene for an entirely new protein with a new function. It also represents a rare instance in which protein evolution, organismal adaptation, and environmental conditions can be linked directly. Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish​

I started getting interested in this sort of thing when I tracked down some of the details of the Nylon Bug as it's come to be known. From what I get the reading frame used to digesting nylon (gross oversimplification I admit) was swapped out. I'm also convinced that Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears are closely related and I would just love to see a genomic comparison of the two lineages.

There is more but that should do for now.

Here's a plot of cranial capacity vs. time:

Where's the "giant leap" you're referring to?

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.

Where does it double?

"The skeleton was about 1.60 m (5 ft 3 in) tall, although he might have been 68 kg (150 lb) and 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in) tall had he lived to adulthood. The total skeleton is made up of 108 bones accounted for. The cranial capacity of Turkana Boy was about 880 cc, although if he had lived to adulthood, it would have been about 910 cc"

Turkana Boy, Wikipedia

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc
Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc
KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc
(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 130:445–454. 2006)

That is where it doubled Mallon, at adulthood Turkana Boy would have had a cranial capacity of 910cc or close to twice that of the African apes who are considered our ancestors. Then the cranial capacity remained static until 100,000 years ago. Let us not forget that by some other equally mysteries evolutionary process the Neanderthals developed a cranial capacity 10% greater then our own.

That is in addition to the fact that we have no chimpanzee ancestors to compare the cranial capacity to. That is because every ape skull unearthed in Africa and Asia is automatically celebrated as one of our ancestors in a desperate attempt to find this mythical transitional apeman.

So what are the criteria for accepting or rejecting "inverse logic"? When it is okay to accept similarities as evidence for common ancestry and when is it not? I suspect your answer to this follows below...

I keep telling you but you keep resorting to these fallacious ad hominems. Unless you are willing to accept the general principle that there is a logical and scientific disproof/falsifiability then the conversation will continue to go in circles.

Right, so you are saying that you begin with the ASSUMPTION that the Bible is literal throughout and then interpret the world to fit within that literalist framework. That's pretty standard neocreationist fare. AiG admits to as much on their website. They reject any "apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology... if it contradicts the scriptural record."

First of all the Scriptures are primary source evidence for redemptive history and if you don't get that you don't understand the Gospel. There is nothing neocreationist about a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Liberal Theology has been making claims about the veracity and historicity of the Scriptures about a 150 years along with their Darwinian counterparts in academia, that is no coincidence. What you are spouting off about is not from a traditional Christian point of view, it's called secular humanism and it's nothing more then philosophical 19th century naturalism in sheep's clothing.

But how do you know your starting assumption is correct if you won't allow any evidence to contradict it? How do you know that, say, Genesis is an historical creation account if you won't allow that assumption to be tested with evidence from creation?

First of all Genesis is written as an historical narrative and has always been regarded as such by Jewish and Christian scholars alike. I make no assumptions regarding Genesis but what you seem unaware of is the root of Creationist conviction is in the New Testament witness. Scoffing at the historicity of Scripture will not win Christians to you neodarwinian cause. Creationist will shun these divisive and contentious debates and you will have poisoned the well of science for them in the process.

If your entire understanding of biology ultimately stems from your interpretation of Genesis, why waste your time arguing with me about evidence at all?

Biology is about living systems, it has next to nothing to do with dead ancestors from the prehistoric or primordial past. My interpretation of Genesis is concurrent with Jesus, Luke, Peter and Paul. If that runs afoul of Darwinism then so be it.

Why not just say that evolution disagrees with you

Stop right there! I get sick and tired of this. Evolution dovetails nicely with young earth creationism, that is without the a priori assumption of common decent by exclusively naturalistic causes. Define your term or concede the point by default.

...because your faith is rooted in a particularly literalist interpretation of Genesis and leave it at that?

Stop putting words in my mouth and I am trying to be nice here. Don't start with me about things you know nothing about.

If that's the case, then there is clearly nothing I could ever show you that would ever change your mind. It's already made up. (Incidentally, Luther couldn't be convinced that the earth orbited the sun for the same reason.)
We'll talk about the assumptions that go into evolution in a sec...

Astronomy has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible or redemptive history. The creation of Adam and Eve do, that's another nasty fallacious line of rhetoric TEs love to beat like a dead horse.

For all have sinned - In Adam, and in their own persons; by a sinful nature, sinful tempers, and sinful actions. And are fallen short of the glory of God - The supreme end of man; short of his image on earth, and the enjoyment of him in heaven. (John Wesley's Notes)

Sin originated with Satan Isaiah 14:12-14, entered the world through Adam Romans 5:12, was, and is, universal, Christ alone excepted ; Romans 3:23; 1 Peter 2:22, incurs the penalties of spiritual and physical death ; Genesis 2:17; 3:19; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Romans 6:23 and has no remedy but in the sacrificial death of Christ ; Hebrews 9:26; Acts 4:12 availed of by faith Acts 13:38,39. Sin may be summarized as threefold: An act, the violation of, or want of obedience to the revealed will of God; a state, absence of righteousness; a nature, enmity toward God. (Scofield Commentary)​

Am I to conclude that Scofield, Wesley and Paul are all mistaken that sin and death entered through Adam. Is there some reason I could logically conclude that the meaning is not both literal and explicit with regards to the sin of Adam?

You should know by now where I stand and why.

Again, that line of reasoning is obviously wrong. Your alleles will always differ from those of your parents, so differences between your alleles and those of your parents are obviously not evidence against your being related to them. The only thing differences can tell us about is degree of relatedness. Your DNA is more like that of your parents than that of your cousin, so we conclude that you are more closely related to your parents than to your cousin. We don't conclude that you are not related to your cousin.

Let's cut to the chase Mallon, do DNA comparisons of Chimpanzees and Humans offer a basis for acceptance or rejection of the common ancestry of chimpanzees and humans?

Actually, the only assumption made by the theory of evolution is the same one made by science in general: That patterns observed in nature are explainable with reference to observable, measurable processes. So if you're going to reject evolution on that account, then you had might as well reject all science and go live in a cave somewhere.

Nonsense and I don't live in a cave, I live in a tent. I know you would like for Creationists to be exiled to some dark corner but I think it's you who are in the dark. I don't reject evolution or science, I spend a great deal of my time reading up on the history and philosophy of science and genetics. I have four years of college coming when I get done in the Army and I'm going to study Biology and education.

I have to be honest here, my biggest worry is not that Darwinian theatrics are going to win this culture war. My biggest worry is that when they wear their hammers out beating on Genesis that the backlash will cause undue animosity against evolutionary biology.

Evolution itself is most definitely NOT an assumption.

Define you term!

Out of time...got to cut it short.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Melethiel]

Starting with the cranial capacity there is no comparison and I have already seen the fossil, it has distinctive marks of a chimpanzee.

Humor me, as I don't know a lot about fossils. What, exactly, are these distinctive marks?

You have a very serious problem and instead of dealing with the difficulties you are resorting to one why rhetoric that does little to persuade.

Isn't this an ad hominem, exactly what you keep accusing Mallon of doing?

 

[mark kennedy]

Humor me, as I don't know a lot about fossils. What, exactly, are these distinctive marks?

The incisors and the eye brows are pretty distinctive. I wish I had the time but if you check the thread there is a pretty good photo in the early posts.

Isn't this an ad hominem, exactly what you keep accusing Mallon of doing?

A personal attack is not the same thing as basing you argument on the other persons lack of credulity. I don't have a real problem with Mallon and certainly don't reject his arguments because they are coming from him. My central issue with him is the substance of his arguments.

I do you ad hominem arguments but there is a difference between the fallacy and the substantive argument. An ad hominem uses evidence that your opponent can't deny, an ad hominem fallacy is more to the order of 'you can't be thinking scientifically because your a creationist'. Being a creationist has nothing to do with it, the substance of the arguments are found in the evidence, not the intellectual persuasion that led you to the subject.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Mallon]

Starting with the cranial capacity there is no comparison and I have already seen the fossil, it has distinctive marks of a chimpanzee. You have a very serious problem and instead of dealing with the difficulties you are resorting to one why rhetoric that does little to persuade. Now if you want to put this above board and as a professional scientist you would like to define your central term, answer this question. What are the working definitions for 'evolution' and 'science'. Then we can start sorting out the burden of proof.

Nevermind your side-tracking, mark. I presented you with a simple challenge: to defend your position that australopithecines are chimp ancestors with POSITIVE evidence. In turn, I would defend my position that australopithecines are, in fact, more closely related to humans with POSITIVE evidence. I presented my POSITIVE evidence. You presented nothing. Your argument so far has consisted of simply repeating your position that the human brain is too complex to have evolved, and concluding that the creation of humans ex nihilo is therefore correct. That's NEGATIVE evidence, both against my position and for your position. That's an argument from negative evidence/personal incredulity/ignorance. It's a logical fallacy. It's not a personal attack. Look it up:
Argument from Incredulity - SkepticWiki
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance

That is where it doubled Mallon, at adulthood Turkana Boy would have had a cranial capacity of 910cc or close to twice that of the African apes who are considered our ancestors. Then the cranial capacity remained static until 100,000 years ago. Let us not forget that by some other equally mysteries evolutionary process the Neanderthals developed a cranial capacity 10% greater then our own.

I still don't see the gap you're referring to. Look at the graph I provided (posted again below, for your convenience). Turkana Boy lived 1.5 million years ago, and if, as an adult, it had a cranial capacity of 910cc, it would cluster with those early H. erectus skulls in green, none of which have cranial capacities significantly larger than their inferred ancestors, Homo habilis (= 'A. habilis', the red squares). In fact, if these early hominids were as well sampled as the modern humans (in blue, on the right), there would be considerably more overlap in cranial capacity between all of these species.

The gap you're referring to doesn't exist. It's plain to see on the graph.

And in the interest of keeping things focused, I'll address the rest of your post briefly here. It's basically your contention that accepting a non-literal reading of Genesis is a recent phenomenon with no historical basis in conservative Christianity or Judaism. That simply isn't true. For one, St. Augustine (1st century), one of the first church fathers to adopt the doctrine of original sin, didn't accept the Genesis creation stories as a description of historical events. And that was before the Bible had even been canonized. Neither did Origen (1st century). Prominent early Jews who did not interpret Genesis literally include Philo of Alexandria (1st century), Maimonides (12th century), and Gersonides (13th century).
It also seems to be your opinion that accepting universal common ancestry is somehow antithetical to conservative Christianity, but this, too, is demonstrably false. B.B. Warfield was one of the fathers of fundamentalist Christianity, yet even he accepted evolution. So did Charles Hodge. So did Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So did C.S. Lewis. And so does Billy Graham, a man revered by conservative Evangelicals all around the world.
By the way, if you're going to insist on believing in the science of the early church fathers, then in addition to rejecting evolution, you will have to reject heliocentrism, epigenesis, and the Antipodes, among other things... all of which were supported with reference to a concordist interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Mallon]

Talk about timing! Young earth creationist Dr. Todd Wood just published the results of a recent baraminological study he performed on fossil hominids. Unlike mark, he found that Australopithecus sediba is actually more similar to humans than to other Australopithecus species (what I've been saying all along). Read about his finds here:

Todd's Blog: Homo sediba?

And to put a little context on this matter:

Creationist vs. creationist on Homo habilis - The Panda's Thumb

 

[philadiddle]

I still don't see the gap you're referring to.

Juv made the assertion of a kink in that graph, and in post 40 I asked him where it was. Maybe mark and juv can work together to find this elusive gap/kink.

 

[USincognito]

Talk about timing! Young earth creationist Dr. Todd Wood just published the results of a recent baraminological study he performed on fossil hominids. Unlike mark, he found that Australopithecus sediba is actually more similar to humans than to other Australopithecus species (what I've been saying all along). Read about his finds here:

Todd's Blog: Homo sediba?

And to put a little context on this matter:

Creationist vs. creationist on Homo habilis - The Panda's Thumb

I was just going to post, without comment, about this. After I renew my subscription I will add a table showing the breakdown of the hominid baramins.

 

[USincognito]

New fossil human, study concludes

“Creationists always have been very conservative about what they group with humans. They say that things like Neanderthals are human, and my research confirms that.



“But creationists will not like my conclusion that sediba is human. He’s an oddball. He’s relatively short; his skull is quite small so his brain is quite small. His arms hang way down, like an orangutan’s, but he could walk upright. When you count up the characteristics in common with humans and apes, there are way more characteristics in common with humans than with apes. So, statistically, it is a human.”

 

[Mallon]

I'd be curious to know how Wood defines "human". I agree that A. sediba is certainly more like humans than many other fossil hominids, but I wouldn't call it "human" sensu stricto. I think that term should apply to Homo sapiens alone, which A. sediba definitely is not.

 

[Der Alte]

A new species of Australopithecus was named this week: A. sediba.

The press release is here:
New hominid shares traits with Homo species

As always, it's interesting to read creation scientist Todd Wood's reaction here:

"Here's what you'll get from most creationists: "It's an ape." That might even satisfy many of you. In the long run, though, I think it's unsatisfactory. The problem is its head. Au. sediba has the most human-looking head of any australopith I've seen, even though the body looks very apish, with its really long arms. This has been a hallmark of creationist interpretation of australopiths: that they are mosaics of facultative bipeds (meaning they can walk around on two legs) and tree dwellers (indicated by long forearms). If I had only the (remarkable) skeletons to judge from, I'd probably say it was obviously an ape. But then there's that skull. When I first saw it, I thought it looked a lot like Homo habilis. Apparently, I'm not alone. Donald Johanson and Susan Antón are both quoted as preferring to place sediba within Homo."

Is this another "complete skeleton" constructed from the tooth of an extinct pig?

 

[gluadys]

Is this another "complete skeleton" constructed from the tooth of an extinct pig?

No. But you might recall that the only person who claimed he could construct a complete skeleton from a single bone was a creationist.

And that is was a team of a journalist and an artist who "constructed" Nebraska Man from a pig's tooth. It was a scientist who set them straight.

 

[USincognito]

Mark? I saw you volunteering to engage in a formal debate in the Crevo section. How about you finish this one first?

{snip}Java man was an early invention of the oldest apeman transitional 'proof'. Later the Homo erectus fossils, some human some ape, would weave the myth into a more tangible transitional. It's a classic distortion of the evidence but the Asian fossils have long been known for highly fragmentary fossils. They have given way to chimpanzee fossils discovered in Africa being paraded as our ancestors.

You've been asserting your hunch for years now. What comments do you have about Wood's detailed statistical analysis that says Au. sediba, H. habilis, all H erectus/ergaster, H rudolphensis are human in direct contridiction to your gut based claim above?

 

[USincognito]

I was just going to post, without comment, about this. After I renew my subscription I will add a table showing the breakdown of the hominid baramins.

Here it is.