Formal Discussion between Key and thaumaturgy

[Key]

This will be a formal discussion / debate with thaumaturgy and myself.

The Point and Presence of this Debate is: Key will be seeking to support the stand that: “Humans are not a product of any Natural Environment”, as such, Human is a preverbal unique Animal.

This Debate will have several ground rules, and several starting steps to establish the parameters of the debate, as such, the foundation of the parameters of the debate, will not be considered as debate or discussion, but to establish neutral ground by which we both will be presenting our points.

Once we have Establish the foundation and platform by which the debate will rest, The debate will consist of me making my point, and then thaumaturgy either agreeing with, or countering it.

The First Rule of this Debate, and the Primary rule of this debate, is only Evidence is allowed. All existing Speculation or Opinion of the Evidence is to be removed, and the only speculation that is allowed for the purpose of this debate is our own personal conclusions drawn from and supported by the evidence that we present.

Also note, Even though I am a Christian, I shall be removing my Bible, as well as any acts of God, or feelings, or spiritual things, from this discussion. Because of the heavy gravity of my act, thaumaturgy is equally barred from using any religious texts, unexplainable phenomena, or philosophies.

Both of us will be bound by, and limited to the Evidence, and only the evidence, but are allowed presenting our own personal conclusions for the sake of this discussion.

The First Step now, is the Establishment of the Primary Ground of our Discussion.

That would be the Evolution Model that is considered accepted by both parties involved.

I would like to go with the Co-Evolution Model. AKA: Caustic Evolution.

Sources:
http://www.jaist.ac.jp/~g-kampis/USA/Causal_Model.html

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/zoo00/zoo00735.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Now, the idea is that Environment plays the role in the development of the life. IE: If the environment did not change, then there would be no need to change, as such genetic drift would have minimal effect, if any at all.

In this case, Necessity dictates Change. Change does not just randomly happen.

To explain this, Change is never triggered by self alone, it is triggered by influence upon self.

Example: If you do hard manual labor with your hands, you will develop calluses on your hands, you hands will become tougher and stronger, as you continue to do manual labor, this the change in your hands is triggered by the influence of the work upon them, not the hands themselves, they only adapt to their environment, equally so, if you only did light work or near to no work with your hands, they would be sensitive and less resistant, because they are product of their environment, the hands themselves and even the human itself has no say in how their hands change, the change can only come about by external influence, and nothing else will do it.

Another example, if you lived in Maine (USA), you would develop resilience to the cold, and how it affected your body, and if you moved to the southern tip of Texas(USA), then you would develop resilience to the heat, but loose the resilience to the cold. This, you change as per the influence upon you, not by your own accord.

This type of adaptation has been well respected and understood. Life will change only due to influence upon life; life will not change with out this influence. Both of these we know and have documented.

Another Example: The slow zebras get aught by the fast lions, the fast zebras out run the slow lions, this after a time, all that remains are fast lions and fast zebras. However, each changed, not of their own accord, but by the influence of the other. This the very premise of the Predator / Prey arms race for survival.

There will be variations within a life group, Genetic Drift, IE: Some people with blue eyes, some people with brown eyes, etc. However, the function, and ability and use of the eyes will not change, unless influence is placed upon them to do so, this, blue eyes, and brown eyes function the same, and despite pigment variations, they are not different from each other, in use or function. Just as a Zebra may have different patterns on their body, but the overall use and function of these patterns will not change, unless there is an outside influence that dictates they need to.

This is what I was I mean by Necessity dictates Change. Change does not just randomly happen.

That is the very foundation of Natural Selection.

Another Site that provides that life forms do not change their inherent state unless such change is out of necessity is here:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

This, Evolution is just Large Scale Adaptation.

Now, since Adaptation has been documented and shown thought evidence to be viable. It is the only platform of Evolution I can currently accept.

If you have another platform that you wish to bring to the table thaumaturgy, I am more then ready to hear and listen of it, and the evidence that supports it.

If you do not, would you be willing to accept the Co-Evolution, or Caustic Evolution Platform for our discussion. Now, if you do that, I need you to respect this platform, and appreciate it, as a sound platform, or else all is lost for our discussion.

God Bless

Key.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I agree with the exception of the term "co-evolution" exclusive of environment.

Some definitions of Co-Evolution do not consider environmental stresses as part of the driving force.

[wiki]Evolution in response to abiotic factors, such as climate change, is not coevolution (since climate is not alive and does not undergo biological evolution). (from here)[/wiki]

I would like to allow that not only will predator-prey forces or other inputs from other adapting animals play a role, but also changes in environment (environmental stressors).

Otherwise I agree to the terms laid out.

I would also like to ensure one additional caveat: that the statement “Humans are not a product of any Natural Environment” be clearly established as not entailing that humans protect their fellow humans from natural selective forces.

For example: it could be argued that since humans are a social creature that they can protect certain weak members from normal selection factors which would otherwise endanger the individual in the absence of a social group.

Social organization can be reasonably assumed to be an "adaptation". Just as many other animals (such as elephants or dog packs) protect the weak or infants from predators. Since most animals would have to fall into the category of "products of the natural environment", social groups cannot be ruled out as adaptations.

 

[Key]

I agree with the exception of the term "co-evolution" exclusive of environment.

Some definitions of Co-Evolution do not consider environmental stresses as part of the driving force.

[wiki]Evolution in response to abiotic factors, such as climate change, is not coevolution (since climate is not alive and does not undergo biological evolution). (from here)[/wiki]

I would like to allow that not only will predator-prey forces or other inputs from other adapting animals play a role, but also changes in environment (environmental stressors).

Otherwise I agree to the terms laid out.

First, I would like to thank you very much for pointing that out, I was not aware of that limitation placed on Co-Evolution, as far as I had studied it, but, if such a limitation has existed, it shall be fully removed from our discussion. I fully accept, and embrace this addition to the situation, all external factors must be considered, on that ground, we are well met, and I feel that our platform for discussion is off to a great start.

Thank you again , for bringing this up. I hope that this sets the pace for a truly enjoyable exchange between us.

I would also like to ensure one additional caveat: that the statement “Humans are not a product of any Natural Environment” be clearly established as not entailing that humans protect their fellow humans from natural selective forces.

For example: it could be argued that since humans are a social creature that they can protect certain weak members from normal selection factors which would otherwise endanger the individual in the absence of a social group.

Social organization can be reasonably assumed to be an "adaptation". Just as many other animals (such as elephants or dog packs) protect the weak or infants from predators. Since most animals would have to fall into the category of "products of the natural environment", social groups cannot be ruled out as adaptations.

Necessity of social order is a byproduct of environmental need, so it will considered for our discussion. But equally so, if such environmental impacts do not force social nessity, they will not form. On that ground, can we both agree as well?

As I said, at this point, we are just establishing the platform, for which the discussion will rest.

As far as Rules of Engagement go, I would like to mention some small points.

To start: I would like to mention, that if at any time, either of us feels that the other has become uncivil in our response, that we are to call each other on it, and allow for the poster to change their post, and then we shall change our following post accordingly. I would like to ask that if this event happens, that the call should be made in PM, to allow the other poster to correct themselves and return to civility, in a decent manner, and allow for the discussion to carry on with respect and appreciation of each others stand and words, and that each of us is a person worthy of respect as an individual.

If at any time, it is apparent that civility is lost, the other has the right to remove themselves from this discussion, with honor and respect.

Another note: Appeals to emotion, authority, or anything along that line need to be removed for this discussion, because we are bound by evidence for this discussion. I hope that we can show each other the respect that we each deserve, and that logical faults, and such shall not be a part of our discussion.

Is there any other types of conditions you would like to place upon our exchange as people, that I may have missed?

God Bless

Key

 

[thaumaturgy]

Sounds good to me.

 

[Key]

I am glad that this is going well, and that we are currently building a very sound and stable platform for our discussion. I hope that this trend continues between us, as we delving deeper into our exchange.

Now, since all we realize that all change is by necessity or influence, then do we also both agree that form follow function?

In the matter that what we need to survive we will have. I would have to say, this seems to be a self evident necessity, as if we did not have what we needed to survive, then we would cease to survive.

And what we have we need to survive: In this manner, simply put, all we have, has purpose.

There is a requirement if we have agreement at this point before we continue.

On a Civil Note:

I would like to say that I would so hope that we will not be splitting hairs about definitions and if there is disagreement on how a word is used, then we will come to a peaceful resolve regarding the matter.

To give an Example: If I use the word “Pack” to mean “a group of people” IE: “The Human Pack” and thaumaturgy uses the word to mean “Close Pressed” IE: The Packed together to survive" in this case, we would need to clear up our wording, and in this case, I might substitute the word pack with “Herd”, and thaumaturgy would use the word “Packed”, for the sake of clear understanding of what we are talking about, so that we can remove any miscommunication. and I would respect that "Pack" as I used it, would need to change.

We also will not be splitting hairs on technical terms, in this case, a minor correction is all that would be required if one of us used the wrong term for something, or in some case for the sake of civility, the term itself may be removed, or re-defined, as long as we both agree to the new way the word is used or applied.

However, for the most part, we will be using layman terms for our discussion, to allow for hopefully clearer exchange of ideas and points.

I hope we are in agreement with this so far thaumaturgy.

I await your response.

God Bless

Key.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That is acceptable on all counts.

 

[Key]

I believe that it is now time to start getting into the Bread and Butter of our discussion /debate, and that would be a focus on where does “Human” start. If you are ok with this being the first point we should discuss, I was always under the impression, that the bst place to start, was at the beginning.

Now, first, I would like to start off by saying I might need to fix the images of this post, after the fact, so If they do not show up, just bear with me for a bit while I fix them, thank you.

Lets start:

Now, the first step in this, is to look at the evidence, as such, I can not just pick an arbitrary starting point based on what my personal feelings are, what ever point that is picked, must be sound point, supported by evidence, that we both an agree upon.

I would like to put forth that Humanity as far as I can discern by the evidence started with Australopithecus afarensisWho has made a legend of it’s find, and been nicknamed “Lucy” as far as the Skelton goes. This started at our best estimate to be 3.0 – 3.9 ,million years old.

Now I am aware that Sahelanthropus tchadensis skull has been found, however, at this point no body has been found, as such, what it looked like is pure speculation, and because of that, I need to reject this as viable for our discussion, as all I have to work from is this:



The Next one on the list that I know is Orrorin tugenensis which, equally does not have enough to build a base off of, provided is an image of what has been found.



However, I do not see how what can be constructed from this, could be anything more then speculation, sadly this must be dismissed as well for the discussion.

Next that I know of is Ardipithecus ramidus and this equally like Orrorin tugenensis has very little evidence that can be considered for our discussion.



The last one I know of is Australopithecus anamensis and this equally, has little to no real means to know what this animal looked like.





I may have missed something, and if I have, please correct me, but at this point as far as I know, because of the amount of evidence that we have for the Australopithecus Afarensis, including near a complete skeleton, This is where I feel would be the most logical place supported by the most evidence that we build a base for humanity and our discussion.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Hominids/Australopithecus afarensis.gif

Near a Complete Skull.

SKULL

I would believe based on the evidence that this should be our starting block. However, because of the immense and near identical structure of the Australopithecus africanus to the Afarensis, that both will be part of the same starting block, as far as form and body parts are considered, only because, in some cases, I could not find data that directly related to the Afarensis alone, but to the Africanus and Afarensis combined. I hope that this will not be a problem, if it is, then we will have to work out something to gauge what is and what is not an acceptable dual info regarding this, on a case by case situation.

I would ask now if we are in agreement, as I want to make sure we are in agreement, and that we establish this platform for our continual discussion, if you have any objections, I more then welcome them, and look forward to your response on this.

God Bless

Key.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I will certainly agree that A africanus/A. anamensis are very early hominids and certainly serve as some of the best evidence for upright bipedalism at this point.

I don't necessary want to toss the other "fragmentary" finds since anthropological data can be garnered about gate or stature. For instance the skull of S. tachadensis does have the foramen magnum available for viewing which shows it was probably not the same type of spinal-skull configuration as other upright hominids.

So I will agree in principle that our earliest available clear indications up upright bipedalism are in the Australopithecines, but may also be reflected in a gradualism as shown in other bones, should those come to light later in the discussion.

 

[Key]

Thank you for your well thought out response, and I can see that we are off to building our platform of understanding and exchange in the best of directions.

Please allow me this little bit, to explain why I have chosen this starting point, and it was not in any way shape or form to say that the older fossils are not acceptable, but only that I can only work with, what I have to work with, and to ensure a proper discussion of evidence, I felt it best to start with where we had the most evidence.

Also, just for the sake of this discussion, I hope you do not mind if I use the name “Lucy” to refer to the entirety that is Afarensis, and use “Taung” to refer to the entirety that is Africanus, if I was to continue with using these two technical terms, I would succeed at confusing myself, and making a mess of this discussion. I hope you are with me on this approach.

I will certainly agree that A africanus/A. anamensis are very early hominids and certainly serve as some of the best evidence for upright bipedalism at this point.

fair enough, as I have said, I only have the evidence, and in that, I only giving what I have to work with, in this sense, as it stands, because I really can not tell what they looked like, or how they may or may no have resembled humans I can not use them as a foundation block.

Allow me at this point to just give an example, I would like to note that this is not to shoot down, or insult, or even belittle anyone in any shape or any form. But to simply express the viability of working with what we have the most evidence to work with.

This was one concept of



Now this model was built off a lack of evidence, as such, these types of things can happen, however, a later model came to replace this idea with this model.



and with a more recent find, we have this fine near complete skull to work with, which has opened new doors for us, to better understand Lucy and her people.



Now, please understand, I am not making any attempt to undermine what has been done so far, but only a desire to work with, the most we have so far.

I don't necessary want to toss the other "fragmentary" finds since anthropological data can be garnered about gate or stature. For instance the skull of S. tachadensis does have the foramen magnum available for viewing which shows it was probably not the same type of spinal-skull configuration as other upright hominids.

I fully respect what you are saying, however, since there is such a great amount of evidence that is missing regarding this, I can not say one way or the other if this was a human, or just something else that may or may not have any part in the linage of that which is human. It is because of that, that I am not using it as such.

Here is an image of the Skull as far as the best I could find, so that anyone that may be reading this discussion can appreciate the point you are bringing forth.

So I will agree in principle that our earliest available clear indications up upright bipedalism are in the Australopithecines, but may also be reflected in a gradualism as shown in other bones, should those come to light later in the discussion.

I hope we can agree that there is more to human, then simply our walk.

However, as I said, this is just to build a platform that we both can meet on, and open our discussion, to learn and see and agree where we should start, and what we have to work with. I hope that as far as this goes, we both can agree that we at our best so far, with the evidence that we have, that Humanity started with Lucy and Taung.

Before this point, we do not have enough evidence to make a definite call on way or the other.

As always, if you have disagreement with this, I welcome anything you bring to the table, and I hope I have treated your comments with respect that they deserve, and have equally given you only my evidence to support my stand.

God Bless

Key.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I think I can live with that assessment. I don't want to, however, establish the precedent that anything short of near-complete skeletons are the only acceptable data.

But I certainly understand the point here and will gladly acquiesce the "starting point" as being Lucy/Tuang (unless something startling comes up in investigations later on and we are both in agreement that this expands the timeframe backwards.)

-t

 

[Key]

Your request and stand are well respected and appreciated; we are bound by the evidence, for this discussion. If in the future, evidence changes this, then that is the evidence.

I can see despite my benedictions that you are currently waiting for the proverbial assault to begin, and I would like to express that I hope fully that what we exchange is not an assault by me in any manner or form, but a respectful conversation.

However, at this point I believe that we have well established a neutral ground by which we can start our discussion, as such, I guess, this is where the “assault” begins.

With every Discussion there needs to be order, so to establish this, I will be setting this guideline for my discussion, please let me know if you have any major disagreements with it.

1: Bipedal Stand of Humans
1.a: The Advantages
1.b: The Disadvantages

2: Intelligence of Humans.
2.a: How it affects their ability to gather food.
2.b. How it affects their ability to survive aggressive predations.

3: Physical Survival Traits.
3.a: Defensive
3.b: Offensive.

4: Sight and other Senses and how they help survival.

5: Community

6: Closing Statements and Commentary.

I hope you find this outline acceptable, as I feel that it will prevent us from jumping around and allowing for an even and well thought out discussion.

God Bless

Key.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Agreed and accepted.

 

[Key]

1: Bipedal Stand of Humans

I would like to start off by saying, it is not simply the fact that Human is bipedal that is the issue, it is that Human is habitually bipedal, and a land bound animal that is of importance, as in Human does not live in the trees, or in the water for the majority of their life, but walks upon the land, and their only form of locomotion on the land is bipedal that is the paramount issue.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_2.htm

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusafarensis.htm

Now, when we look at Bipedal, the first questions we must ask, is what is involved in being bipedal, and what are its advantages and disadvantages to survival.

(Source Note: In some cases, although the Source is still good for some parts, other parts have become outdated by new evidence, but for what they can be used for, they are used for, also note that some sources provide multiple points, but in this case they will only be listed once)

1.a: The Advantages

That being a higher point of view then if they walked on all fours, however this does not mean that the bipedal animal has a higher point of view then other animals around it, only that it now has a higher point of view then it would have had if it could not take a bipedal stance, for example, a zebra has a shoulder height of around 4’-7” , to Lucy’s top of head height of 5 feet max. Also, wading in water, is a very important on as well, however, this is also dependent on the overall height factors of the animal in question.

The height seems to also be an issue to allow the bipedal stand to allow for reaching things overhead, however, compared to other animals of Human structure, Lucy does not gain an advantage here, because Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and a slew of other animals can take a bipedal stance, even if they do not walk bipedal, so it can not viewed as a survival advantage at this moment, it is not a disadvantage, but it is not an advantage.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Charley/Laetoli Footprints 04.gif

Secondly being Bipedal, and having the same physical structure of other animals of their like, being Gorillas, Chimpanzees, etc, offers that a bipedal would have a faster run speed, as well as the ability to change direction quicker. However, that is only compared to other animals of the same body style as Human, and does not include animals of a different body dynamic. Example being a Lion can change direction very fast compared to a human, so can a zebra, or dog. We also see that Lucy’s feet were made for walking, like the Masai, as opposed to runners like the Zulu. This might have offered Lucy a far greater migration distance to look for food on the open plains. This is noted by the lack of an arch in the feet that allows for running over continual walking.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biped

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/our_beautiful_bodies/100226

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/marathon_man/

http://biology.kenyon.edu/heithausp/cat-tutorial/welcome.htm

http://www.barbarylion.com/LionInfo.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_Zebra

http://www.angelfire.com/tx2/horsecorral/horseanatomy.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse

http://www.mpata.com/masai.html

As far as what Evidence there is, I believe this is the limits of the benefits as they relate to the surrounding environments, and co-population stressors.

If you have anything to add at this moment, or make corrections, I welcome them.

God Bless

Key.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Advantages:

The appearance of an adaptation implies but is not necessarily an "advantage". The main thing being that any set of mutations do nothing to impede the spread of these mutations through the gene pool. So any change in structure does not necessarily have to provide an "advantage".

As most evolutionary biologists will tell you, evolution is not a directional change.

As for height:
Height is surely a relative term since the giraffe would win in this particular contest. So indeed height for this body structure (ie this type of animal) is an advantage especially if this stance is owned by an animal derived from animals that did not start out living on the open grasslands

Other Advantages:
"It allows quick positional changes in all directions and rapid acceleration and deceleration in emergencies, it offers a good view of the surrounding environment" (source)

It doesn't have to be better than the lion or gazelle, but just good enough to not cause the new inhabitant of the grasslands to be eaten before the genes can be passed along.

Lucy Footprint:
I don't know if there is more info on Lucy's "instep" but I would be very uncomfortable in drawing conclusions about her instep based on an impression preserved in volcanic ash. While no doubt highly detailed, the "absence" of a feature may not mean that the feature was actually absent but poorly preserved. In this case I will say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and leave it at that.

Summary:

1. Changes in animal morphology are due to mutations which are not selected against by the environment.

2. No noted change necessarily has to have any given advantage. Merely not be selected out of the gene pool.

3. Evolution is non-directional and only tells us those mutations that make it through the "evolutionary seive". Evolution is not a drive toward anything, but an explanation of how things change over time due to mutations/genetic drift in relation to outside stressors. The outside stressors actively WEED OUT failures. There is nothing to LEAD THE WAY in these changes.

Bipedalism does not seem to show any gross negative and would not necessarily be selected against. It may carry some advantages, especially for a primate body type that is now adapting to life on the savannah grasslands.

 

[Key]

Advantages:

The appearance of an adaptation implies but is not necessarily an "advantage". The main thing being that any set of mutations do nothing to impede the spread of these mutations through the gene pool. So any change in structure does not necessarily have to provide an "advantage".

As most evolutionary biologists will tell you, evolution is not a directional change.

As for height:
Height is surely a relative term since the giraffe would win in this particular contest. So indeed height for this body structure (ie this type of animal) is an advantage especially if this stance is owned by an animal derived from animals that did not start out living on the open grasslands

Other Advantages:
"It allows quick positional changes in all directions and rapid acceleration and deceleration in emergencies, it offers a good view of the surrounding environment" (source)

It doesn't have to be better than the lion or gazelle, but just good enough to not cause the new inhabitant of the grasslands to be eaten before the genes can be passed along.

Well, in this case, it does, as the Human is competing against the Lion and the Gazelle for survival at this point. Please remember that, for survival to happen, it has to have a chance to survive, it's survival is dependent on it's relationship with it's material environment(Weather, Etc), and it's living environment (Predators, Etc).

This is something we need to take into and keep into consideration, at all times in this debate.

Evolution is Directed towards survival, at all times.

Also note, I cited your source, as you will note that I did mention the directional change, I just placed it into comparison to Lucy's surroundings, as all factors must be considered.

Lucy Footprint:
I don't know if there is more info on Lucy's "instep" but I would be very uncomfortable in drawing conclusions about her instep based on an impression preserved in volcanic ash. While no doubt highly detailed, the "absence" of a feature may not mean that the feature was actually absent but poorly preserved. In this case I will say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and leave it at that.

I did provide Taung's Foot Bones as well, and it was devoid of an instep, however, at this time, if you would feel that this should be ignored, and that Lucy did not indeed have the large migration distance to forage for food that her foot print may have implied, I would have to say, that this is something I would have to take into consideration. After all, all we have is the evidence, and just as when we reconstruct a skull from 2 teeth and half a jaw bone, we are open to mistakes, this too might be a mistake, however, it is the best evidence that we have at this time, and should be used as it is provided, and taken into consideration, if not treated with utmost respect for what it provides.

Summary:

1. Changes in animal morphology are due to mutations which are not selected against by the environment.

2. No noted change necessarily has to have any given advantage. Merely not be selected out of the gene pool.

3. Evolution is non-directional and only tells us those mutations that make it through the "evolutionary seive". Evolution is not a drive toward anything, but an explanation of how things change over time due to mutations/genetic drift in relation to outside stressors. The outside stressors actively WEED OUT failures. There is nothing to LEAD THE WAY in these changes.

Bipedalism does not seem to show any gross negative and would not necessarily be selected against. It may carry some advantages, especially for a primate body type that is now adapting to life on the savannah grasslands.

I believed that we have established our platform at the start of this discussion, and I do agree with most of what you have said here, however:

Please note, at this point we have only been talking about the advantages, we have not gotten into the Disadvantages.

Also note again, Evolution is Directed at survival at all times, And outside stressors are what I have included into this analysis, regarding the advantages of Bipedal Walking (Locomotion), if I did not include this comparison to Lucy's environment that I would be incorrect in any conclusion that might be drawn form the data.

So far, do we have an agreement to the Advantages?

God Bless

Key.

 

[Key]

It seems.... after checking my Post on another computer... that the foot did not show up.

For that I deeply apologize..

Here is a Link FOOT

Sorry again for any problems that has caused, I'll have to check my posts to make sure all my images show up from now on.

I am still waiting on your response, to see if we have concluded these as the limitations of the Benefits of Bipedal walking, as they pertain to Lucy.

God Bless

Key.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Evolution is Directed towards survival, at all times.

Incorrect. Evolution is "Descent with modification". It has the following inputs:

Mutation
Genetic Drift
Gene Flow

These are screened by Natural Selection

(source)

Only those that are neutral or of value to survival will be passed along.

If any of the changes endanger or keep the animal from passing along its mutation then the mutation will not be passed along.

It is not directed.

You are correct, survival is the final outcome, but there is no "drive to survival" in the process itself.

Natural selection is a passive seive. If an adaptation is of value to allow survival or if it carries no overall disadvantage it will be able to pass along to future generations.

I did provide Taung's Foot Bones as well, and it was devoid of an instep, however, at this time, if you would feel that this should be ignored, and that Lucy did not indeed have the large migration distance to forage for food that her foot print may have implied, I would have to say, that this is something I would have to take into consideration. After all, all we have is the evidence, and just as when we reconstruct a skull from 2 teeth and half a jaw bone, we are open to mistakes, this too might be a mistake, however, it is the best evidence that we have at this time, and should be used as it is provided, and taken into consideration, if not treated with utmost respect for what it provides.

As long as we have more that a single footprint. Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (a standard scientific concept). But since you have provided the Taung footbones and upon further investigation it looks like there were two set of Ethiopian prints I will allow the data on the instep.

Also note again, Evolution is Directed at survival at all times,

I know this may seem pedantic, but I must stress that evolution is not directed. It is a process in which you have a few inputs all of which relate to mutations of genes and passing those genes along and they are run through a passive seive (natural selection).

This subtle but important point means that:

1. The final output survives because the genetic mutations/adaptations/alterations are in no way detrimental to its survival (this does not mean "they carry a distinct advantage")

2. Any advantage is icing on the cake and will likely help the animal pass along its genes but is not required of the alteration.

But having said that I'm not going to say that bipedalism doesn't provide an advantage, but by no means does it provide the only advantage that these proto hominids had.

Of course in a foot race no primate can outrun a lion. But the primate has different visual systems and thinks differently from the lion. Bipedalism may provide one advantage that other similar body types didn't have, but it isn't an advantage over the lion's speed and gait.

Advantages also work in unison or build on other advantages.

In terms of bipedalism it is an advantage for animals of the primate body type in that it allows a primate body type to better survive on the open grasslands than the brachiating, tree-climbing skills of tree-dwelling animals. But it is no match in speed for lions. However, this was clearly not the only advantage Lucy brought to the plains.

 

[Key]

Incorrect. Evolution is "Descent with modification". It has the following inputs:

Mutation
Genetic Drift
Gene Flow

These are screened by Natural Selection

(source)

This might be so, but this is not the Co-Evolution Model. This is the Punctured Equilibrium Model (Which because of Lack of Evidence I do not give credit to) If you have evidence of this Model, we can start again on which model to use if you would like

I thought we came to an agreement with our discussion: On which Model we were using for this Discussion.
Post1
Post2
Post3

I just want to clear up this confusion before we continue.

God Bless

Key

 

[thaumaturgy]

This might be so, but this is not the Co-Evolution Model. This is the Punctured Equilibrium Model (Which because of Lack of Evidence I do not give credit to) If you have evidence of this Model, we can start again on which model to use if you would like

To my knowledge this has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is Gould et al's explanation of data related to the rate of change in response to stressors.

Evolution, fundamentally, is a non-directional process. While "Survival" is the ultimate benefit, survival is not a driving force. Evolution is a passive process in which deficits are removed.

Co-Evolution relates to the interdependence of two systems. As I also pointed out, I do not wish to limit this stressor-stressee to solely biotic systems.

This is crucial and perhaps I misread your original points, but there is no definition of evolution that I am aware of that implicitly or explicity states evolution to be a "directional" process of any sort.

Even co-evolution only relates as far as the stressor-stressee mutual relationship.

It is rational to assume that those factors which select against certain features will result in the proliferation of features that are the opposite of those selected against.

Perhaps you will need to find me a reference in which evolution is capable of "directing" something beforehand.

This is not what happens. Evolution, fundamentally, has only those inputs of genetic mutation, genetic drift, genetic flow and a passive filter to select against them.

Two species that carry between them a "co-evolutionary" relationship are linked in such a way that (let's take for example a lion and a gazelle), the lion is the environmental stressor that selects against slow gazelles or gazelles without sufficient visual acuity to note the presence of the lion. The faster gazelles are, themselves, a selective force against lions incapable of catching faster gazelles (the lion has to eat).

Note how this is not the same as saying Lions make faster gazelles. Faster gazelles make faster lions. It will likely turn out that way, but that is a subtle and very important key difference in how evolution is acting.

The predator-prey relationship is a system of selection factors against mutations that are detrimental.

There is no conception of evolution that I have ever heard of, read about, or learned in any paleo or bio class that meant that there was some "force" driving "toward" any particular goal.

But let's look at all the facts on the table and no theory here.

The only things that life can and are proven to do:

1. Reproduce (imperfectly)
2. Die

The only inputs available to cause any change are genetic factors (mutations, drift) and the only way for these factors to carry forward is through reproduction. If the animal is incapable of reproducing before it dies the mutations it carries or the reproduction-based variability (sexual reproduction as opposed to assexual which will not vary the genetic compositon) will not be passed along.

Again, not to be overly pedantic, but indeed "survival" is the ultimate benefit, but evolution, no matter what model currently accepted by biologists, is not a driving directional force. It is a system by which detrimental features are selected against and removed. This will mean that those that make it through the filter will be capable of survival in that environment and will succeed.

It does not, however, mean that the Angraecoid orchid did anything to force AFrican moths to grow longer proboscii, what it means is that the orchids with deeper flowers were a selection against moths with short proboscii (presumably moths with long proboscii could still work with shallower flowers).

Lamarkism is the process you may be thinking of. In Lamarkism it is the efforts at adapting to an environment undertaken by a life form that help future generations survive. This is largely discredited.

Evolution is a passive process in which factors can only be eliminated, not developed for a particular purpose. Even co-evolution to my knowledge falls under this term. Co-evolution is the relationship, but still dependent upon the fundamental core of evolution's mechanism.

 

[Key]

Sorry it is taking me so long to respond.

I'll get back to you in a day or two with a response.

God Bless

Key.