Lucy

[Astrophile]

In Tom Kemps “The Reptiles that Became Mammals,” New Scientist, Vol. 92, 1982, p.583, he states, “Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related species.”

I have found a link to the paper 'The reptiles that became mammals', by T.S. Kemp (not 'Kemps'). It turned out to be better than I expected for something published in the 'New Scientist', although it must by now be badly out of date.
The two sentences that you quoted from the article are followed by the following sentences:
'The concept of punctuated equilibria - which envisages evolutionary change occurring in a series of jumps, with relatively little change in between - was introduced in 1972 by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, and accounts for this rather well.
According to this concept, intermediate stage between known species are not found in the record because most evolutionary change occurs in very small, geographically isolated parts of the main species population. Such a peripheral isolate, as it is termed, can evolve very rapidly, for three main reasons. It includes only a few individuals; it is isolated from the main gene pool of the species; and it inhabits an environment different from the rest of the species.'

This passage, and the article as a whole, gives (at least to me) a very different impression of the evolutionary transition from reptiles to mammals from the two sentences you quoted.

By the way, how could you read and quote from this article, which mentions Stephen Jay Gould's name in the sentence immediately after the passage you quoted, and still spell Gould's name incorrectly?
You may find it interesting and instructive to read Kemp's 2009 paper 'Phylogenetic interrelationships and pattern of evolution of the therapsids: testing for polytomy' - http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tskemp/pdfs/TherPjhyl2009.pdf

 

[pshun2404]

Okay so aside from these diversions, let me ask you a question about Lucy (assuming you have read the thread)? What is your view on there being many afarensis hip samples and if there are can you provide some for us here? I say there are only three (that I am aware of) and aside from Lucy's these others are very scanty pieces...are there more you are aware of? Can you help here (remember Afarensis not Africanus or Sediba)?

Thanks

 

[Loudmouth]

WHy always say I said what I have not said? Is this a technique you use? I did not say a fossil (as in all fossils), or a single example (as there are many, not all), appeared all at once fully formed, I listed three or four evolutionists who made this observation so even if you have a denial based argument, it is with them not me...

So you don't hold the position that fossils suddenly appear, fully formed?

...and in this sense there certainly has been transitions over time...but monkey to man? reptile to bird? No....just one explanation that in my opinion is not well founded.

What features would a fossil need in order to support monkey to man? Or do you hold the position that no fossil could evidence this evolutionary transition?

"The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal. .. There seems to be a striking commonality between all major transitions in the evolution of life. In each new class of biological objects, the principal types emerge abruptly, and intermediate grades (e.g., intermediates between the precellular stage of evolution and prokaryotic cells or between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells), typically, cannot be identified.” (Eugene v. Koonin, “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Biology Direct, 2:21 (August 20, 2007).)

How do you identify them? What are the criteria?

I am not making the claim, I am basing an opinion on the conclusions of non-creationist scientists....argue with them if you disagree...just realize there is more than one opinion that is possibly true.

Where did Koonin say that modern humans appear abruptly, suddenly, or fully formed?

If I find scientists who say that Lucy is a transitional fossil and evidence of human evolution, will you accept the conclusions of these experts?

" For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

[Astrophile]

Okay so aside from these diversions, let me ask you a question about Lucy (assuming you have read the thread)? What is your view on there being many afarensis hip samples and if there are can you provide some for us here? I say there are only three (that I am aware of) and aside from Lucy's these others are very scanty pieces...are there more you are aware of? Can you help here (remember Afarensis not Africanus or Sediba)?

Thanks

I don't know who you are addressing here, but since we are having a conversation, I will venture to answer the question. My answer is that I don't know; I am an astronomer, not a biologist or a palaeontologist. I'm sorry that I can't help you, but no doubt there are people on this forum who can answer your question.

 

[Armoured]

I don't know who you are addressing here, but since we are having a conversation, I will venture to answer the question. My answer is that I don't know; I am an astronomer, not a biologist or a palaeontologist. I'm sorry that I can't help you, but no doubt there are people on this forum who can answer your question.

short answer, creatures that live in forest/savannah borders aren't particularly prone to fossilisation.

 

[Jimmy D]

What features would a fossil need in order to support monkey to man? Or do you hold the position that no fossil could evidence this evolutionary transition?

He's answered this in the 'New Link In Human Evolution' thread

However what this shows me without doubt is that some ape variations indeed either had, or had developed, human like characterisitics...

But never mind these 'diversions', he'd rather argue about how many of Lucy's hip bones we've found.

 

[pshun2404]

The thread was actually supposed to be about Lucy...I was picking up where we left off after yet another diversion (which I was a part of). However, when I said "without doubt is that some ape variations indeed either had, or had developed, human like characteristics"...I was being honest, but I still do not see that that proves monkeys became man (above LM says 'monkey to man'...an assertion even Darwin did not make or believe)...so JD what is your point exactly? Thanks...

 

[Jimmy D]

The thread was actually supposed to be about Lucy...I was picking up where we left off after yet another diversion (which I was a part of). However, when I said "without doubt is that some ape variations indeed either had, or had developed, human like characteristics"...I was being honest, but I still do not see that that proves monkeys became man (above LM says 'monkey to man'...an assertion even Darwin did not make or believe)...so JD what is your point exactly? Thanks...

Fair enough, but to me ape fossils which had, or had developed human-like characteristics would point toward common descent.

 

[Loudmouth]

He's answered this in the 'New Link In Human Evolution' thread



But never mind these 'diversions', he'd rather argue about how many of Lucy's hip bones we've found.

That really doesn't answer the question. pshun2404 still wouldn't say if that fossil was transitional or not, or what would qualify as a transitional.

 

[Loudmouth]

The thread was actually supposed to be about Lucy...I was picking up where we left off after yet another diversion (which I was a part of). However, when I said "without doubt is that some ape variations indeed either had, or had developed, human like characteristics"...I was being honest, but I still do not see that that proves monkeys became man (above LM says 'monkey to man'...an assertion even Darwin did not make or believe)...so JD what is your point exactly? Thanks...

Firstly, YOU were the one who said monkey to man. I was simply repeating your terms.

Second, are you saying that you would never accept fossil evidence? That seems like a tacit admission that the fossil evidence supports evolution. Otherwise, why would you have to reject it?

 

[pshun2404]

are you saying that you would never accept fossil evidence?

No! I am saying the fossil evidence only shows "transition" through speciation producing variety of the same animal...not transition from say reptiles to birds...that thinking, is merely one way of interpreting the data (not the only possibility)

As I said I believe in evolution, not as the cause of origins nor as an explanation of the example given above...but change and development over time within a given species? Oh yes definitely...though again this issue is slightly off topic...are humans today the same as humans millions of years ago? No! There are many more varieties today (topically) among the more successful versions of yesteryear...eventually what is being called Sapien Sapiens proved the most successful and variation has continued within this group (of which we are members)...but we were never ape-kind...

 

[Loudmouth]

are you saying that you would never accept fossil evidence?

No! I am saying the fossil evidence only shows "transition" through speciation producing variety of the same animal...not transition from say reptiles to birds...

Reptiles and birds are varieties of the same amniote animal. So why can't we have transitions for those?

that thinking, is merely one way of interpreting the data (not the only possibility)

Where have you shown that the interpretation is wrong?

As I said I believe in evolution, not as the cause of origins nor as an explanation of the example given above...but change and development over time within a given species? Oh yes definitely...though again this issue is slightly off topic...are humans today the same as humans millions of years ago? No! There are many more varieties today (topically) among the more successful versions of yesteryear...eventually what is being called Sapien Sapiens proved the most successful and variation has continued within this group (of which we are members)

At what point do our ancestors stop being human? What features would a fossil need to have in order to span the distance between modern humans and ancestors that are not human?

 

[pshun2404]

Reptiles and birds are varieties of the same amniote animal. So why can't we have transitions for those?

So we all come from eggs even most anamniotes. Okay, and that somehow proves reptiles became birds? Not even slightly...it only proves we all come from eggs...

Where have you shown that the interpretation is wrong?

Again, I did not show it "wrong", just different, and not necessarily the ONLY interpretation/explanation, therefore NOT an established fact.

At what point do our ancestors stop being human? What features would a fossil need to have in order to span the distance between modern humans and ancestors that are not human?

At no point do our ancestors STOP being human. Since it is possible there are no ancestors that are not human (that is after all just one opinion and not the only one) the second question has no meaning...the persons making the assertion that the non-human ancestors ACTUALLY ARE ancestors have to prove this and they have not...many things are proven and NO ONE doubts these or has anymore questioning about their factualness, this premise is no one of those...

 

[Loudmouth]

Reptiles and birds are varieties of the same amniote animal. So why can't we have transitions for those?

So we all come from eggs even most anamniotes. Okay, and that somehow proves reptiles became birds? Not even slightly...it only proves we all come from eggs...

Reptiles and birds are amniotes in the same way that lizards and turtles are reptiles, and in the same way that sparrows and ostriches are birds. It would seem that you allow species into a group as long as you can call them by the same name, such as reptile or bird. So why can't we do the same with amniotes? I can call reptiles and birds amniotes, so why can't they share a common ancestor?

Where have you shown that the interpretation is wrong?

Again, I did not show it "wrong", just different, and not necessarily the ONLY interpretation/explanation, therefore NOT an established fact.

Interpretations are never facts. What you are ignoring is that not all interpretations are equal. If the fact is the observation of a rainbow, the interpretation of Leprechaun magic and light refraction are not equal interpretations. It isn't enough to say there are "other interpretations" for what causes rainbows. What you need to show is that they have equal explanatory power, and you haven't done that.

At no point do our ancestors STOP being human.

Please, let's see the evidence that supports this interpretation.

 

[pshun2404]

Reptiles and birds are amniotes in the same way that lizards and turtles are reptiles, and in the same way that sparrows and ostriches are birds. It would seem that you allow species into a group as long as you can call them by the same name, such as reptile or bird. So why can't we do the same with amniotes? I can call reptiles and birds amniotes, so why can't they share a common ancestor?

They may but might or could be does not equal IS or DOES….since there is no proof they do then why make such an assumption and call it a conclusion?

Interpretations are never facts. What you are ignoring is that not all interpretations are equal. If the fact is the observation of a rainbow, the interpretation of Leprechaun magic and light refraction are not equal interpretations. It isn't enough to say there are "other interpretations" for what causes rainbows. What you need to show is that they have equal explanatory power, and you haven't done that.

You are presenting a logic fallacy (like comparing rocks to apples)….”what causes a rainbow” is proven to be true (not assumed), and it can be observed (not assumed) and demonstrated (not simply seen in this way) and we can even show it to be true in a laboratory….so your statement here is irrational and absurd.

Please, let's see the evidence that supports this interpretation.

You made the initial assumption and my statement was a response to YOU....therefore the onus of proof is yours…but as for what I can see (observe) and demonstrate (by what we actually have found) is that at one point there are no humans and then there are. This does not necessitate they had non-human ancestors.

I also see that there may have been humans a lot earlier than is assumed (as science has already shown to be true, now seeing them as early as 195,000 years)…it depends on how one interprets the evidence.

Once upon a time there were this team of very genuine very talented scientists at one of the deepest parts of the earth humans can get to….here is what they found and their interpretation (generalized of course)…

They found some stone tools, and a monolithic structure….nearby to these they found some footprints that seem to many to be human….around 750 feet away (nearly a football field away), they found the remains of a partial skeleton of an ancient ape….now since

a) any human skeletal remains have allegedly not been found at this depth and because

b) the pedagoguery says humans did not exist at this time

Then they assumed (declaring as a fact) that this ape and her family could make stone tools, may have built the structure and had human like feet….

No by analogy if our civilization became extinct and was replaced imagine if in a million years or so a team of researchers found my homes functional toilet and a few items built and then a football field away found the partial remains of a monkey….would it really be good science to assume this monkey and their family used that toilet or had the hand coordination to build things???? Is such an assumption based conclusion rational? Or logical? No of course it isn’t but I am sure you will probably try to convince me it is very likely to be true….

Now in all fairness, from their perspective could it have been true? Might it have been true? Well I suppose it could be or might be assumed to be true in light of their actual ignorance…but is it true? Is such an interpretation valid? Should one call it or teach it to be an established fact?

Think about this…really use your own ability to reason…step outside the box and look at what is really there and then consider all the possibilities before deciding. Do not just fall for the “appeal to authority” fallacy….

 

[Astrophile]

At no point do our ancestors STOP being human. Since it is possible there are no ancestors that are not human (that is after all just one opinion and not the only one) the second question has no meaning

What is the earliest fossil that you accept as belonging to a species that was one of our ancestors? What were the ancestors of this earliest fossil? After all, it must have had ancestors; it didn't come into existence by spontaneous generation.

 

[pshun2404]

What is the earliest fossil that you accept as belonging to a species that was one of our ancestors? What were the ancestors of this earliest fossil? After all, it must have had ancestors; it didn't come into existence by spontaneous generation.

First of Kemps referred to the fact it was his work...i left out the apsotrophe

Second, in your logic who was the ancestor of the first cell? To be a cell it had to have DNA to code for the functional proteins it requires to be a cell, but without a call no functional proteins exist....did they evolve simultaneously? Hmmm? Could be...might be...but could be and night be are not IS or DID!

So perhaps there is another possibility...the first of each creature was created within the bounds of a set of laws that pre-existed the forms and functions. Laws are a form of information and information is not matter or energy....

 

[Astrophile]

If the fact is the observation of a rainbow, the interpretation of Leprechaun magic and light refraction are not equal interpretations. It isn't enough to say there are "other interpretations" for what causes rainbows. What you need to show is that they have equal explanatory power, and you haven't done that.

You are presenting a logic fallacy (like comparing rocks to apples)….”what causes a rainbow” is proven to be true (not assumed), and it can be observed (not assumed) and demonstrated (not simply seen in this way) and we can even show it to be true in a laboratory….so your statement here is irrational and absurd.

Strictly speaking, you are wrong here, or at least compromising with science. According to Genesis 9:11-17, rainbows are specially created by God as a token of his covenant with Noah; they are not produced by the refraction of light. I think that there are still people who believe this. Moreover, the theory that rainbows are produced by the refraction of light was devised by the heretic Isaac Newton, who denied the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Loudmouth]

They may but might or could be does not equal IS or DOES….since there is no proof they do then why make such an assumption and call it a conclusion?

I am using the same proof you are: I can call them by the same name. That is enough to allow species to be grouped under the headings "reptile" and "bird" in your previous posts, so why not "amniote"?

You are presenting a logic fallacy (like comparing rocks to apples)….”what causes a rainbow” is proven to be true (not assumed),

Common ancestry is proven in exactly the same way.

and it can be observed (not assumed) and demonstrated (not simply seen in this way) and we can even show it to be true in a laboratory….so your statement here is irrational and absurd.

Orthologous ERV's are seen in the lab as a result of common ancestry, just as a rainbow is an observed outcome of light refraction.

You made the initial assumption and my statement was a response to YOU....therefore the onus of proof is yours…

Proof found here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

I have discussed the proof over and over and over.

but as for what I can see (observe) and demonstrate (by what we actually have found) is that at one point there are no humans and then there are. This does not necessitate they had non-human ancestors.

What criteria did you use to determine if these fossils were human, non-human, or transitional?

Once upon a time there were this team of very genuine very talented scientists at one of the deepest parts of the earth humans can get to….here is what they found and their interpretation (generalized of course)…

Reference?

 

[Loudmouth]

First of Kemps referred to the fact it was his work...i left out the apsotrophe

Second, in your logic who was the ancestor of the first cell?

And there is the deflection.

We don't need to know who the ancestor was of the first cell in order to determine if fossils are human or non-human. Please stop deflecting. If you can, please show us the criteria you use to determine if a fossil is human or not.