Not transitional?

[AV1611VET]

And I explained to you about twelve bazillion times that using that label to ourselves doesn't constitute "professing ourselves to be wise".

Then Homo erectus doesn't mean we stand upright, I take it?

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

[sidebar] Note here, where prescient evolution is compared to "inventions", not "discoveries". [sidebar]

 

[lucaspa]

Doesn't the evidence now point to it being a species of feathered Dino rather than a transition between dinosaurs and birds? That's what it reads like to me, but that's why I want to know what you guys think.

That's what it reads like. However, the "evidence" is a new fossil discovered by the authors and never before discussed. This new fossil is classed as a feathered dino but is said to be very similar to Archie. If the new fossil is not just like the authors say it is, then their analysis crumbles.

This, to me, is a classic case of how scientists try to get fame: by showing ideas to be wrong. If the authors had published a paper describing the new fossil, that paper would not have gotten much notice. But say that Archie is not a bird???!! Now they are in Nature and get all kinds of publicity! Much more notice, right?

What would help is if we would use 2 different words: transitional and intermediate.

Transitional, in the paleontological literature, has the specific meaning of being on the direct ancestor-descendant line. Intermediate connotes having either a mosaic of features of the 2 taxa it is intermediate between, and/or having features intermediate between the 2 taxa.

Archie has always been an intermediate between reptiles and birds. That hasn't changed. It is just the type of fossil that creationism says cannot exist but that evolution predicts.

Is Archie transitional in that Archie's descendants ended up being birds? Remember, that is why Archie is classified as part of Class Aves. Not because Archie itself has all the features of birds; it does not. But rather because scientists arbitrarily decided that Archie should belong to the Class that its descendants ended up in.

Now, maybe Archie's descendants did not end up being birds. Maybe Archie is in a line that died out and thus we keep in the taxa Dinosauria.

 

[lucaspa]

Then Homo erectus doesn't mean we stand upright, I take it?

We aren't Homo erectus. We are Homo sapiens. There's lots of differences between us (H. sapiens) and H. erectus.

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

So you are saying Adam was H. erectus and H. sapiens evolved that?

Note here, where prescient evolution is compared to "inventions", not "discoveries".

An accurate sidebar is that "upright" means "moral" or "virtuous" and "inventions" means "schemes" or "downward path".

"But I did find this: God created people to be virtuous, but they have each turned to follow their own downward path."

I find the verses previous to that to be interesting:
""Behold, I have discovered this," says the Preacher, "adding one thing to another to find an explanation, which [fn]I am still seeking but have not found. I have found one man among a thousand, but I have not found a woman among all these. "

So, AV, do you really contend that there are no "upright" women?

That's one danger of taking the Bible out of context to mean something it doesn't: you have to face the consequences of your deed.

 

[lucaspa]

Please note:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

It says, 'professing'.

They weren't really wise; just carrying the label.

And this led some to become atheists.

Actually, if you read the next verse you find that they were pagans:
"and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [fn]crawling creatures."

The Romans were worshipping images and violating the Second Commandment.

By now it should not, but it still surprises me how AV misrepresents what the Bible actually says.

The verses have nothing to do with evolution, but Paul condemning the paganism and idols in Rome.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are saying Adam was H. erectus and H. sapiens evolved that?

Please follow the train of thought here in this conversation, will you?

You may want to read this at the next traffic light:

If Homo sapiens doesn't mean we are professing ourselves to be wise; then Homo erectus doesn't mean we are professing our ancestors to have walked upright.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, if you read the next verse you find that they were pagans:

I'd say that's pretty accurate -- paganism → evolution.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I'd say that's pretty accurate -- paganism → evolution.

Paganism > Scientific enquiry > ToE > Wiseman

Looky there, turns out we do agree 90% of the time.

 

[Naraoia]

Then Homo erectus doesn't mean we stand upright, I take it?

Fine distinctions slip by you unnoticed, I see.

When Homo erectus was named it was named because this Dubois guy thought it fit the creature (incidentally, it does - but then, that's not saying much when we are talking about hominins...).

For everyone that uses the name after its official establishment, intent doesn't come into it. I might think that H. erectus did not stand upright, but I'd still use the name. H. erectus is now simply what these humans are called.

That's just how taxonomy works. It's also how any language works. Black people aren't actually black. The "red" cones in my eye actually respond to yellowish light. The subway doesn't always go "under" anything. And so on.

What would help is if we would use 2 different words: transitional and intermediate.
Transitional, in the paleontological literature, has the specific meaning of being on the direct ancestor-descendant line. Intermediate connotes having either a mosaic of features of the 2 taxa it is intermediate between, and/or having features intermediate between the 2 taxa.

Does that distinction really exist? I mean, unless you have a detailed species-level record of a transition, you can't distinguish direct ancestors from mere "intermediates" among fossils.

 

[hasone]

Please follow the train of thought here in this conversation, will you?

You may want to read this at the next traffic light:

If Homo sapiens doesn't mean we are professing ourselves to be wise; then Homo erectus doesn't mean we are professing our ancestors to have walked upright.

Without any information but the species label, we can't tell if In fact, Homo sapiens are wise or if Homo erectus could've walked upright. We can't tell from the label, because from the point of view of taxonomy it has no inherent meaning except that it refers to a specific species.

Some taxonomic names of species describe them well, when their etymology is taken into account. some don't. The etymology of the words used isn't particularly important, the fact that each species is labeled uniquely is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fine distinctions slip by you unnoticed, I see.

When Homo erectus was named it was named because this Dubois guy thought it fit the creature (incidentally, it does - but then, that's not saying much when we are talking about hominins...).

For everyone that uses the name after its official establishment, intent doesn't come into it. I might think that H. erectus did not stand upright, but I'd still use the name. H. erectus is now simply what these humans are called.

That's just how taxonomy works. It's also how any language works. Black people aren't actually black. The "red" cones in my eye actually respond to yellowish light. The subway doesn't always go "under" anything. And so on.

Does that distinction really exist? I mean, unless you have a detailed species-level record of a transition, you can't distinguish direct ancestors from mere "intermediates" among fossils.

So is this loquaciousness a YES or a NO?

 

[AV1611VET]

Without any information but the species label, we can't tell if In fact, Homo sapiens are wise or if Homo erectus could've walked upright.

Do you profess to be a Homo sapiens?

(I'm not buying all this double-talk. It's nothing more than edugate.)

 

[Naraoia]

So is this loquaciousness a YES or a NO?

It's precisely what it is. If you can't parse it, that's your problem at this point.

Do you profess to be a Homo sapiens?

(I'm not buying all this double-talk. It's nothing more than edugate.)

Whereas you are nothing less than paranoid.