Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

[Subduction Zone]

Now more concisely it does matter how the original life came about. It may not be included in the ToE and is separate in study, but without the first life form the theory is on shaky ground because the first life forms that we know of are far too complex to be there without something much much simpler coming before them. So it does matter.

Wrong, the first life that we have any record of came about much later than the first life. If you think about it the very earliest of life would leave no record. It was not until after a fair amount of evolution occurred that it was complicated enough to leave evidence of its existence.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, but you said specifically that they were more human like and I don't think that is accurate. This is also complicated by the fact that there were fossil footprints in that time frame that are almost identical to modern footprints. So for this time frame with the footprints and the later find of Ardi I find Lucy (and her kind) less stunning or convincing...but that is just mho.

Ardi is a more recent find, but the bones are a whole lot older then Lucy.

And tracks from an afarensis would still be extremely similar to a human's. Across the scope of the animal world, we and them are basically identical... if we weren't talking about ourselves I doubt the difference would be considered significant.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ardi is a more recent find, but the bones are a whole lot older then Lucy.

And tracks from an afarensis would still be extremely similar to a human's. Across the scope of the animal world, we and them are basically identical... if we weren't talking about ourselves I doubt the difference would be considered significant.

That was my point, Ardi is a later find and older.

I don't think they look basically identical.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wrong, the first life that we have any record of came about much later than the first life. If you think about it the very earliest of life would leave no record. It was not until after a fair amount of evolution occurred that it was complicated enough to leave evidence of its existence.

Hmm. Makes sense.

 

[Shemjaza]

That was my point, Ardi is a later find and older.

I don't think they look basically identical.

I'm not following your argument here.

That silhouette is of a chimp and a human... the foot print is of an aferensis foot print. It looks a lot like a human foot print, but the arch has the slightly odd pattern which seems like the big toe was more separate from the foot then on a modern human.

Ardi had less human looking feet then Lucy... just like we would expect from either natural evolution or God modifying critters over the eons.

I'm not trying to be clever or funny, I'm honestly confused about your point on this issue.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not following your argument here.

That silhouette is of a chimp and a human... the foot print is of an aferensis foot print. It looks a lot like a human foot print, but the arch has the slightly odd pattern which seems like the big toe was more separate from the foot then on a modern human.

Ardi had less human looking feet then Lucy... just like we would expect from either natural evolution or God modifying critters over the eons.

I'm not trying to be clever or funny, I'm honestly confused about your point on this issue.

What is confusing me, is that Lucy didn't have feet with her skeleton. So I don't know why you think Lucy had human like feet.

 

[Shemjaza]

What is confusing me, is that Lucy didn't have feet with her skeleton. So I don't know why you think Lucy had human like feet.

Oh. Right, no feet details come from other examples of her species. There was enough of her hips to help show that it was more shaped for an upright stance, but we have a number of different examples of Australopithecus afarensis.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh. Right, no feet details come from other examples of her species. There was enough of her hips to help show that it was more shaped for an upright stance, but we have a number of different examples of Australopithecus afarensis.

Ok, I might be missing something but I am only finding reference to one foot fossil in all 300 fossils, and that was separate from any other bone fossils with it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, I might be missing something but I am only finding reference to one foot fossil in all 300 fossils, and that was separate from any other bone fossils with it?

In case you were curious:


"The transition to full-time terrestrial bipedality is a hallmark of human evolution. A key correlate of human bipedalism is the development of longitudinal and transverse arches of the foot that provide a rigid propulsive lever and critical shock absorption during striding bipedal gait. Evidence for arches in the earliest well-known Australopithecus species, A. afarensis, has long been debated. A complete fourth metatarsal of A. afarensis was recently discovered at Hadar, Ethiopia. It exhibits torsion of the head relative to the base, a direct correlate of a transverse arch in humans. The orientation of the proximal and distal ends of the bone reflects a longitudinal arch. Further, the deep, flat base and tarsal facets imply that its midfoot had no ape-like midtarsal break. These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans and support the hypothesis that this species was a committed terrestrial biped."
Complete Fourth Metatarsal and Arches in the Foot of Australopithecus afarensis

 

[Oncedeceived]

In case you were curious:


"The transition to full-time terrestrial bipedality is a hallmark of human evolution. A key correlate of human bipedalism is the development of longitudinal and transverse arches of the foot that provide a rigid propulsive lever and critical shock absorption during striding bipedal gait. Evidence for arches in the earliest well-known Australopithecus species, A. afarensis, has long been debated. A complete fourth metatarsal of A. afarensis was recently discovered at Hadar, Ethiopia. It exhibits torsion of the head relative to the base, a direct correlate of a transverse arch in humans. The orientation of the proximal and distal ends of the bone reflects a longitudinal arch. Further, the deep, flat base and tarsal facets imply that its midfoot had no ape-like midtarsal break. These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans and support the hypothesis that this species was a committed terrestrial biped."
Complete Fourth Metatarsal and Arches in the Foot of Australopithecus afarensis

Right this is the one foot bone that I had written about. The problem I see with this is that there is the one foot bone found with no other bones to support what linage it is. Also, the interpretations seem controversial by differing scientist. You might like to read this:

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion

 

[Loudmouth]

Right this is the one foot bone that I had written about. The problem I see with this is that there is the one foot bone found with no other bones to support what linage it is. Also, the interpretations seem controversial by differing scientist. You might like to read this:

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion

From the paper:

"Similar controversy surrounds the Australopithecus afarensis foot bones from Hadar, Ethiopia (c. 3.0–3.4 Ma) that are described by some as being compliant with full bipedal locomotion (Latimer & Lovejoy, 1982, 1989, 1990a, 1990b; Latimer et al. 1987), whereas others have suggested that the same fossils show traits that indicate a mosaic of terrestrial and arboreal locomotion (Susman & Stern, 1982, 1991;, 1983, 1991;, 1983; Susman et al. 1985; Duncan et al. 1994; Berillon, 1998 Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000)."

Also, OH8 is a fossil hominin foot that contains multiple bones:

 

[Oncedeceived]

From the paper:

"Similar controversy surrounds the Australopithecus afarensis foot bones from Hadar, Ethiopia (c. 3.0–3.4 Ma) that are described by some as being compliant with full bipedal locomotion (Latimer & Lovejoy, 1982, 1989, 1990a, 1990b; Latimer et al. 1987), whereas others have suggested that the same fossils show traits that indicate a mosaic of terrestrial and arboreal locomotion (Susman & Stern, 1982, 1991;, 1983, 1991;, 1983; Susman et al. 1985; Duncan et al. 1994; Berillon, 1998 Berillon, 1999 Berillon, 2000)."

Also, OH8 is a fossil hominin foot that contains multiple bones:

Ok, and your point?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, and your point?

We have fossil feet from the period where we find transitional Australopithecines which gives us further information about the evolution of early hominins.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We have fossil feet from the period where we find transitional Australopithecines which gives us further information about the evolution of early hominins.

We were specifically discussing Lucy's feet and hands being the convincing evidence for Shemjaza. Lucy didn't have feet at all. Then he said that there were feet from other fossils but there is only one that I could find and that was controversial. The one you show in your post is of Homo Habilis.

 

[CabVet]

We were specifically discussing Lucy's feet and hands being the convincing evidence for Shemjaza. Lucy didn't have feet at all. Then he said that there were feet from other fossils but there is only one that I could find and that was controversial. The one you show in your post is of Homo Habilis.

What exactly are you trying to refute? That these fossil feet exist? That they were from an ancestor of Homo sapiens? That they are of intermediate morphology between our feet and chimp's feet? Or that they are hundreds of thousands of years old?

Sorry, catching up with these threads is a lot of work!

 

[Oncedeceived]

What exactly are you trying to refute? That these fossil feet exist? That they were from an ancestor of Homo sapiens? That they are of intermediate morphology between our feet and chimp's feet? Or that they are hundreds of thousands of years old?

Sorry, catching up with these threads is a lot of work!

No problem, I know it is difficult to keep up.

I am not trying to refute anything, but if someone says that something is convincing to them it seems it should be accurate. I would want to know if something I thought was the case was not the accurate. I imagine that it doesn't change anything other than realizing that sometimes what we think is convincing isn't what we think it is.

 

[CabVet]

No problem, I know it is difficult to keep up.

I am not trying to refute anything, but if someone says that something is convincing to them it seems it should be accurate. I would want to know if something I thought was the case was not the accurate. I imagine that it doesn't change anything other than realizing that sometimes what we think is convincing isn't what we think it is.

I still don't get it. What is not convincing you? The age of the fossil? The fact that it is a fossil? The fact that it has intermediate morphology between humans and chimps? Here is what this fossil convinces me of:

1. The earth is much older than 6,000 years.
2. There were animals that lived in the past and had a morphology that was intermediate between humans and what we believe were their ancestors, just as predicted by evolution.
3. The presence of these intermediate fossils is evidence against creation of humans by a deity as described in Genesis.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I still don't get it. What is not convincing you? The age of the fossil? The fact that it is a fossil? The fact that it has intermediate morphology between humans and chimps? Here is what this fossil convinces me of:

1. The earth is much older than 6,000 years.
2. There were animals that lived in the past and had a morphology that was intermediate between humans and what we believe were their ancestors, just as predicted by evolution.
3. The presence of these intermediate fossils is evidence against creation of humans by a deity as described in Genesis.

I have no issue with 1 and 2. 3. Why would that be evidence against creation?

 

[CabVet]

I have no issue with 1 and 2. 3. Why would that be evidence against creation?

Because Genesis describes humans as being part of a special creation, made from dust of the ground and separately from other animals with the purpose of dominating the other animals. It also describes the female human being created from Adam's rib.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because Genesis describes humans as being part of a special creation, made from dust of the ground and separately from other animals with the purpose of dominating the other animals. It also describes the female human being created from Adam's rib.

This is the spiritual Adam and Eve in my opinion. Genesis 2 is the act of making mankind spiritual in the image of God.