The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[createdtoworship]

According to the figure caption, those images are cleaned up CT scans of the original fossils. They have smoothed the surfaces but the shape of the structures are the same. While the cracks in the original specimens have been smoothed out, this does not diminish the ability of the resulting model to show that the orientation of australopithecine and chimpanzee ilia are not the same.

not that I don't take your word for it, but can you provide a link where it states these are "ct scans of the originals", I did a quick text search of the provided links of the original article here and found nothing: this is the main site for the image below and nothing about CT scanning in the article.

Author Summary

 

[Dizredux]

Diz:

I am not doing "proof" or "truth" I am just saying that that evolution is currently regarded by scientists as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth and there is no scientific controversy and realizing that the acceptance of the consensus opinion is always provisional.

Grady

the rest of your post is just repeats, and no additional evidence, but I will reply to this part of your post. It is apparently an appeal to the populus, do you know what that means?

"an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it.

And I just said that I was not doing either truth or proof. Now I am convinced that you either do not read what you respond to or have a major reading comprehension problem. Either way, I see no value in continuing with somebody who will not or cannot respond to what was said. It is an exercise in futility and so I give up. Have fun responding to what people don't say.

Dizredux

 

[Atheos canadensis]

not that I don't take your word for it, but can you provide a link where it states these are "ct scans of the originals", I did a quick text search of the provided links of the original article here and found nothing: this is the main site for the image below and nothing about CT scanning in the article.

Author Summary

Hmm, it looks like the figure I looked at is behind a pay wall. It's slightly different than the one in the summary. It shows the original fossil, a CT scan of the fossil and then a cleaned up rendering of the scan. And the orientation of the iliac blades in the cleaned up renderings are the same as in the original fossil.

I've made a screenshot for you:

 

[createdtoworship]

Hmm, it looks like the figure I looked at is behind a pay wall. It's slightly different than the one in the summary. It shows the original fossil, a CT scan of the fossil and then a cleaned up rendering of the scan. And the orientation of the iliac blades in the cleaned up renderings are the same as in the original fossil.

I've made a screenshot for you:

thank you but even if this is Lucy (and it doesn't say so), the lower CT scan is much smaller than the cleaned up version which is a whole pelvis. In other words you have the classic problem of the nebraska man transition. Or creating a transition from a partial fossil. If you have a whole picture of the original fossil then we can talk. and particularly a picture of the relationship between the ilium(iliac bone) and where the gluteus would attach. This from my sources is facing forward as in a chimpanzee status and not wrapping around as in a human status of pelvic bone (used for 360 degree balance).

 

[createdtoworship]

Diz: Grady And I just said that I was not doing either truth or proof. Now I am convinced that you either do not read what you respond to or have a major reading comprehension problem. Either way, I see no value in continuing with somebody who will not or cannot respond to what was said. It is an exercise in futility and so I give up. Have fun responding to what people don't say.

Dizredux

okay, this is the second time you have said goodbye.

talk to you later, maybe we can agree on common ground at some later date. It was nice talking to you.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hmm, it looks like the figure I looked at is behind a pay wall. It's slightly different than the one in the summary. It shows the original fossil, a CT scan of the fossil and then a cleaned up rendering of the scan. And the orientation of the iliac blades in the cleaned up renderings are the same as in the original fossil.

I've made a screenshot for you:

thank you but even if this is Lucy (and it doesn't say so), the lower CT scan is much smaller than the cleaned up version which is a whole pelvis. In other words you have the classic problem of the nebraska man transition. Or creating a transition from a partial fossil. If you have a whole picture of the original fossil then we can talk. and particularly a picture of the relationship between the ilium(iliac bone) and where the gluteus would attach. This from my sources is facing forward as in a chimpanzee status and not wrapping around as in a human status of pelvic bone (used for 360 degree balance).

secondly, these pictures do not match. The other picture is different than this one. Did both pictures show up in that paid for article you have?

thanks for the comment.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hmm, it looks like the figure I looked at is behind a pay wall. It's slightly different than the one in the summary. It shows the original fossil, a CT scan of the fossil and then a cleaned up rendering of the scan. And the orientation of the iliac blades in the cleaned up renderings are the same as in the original fossil.

I've made a screenshot for you:

here is some actual replicas of fossils (blue means reconstruction)

here is LUCY

Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1 | eFossils Resources

even here:

http://www.efossils.org/page/boneviewer/Australopithecus afarensis/AL 288-1

note how Lucy is forward facing on the lobes of the hip

and note below how a human like hip wraps around for 360 degree balance for walking upright (not knuckle dragging)

News/Media Center

 

[Dizredux]

okay, this is the second time you have said goodbye.

talk to you later, maybe we can agree on common ground at some later date. It was nice talking to you.

I always have hope and seldom give up on anyone so I might return is there are some signs of you listening but for now, no.

Dizredux

 

[biggles53]

the rest of your post is just repeats, and no additional evidence, but I will reply to this part of your post. It is apparently an appeal to the populus, do you know what that means?

"an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea."

wikipedia

now, that you have been informed of your error. Can we all expect some change in your thought patterns for the future?

Ummm......no it's not...

Not only do you have no idea about the workings of evolutionary theory, you also have no clue about logical fallacies....

Diz was NOT relying upon an appeal to the masses...! When one refers to SPECIALISTS in the field under discussion having come to a consensus, that is NOT an argumentum ad populum.... Tell me, if a group of medical specialists had come to the conclusion that you needed a particular medical procedure, would you be guilty of a logical fallacy if you heeded that opinion....!!?

 

[createdtoworship]

I always have hope and seldom give up on anyone so I might return is there are some signs of you listening but for now, no.

Dizredux

so it looks like you just want to be heard, I understand now.
lol,

ttyl

 

[biggles53]

micro evolution is a beautiful thing, I don't despise it at all. But macro evolution is simply lacking in scientific realm. No obervations, no data collecting, no hypothesis, not testing. Definately not science.


Thanx for the comment.

Please explain the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM which acts as a barrier between so-called 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.....

 

[AV1611VET]

Please explain the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM which acts as a barrier between so-called 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.....

Sterility.

 

[biggles53]

Sterility.

Please explain how "sterility" acts as a barrier between micro and macro evolution.....

 

[AV1611VET]

Please explain how "sterility" acts as a barrier between micro and macro evolution.....

Procreation ceases.

In addition -- and I don't know what the technical term for this is -- but you can't mate animals of different kinds; like a horse with a clam.

They are incompatible.

 

[biggles53]

Procreation ceases.

In addition -- and I don't know what the technical term for this is -- but you can't mate animals of different kinds; like a horse with a clam.

They are incompatible.

Please explain how sterility acts as a barrier BETWEEN micro and macro....ie, it would permit variety up to the point of 'micro' evolution, but not beyond it.....?

 

[AV1611VET]

Please explain how sterility acts as a barrier BETWEEN micro and macro....ie, it would permit variety up to the point of 'micro' evolution, but not beyond it.....?

Sterility "permits"?

Here we go with the 20 questions now; designed to lead to the conclusion that I don't know anything about evolution.

Let's simplify this:

I don't know anything about evolution.

You asked a question and I gave an answer.

If it's not good enough ... too bad.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sterility "permits"?

Here we go with the 20 questions now; designed to lead to the conclusion that I don't know anything about evolution.

Let's simplify this:

I don't know anything about evolution.

You asked a question and I gave an answer.

If it's not good enough ... too bad.

Ok, AV, I am going to explain this to you. Not only would evolution not require different "kinds" to breed, but that kind of thing happening goes directly counter to evolution. Since evolution occurs across a population and not just to individuals, you aren't going to end up with just 1 random evolved individual that can no longer procreate with anything, because the whole population also changed over time (thus retaining breeding capacity). However, if this population had become isolated from a parent population, they might not be able to reproduce with that parent species anymore should that isolation cease.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, AV, I am going to explain this to you. Not only would evolution not require different "kinds" to breed, but that kind of thing happening goes directly counter to evolution. Since evolution occurs across a population and not just to individuals, you aren't going to end up with just 1 random evolved individual that can no longer procreate with anything, because the whole population also changed over time (thus retaining breeding capacity). However, if this population had become isolated from a parent population, they might not be able to reproduce with that parent species anymore should that isolation cease.

And thus my point.

I submit that whatever it is that keeps a horse from being able to fertilize clam eggs (or whatever), is the barrier that the biggles is looking for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And thus my point.

I submit that whatever it is that keeps a horse from being able to fertilize clam eggs (or whatever), is the barrier that the biggles is looking for.

That barrier did not always exist. So it is not a problem. There is a reason that that barrier did not always exist. If you go back far enough with the forerunners any two animals you will find that they were at one time the same species. The "barrier" evolves along with the animals. It does not even begin to appear until two populations of the same animal are separated in some way.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And thus my point.

I submit that whatever it is that keeps a horse from being able to fertilize clam eggs (or whatever), is the barrier that the biggles is looking for.

There are a few different mechanisms that can prevent cross breeding. Incompatible genitalia, inability for sperm to merge with the surface of the egg to fertilize, gender chromosome differences (human men have the XY chromosome pair, but in birds it is females that usually have that sort of arrangement with males actually having the equivalent of the "female" XX. In addition, a few creatures have no chromosome difference between the genders or are hermaphrodites) and differences in chromosome number, physical isolation (thus the crosses, which might technically be possible, never happen), differences in mating season, etc.

All of those are proven barriers that can prevent species from cross breeding.