Watch and Consider II

[pshun2404]

We know from the fossil record that our ancestors were bipedal even though they retained numerous "ape like" characteristics such as prognathism and grasping hands and feet.

No we do not KNOW our ancestors had grasping feet. Humans NEVER had the separated big toe we find in Australo fossils (common to other apes). And for many reasons totally normal modern humans occasionally demonstrate prognathism, so that does not prove ape-ness in whom that is the norm and occasionally we see less of it.

And yes of course our human ancestors were bipedal...none of them were knuckle walkers. Knuckle walkers can use things as tools, but do not have the precise dexterity needed to make anything like sophisticated stone tools.

 

[pshun2404]

And I also asked you to quote the quote from The Beginnings of Humankind you quoted in full first.
And your points are really nothing of substance. You don't actually explain how they refute any of USincognito's points, like, at all.

No! This is a common strategy I have come up against many times, if I divert and spend time on this foolishness then again when convenient you will equivocate back to "Still haven't addressed the quotes yet"...so back to the quotes and if you doubt then do your homework.

 

[pshun2404]

You mention the Laetoli footprints but failed to mention they lack the separated big toe of later Australo fossils. That they belonged to the legless creature they associated them with (that was found 750 feet away) was a hypothesis based assumption (could just as well have been evidence of early humans but then they would have been discredited and not received further funding because the propagandists already concluded 'no humans existed at that time')

 

[Gene2memE]

Stern and Susman (American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, Issue 3, March 1983) remarked: “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, pg. 280). They went on to comment: “The AL 333-91 [designation for a specific A. afarensis fossil—BH/BT] pisiform [bone of the hand—BH/BT] is ‘elongate and rod shaped’ and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys”.


Stern and Susman’s research detailed the fact that the hands and feet of A. afarensis are devoid of the normal human qualities assigned to hands and feet. Instead, their research demonstrated that these creatures had long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates.

Dishonest quote mining, in the extreme (not sure why I expected anything else, really).

Here's the full abstract:

The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL.
Abstract
The postcranial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis from the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia, and the footprints from the Laetoli Beds of northern Tanzania, are analyzed with the goal of determining (1) the extent to which this ancient hominid practiced forms of locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality, and (2) whether or not the terrestrial bipedalism of A. afarensis was notably different from that of modern humans. It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality. A comparison of the specimens representing smaller individuals, presumably female, to those of larger individuals, presumably male, suggests sexual differences in locomotor behavior linked to marked size dimorphism. The males were probably less arboreal and engaged more frequently in terrestrial bipedalism. In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a "missing link." We speculate that earlier representatives of the A. afarensis lineage will present not a combination of arboreal and bipedal traits, but rather the anatomy of a generalized ape.​

So, A. afarensis is a transitional species - displaying characteristics of BOTH arboreal and terrestrial bipedalism.

And, on the very first page of the paper:

Today the overwhelming preponderance of researchers view the short broad ilium and valgus knee of australopithecines as adaptations for terrestrial bipedal locomotion. That bipedality was a more fundamental part of australopithecine behavior than in any other living or extinct nonhuman primate is not in serious dispute. Rather, controversy has centered on the following questions:
1. Did forms of posture and locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality comprise a sufficiently large component of the australopithecine behavioral repertaire to be reflected in their anatomy?
2. Was the terrestrial bipedality practiced by australopithecines in any significant way (re joint excursions, speed, or cost) different from that of modern humans?​

If you're going to quote mine, at least actually read the paper, so you don't look so silly.

 

[pshun2404]

Dogma Hunter wrote "Sounds like Trump's "alternative facts". Yeah, I'm not interested in that kind of "alternatives".

Me either...! So we can agree on that.

 

[pshun2404]

we lost our body hair to help with heat regulation

That is surely one possibility...or we already had less because of the intense heat of the environment we were in.

 

[pshun2404]

As far as brains go, we now now that changes in jaw size allowed jaw muscles to anchor lower on the skull allowing for a larger cranium combined with mutations to the As far as brains go, we now now that changes in jaw size allowed jaw muscles to anchor lower on the skull allowing for a larger cranium combined with mutations to the SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B genes (and others) facilitated our larger brains.
genes (and others) facilitated our larger brains.

Or having a larger cranium allowed for or required our jaw muscles anchor lower...

And yes genes like SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B are related to larger brains, but they may not be mutations, but simply, in humans exactly what they are supposed to be. If they ARE mutations please show examples (without defaulting to the "Ancestor of the gaps" argument) of what they were in early humans that were different. (before mutation, and then as mutation). If it is established truth this should be easy...take your time. We have Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes for comparison if you care to look (which are both archaic homo sapiens)....

Your friend

Homo Cogito

 

[pshun2404]

So... are you going to quote the rest of that quote from The Beginnings of Humankind or not?

That was the whole quote. The quote “the dramatic discovery of our oldest human ancestor” appears on the book cover of the original 1981 edition, but on the revised 1990 edition it was changed to “How our oldest human ancestor was discovered...and who she was”. Which basically makes the same as yet undemonstrated claim. And the title is LUCY: The Beginnings of Humankind, not “The beginnings of Humankind”. I hope this has helped.

 

[pshun2404]

Dogmahunter wrote: "An open minds means to be willing to change your mind if it is shown that you are wrong. Closedminded means that one adhere's to a dogma, no matter what."

I agree and that is what really irritates me about so many creationists and atheists...on this very forum in different areas I have stood corrected and admitted I was wrong...have you ever did it even once in any of these forums?

I love truth and will change my perspective to line up when I have been shown where it should be...this is why I am no longer an agnostic and could not be a YEC.

 

[Gene2memE]

Garbage. In the first place, they do not spend a lot of actual class time on it. It is hit on in two grades, and many ignore it because it is controversial. Other districts are enacting equal time and including criticisms in the curriculum. Things are slowly changing. Students find the subject matter boring and useless. It does not take much to sway these kids.

Public educators and science communicators are not school teachers. You savvy?

Can you outline the school districts that ignore evolutionary biology? Can you also outline the school districts where equal time is given to evolutionary biology and creationism?

The only successful case I know of that involved anti-evolution legislation being passed was the Louisiana Science Education Act, which was enacted in 2008.

Furthermore, somewhere between 8% and 16% of high school biology teachers accept creationism. While this is still absurdly high, it's roughly 1/6th to 1/3rd of the rate of the level of acceptance of the US general public.

 

[dmmesdale]

Public educators and science communicators are not school teachers. You savvy?

No. Three groups are mentioned by you. Public educators, science communicators, and school teachers and front line teachers fit into all those categories. Educators are science communicators. So i don't know what you mean. How can they teach science to students if they do not communicate science to students? I see educators teaching aspects of science to students with my own eyes. They deliver science kits to classes every year. That means they are in fact science comunicators. Many with Masters degrees and over 10 years experience as front line teachers. Some specialize in science fields as educators.

Can you outline the school districts that ignore evolutionary biology?

Probably could. Why should i? How bout doing your own research.

Can you also outline the school districts where equal time is given to evolutionary biology and creationism?

Not really. I don't know that they do that and if they did parents might complain depending on the location.

The only successful case I know of that involved anti-evolution legislation being passed was the Louisiana Science Education Act, which was enacted in 2008.

Ok.

Furthermore, somewhere between 8% and 16% of high school biology teachers accept creationism.

If you say so. It would not surprise me.

While this is still absurdly high, it's roughly 1/6th to 1/3rd of the rate of the level of acceptance of the US general public.

I don't think it is that low but it does not matter since truth has never been determined by opinion polls.

Teachers generally do not talk much about these subjects. They keep a low profile because they are professionals and scrutinized by students, parents, and administration.

 

[Gene2memE]

No. Three groups are mentioned by you. Public educators, science communicators, and school teachers and front line teachers fit into all those categories. Educators are science communicators.

Some public educators are science communicators. Some science communicators are public educators. Some science communicators and public educators are teachers.

But public educators and science communicators are not the same thing as teachers.

I never mentioned teachers AT ALL. You can check the record of the thread. I deliberately DID NOT mention teachers in the context of broader public education, as I was referring to the evolution-creation debate in the public sphere, rather than in the classroom.

Probably could. Why should i? How bout doing your own research.

Because you made the claim. If you want anyone to see it as anything more than just a claim, then you need to support it with evidence.

It's not on me to research to see if you claim is false, its on you to show that it's true.

Not really. I don't know that they do that and if they did parents might complain depending on the location.

So you dont know. So when you said "Other districts are enacting equal time [to creationism] and including criticisms [of evolution] in the curriculum" was that just a guess, a supposition or wishful thinking?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No! This is a common strategy I have come up against many times, if I divert and spend time on this foolishness then again when convenient you will equivocate back to "Still haven't addressed the quotes yet"...so back to the quotes and if you doubt then do your homework.

It's not a strategy of any sort. Here's what I said in my original quote:
{QUOTE]I have a very sneaking suspicion that you have left out the rest of that quote from The Beginnings of Humankind, and I think that you did that with all intents to do that.
Why don't you actually quote the part in full next time.

And I have also noticed that you have not actually responded to any of USingonito's points. You just basically went "... *shrug* So?"[/QUOTE]

Now the part that you underlined from Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, the quote that I was specifically referring to, this one: “I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain” very much reads to me like it's a quote-mine. THAT is the quote I am asking you to quote in full.

Why don't you actually get off your self-conceived intellectual high-horse every once in a while and actually focus?

 

[Jimmy D]

I doubt that is true, it was an idea that was proposed in the early 60's, questioned in the late 60s and rejected in the early 70s with the discovery of more fossils. Exactly what text books was it taught in for five decades?

Rampithicus was discovered in 1932 and began appearing in articles and texts, billied as a true human ancestor, as early as 1935, but was thoroughly debunked around 1973. That was still far too long for brainwashing to effect many students thinking.

Fair enough, that's not quite how I read it but it's neither here nor there.

I don't know how it qualifies as brainwashing, is everything taught to students brainwashing or just things you don't like?

(I'm not conceding that it was taught in schools for five decades)

 

[Jimmy D]

But how could this mistaken assessment about Lucy have happened? In his own words Johanson admitted “I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain” (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Johanson and Edey, 1981, Penguin Publishers, London).

If he could admit it why can't you? Interpreting the evidence to fit the hypothesis is precisely the problem. It's backward science...

An excellent example of a scientist doing the opposite of what you repeatedly claim in various threads - forcing "evidence to fit the hypothesis". This quote highlights that scientists are perfectly aware of such problems and strive to avoid it... a bit of an own goal for you really.

 

[dmmesdale]

Some public educators are science communicators. Some science communicators are public educators. Some science communicators and public educators are teachers.

But public educators and science communicators are not the same thing as teachers.

Credentialed educators teach science to students by communicating science to students.

I never mentioned teachers AT ALL.

You. ''Public educators and science communicators are not school teachers.''

I was referring to the evolution-creation debate in the public sphere, rather than in the classroom.

The public education classroom is the public sphere. You may have been addressing attempt by state legislatures to tweak content and the anti crowd attempting to squash their efforts thru the courts. That being since public education is funded mostly at the state level. Things may change with DeVoes as education secretary. Local control means outside pro-censorship agencies rendered impotent since they do not pay the freight.

Because you made the claim. If you want anyone to see it as anything more than just a claim, then you need to support it with evidence.

You support life from nonlife with evidence then get back to me. You still can do your own research since you have Google right at your fingertips, I don't see what the problem is.

It's not on me to research to see if you claim is false,

How hard can it be?

Creationism and evolution in school: Religious students can’t learn natural selection.

 

[Gene2memE]

You. ''Public educators and science communicators are not school teachers.''

I raised school teachers in direct reaction to you bringing them up. Prior to that, I had not mentioned them AT ALL.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous? Or are you approaching quark-gluon plasma levels of solidity?

You support life from nonlife with evidence then get back to me.

Where have I supported "life from nonlife"? It seem to me you're ascribing positions to me that I don't hold. How about you tackle me on the points I've actually raised.

Creationism and evolution in school: Religious students can’t learn natural selection.

Interesting article, but it completely fails to support the two claims you made, which were that
"many ignore it [evolution] because it is controversial" and that "Other districts are enacting equal time [to creationism]".

So, once again:

Can you support you claim, by outlining the school districts that ignore evolutionary biology?
Can you support you claim, by outlining the school districts where equal time is given to evolutionary biology and creationism?

 

[dmmesdale]

I raised school teachers in direct reaction to you bringing them up. Prior to that, I had not mentioned them AT ALL.

So you are revising.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous? Or are you approaching quark-gluon plasma levels of solidity?

Just highlighting your errors and inconsistencies. Equivocations R internet Atheists.

Where have I supported "life from nonlife"?

You don't? How can you be an atheist and not support life from nonlife? An appeal to ignorance? IOWS ''We don't know the first cause of bio life here but it could not be a living source.''

It seem to me you're ascribing positions to me that I don't hold.

Well which is it? Living or nonliving based on the empirical data about known causes of bio life?

How about you tackle me on the points I've actually raised.

Just pointing out inconsistencies and double standards.

Can you support you claim, by outlining the school districts that ignore evolutionary biology?
Can you support you claim, by outlining the school districts where equal time is given to evolutionary biology and creationism?

Think i am about done with you. I gave you all the information you need to know. Do your own leg work, assuming you can without an obedient Christian spoon feeding you. It is not in my job description.

 

[Gene2memE]

So you are revising.

No reiterating. The only time I mentioned teachers was to rebut your claim that I mentioned teachers as one of three groups. As I'd DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY avoided mentioning teachers (knowing full well where raising them as a discussion point would lead to) I though it worth calling you out on.

You don't? How can you be an atheist and not support life from nonlife? An appeal to ignorance? IOWS ''We don't know the first cause of bio life here but it could not be a living source.''

You're misattributing again.

My being an atheist only entails me withholding belief of claims regarding the existence of gods. It requires absolutely zero active beliefs on my part, and zero positive claims beyond necessary axiomatic assumptions.

I could conceivably believe any number of things about the origin of life, as long as they don't involve supernatural causation.

Well which is it? Living or nonliving based on the empirical data about known causes of bio life?

The current body of evidence demonstrates that simple organic compounds can be produced from non-organic compounds. The current body of evidence also demonstrates that simply organic compounds have a tendency to self-organise, when subject to certain conditions. The current body of evidence also demonstrated that self-organising organic molecules have a tendency to become increasingly complex, becoming macromolecular assemblies, lipids, nanoparticles, membranes and other structures seen in living things.

I don't know what the cause of life was. I have seen no satisfactory evidence to suggest that the cause was divine, nor that it was natural. Only that nothing in the body of available evidence indicates that abiogenesis from natural causes is impossible.

Think i am about done with you. I gave you all the information you need to know. Do your own leg work, assuming you can without an obedient Christian spoon feeding you. It is not in my job description.

Nah, you made the claims and now you can't or won't support them. So you puff out you chest and sweep away, pretending to be in a fit of high dudgeon. It's a petty piece of acting.

Once again, the onus of proof lies upon the person making the claim, Christian or otherwise. This is public debate 101. Or should we take Hitchen's Razor to your post, and see what stands up.

 

[USincognito]

Lucy is just an evolved variation of ape that due to loss of their aboreal advantage died out and went extinct.

Cool. All of us here (in terms of paleontology and primate anatomy) are non-experts given our non-expert opinion. I'll go with the actual experts instead of your empty rhetoric.

You do know that most do not really believe Australopithicus evolved into humans don;t you?

No. I know that Au afarensis isn't considered a direct human ancestor, but that doesn't mean they:
1. Weren't a transitional species (they were).
2. That another Australopithecine isn't a direct human ancestor.

Numerous evolutionists, however, strongly disagreed. Lord Zuckerman...

Oops, there goes my PRATT alarm. Zuckerman made most of his claims in the 50s and 60s and he had pretty much lost the battle before the discovery of AL-288-1

...Some might complain, “But Lord Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was even discovered.” That may be true, but it misses the point.

No, he had no point. There were several Hominin specimens that had been discovered by 1970. But the fact whatever he was referring to, it's wasn't Au. afarentsis which wouldn't be identified until 1973 with AL-288-1 being discovered in 1974, The First Family in 1975 and the Laetoli footprints in 1976.

Zuckerman’s research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes who probably could also walk on two legs.

Utter rubbish. How in the heck could his research "conclusively" establish anything when it was done decades before most of the Australopithecine fossils were recovered?

But how could this mistaken assessment about Lucy have happened? In his own words Johanson admitted “I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain” (Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Johanson and Edey, 1981, Penguin Publishers, London).

If he could admit it why can't you? Interpreting the evidence to fit the hypothesis is precisely the problem. It's backward science...

1. I know Creationists are big on authority, but science is big on evidence and out of context quote mines are not evidence.
2. The quote in question is discussing whether the dates for tool use meant that Lucy belonged in Genus Homo or not. He then goes on over the next several pages to explain the process of figuring out "what Lucy was".
https://books.google.com/books?id=HgGNlFMM5XQC&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=I+was+trying+to+jam+evidence+of+dates+into+a+pattern&source=bl&ots=7ejdHkDjJ9&sig=DneIhmiDltrYqgWN_tB6iG0jAkk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi33JS3-dLUAhWEZCYKHex_CU8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=I%20was%20trying%20to%20jam%20evidence%20of%20dates%20into%20a%20pattern&f=false

This is just another typical dishonest Creationist quote mine.