What do the fossils say?

[Mallon]

No the fossils themselves are the evidence. This is another way of looking at them.

This is a circular argument. You were originally trying to explain hominid fossils by hypothesizing a decrease in genetic diversity after the Flood. Now you're trying to defend a supposed decrease in genetic diversity after the Flood with reference to the fossils. That's classic circularity.
I am saying the means by which to break that circularity would be to look for evidence of a genetic bottleneck in the human species at the time of the Flood. There is no such evidence!

The bare bones do not give enough they are not even the complete human hardware. Let alone the distinctive operating systems and software that would make them human. Bones are not enough evidence to make the distinctions in many extreme cases. No wonder people are confused. The bible adds that the people before the flood were deeply wicked - for all I know they were advanced enough to have played around with genetic manipulation and produced all sorts of slave species that looked human but were not really.

There is not enough evidence to say.

I realize you are unfamiliar with comparative anatomy, so all I will say is that we can tell quite a bit more from a skeleton than you presume.
But if you're seriously going to argue that skeletons do not provide enough evidence for us to say anything with any confidence about what constitutes a species, then why in the world did you originally posit greater variation in human and other ape species with reference to fossil skeletons???

Since progress is defined as anything that fits the general theory and the general theory is now a consistent way of positioning all finds I am hardly surprised that you are finding stuff which is suitable for the places you have hypothesised for them. Accept the theory and the evidence glows with the same rose tinted glasses.

Evolutionary theory has allowed us to predict where to find fossils with transitional morphologies (like Tiktaalik). It has allowed us to coherently explain the origins biodiversity. It has allowed to explain biogeography. It has allowed us to develop new medicines. It has opened entire new fields of research, like evolutionary development (evo-devo). These are tangible results -- not simply some illusion seen through rose-coloured glasses.
You say that you are "hardly surprised that [we] are finding stuff which is suitable for the places [we] have hypothesised for them", but you should be. If the hypotheses made by evolutionary theory were as empty as you claim they are, we should find no means to support them whatsoever!

Hey creationism is as old as judeao christianity. The attempt to argue it in a way that fits modern science is what dates from the 1920s.

The doctrine of creation dates back to Judaism, I agree. Even evolutionary creationists subscribe to the doctrine of creation. This is the same doctrine expressed in the creeds.
But you are not arguing for the doctrine of creation. You are arguing for Young Earth Creationism, and you are trying to support it with reference to science (hypothesizing causes for variation in the hominid fossil record, etc.). This new (neo)creationism is a modern movement, having its roots in Seventh Day Adventism, and you are perpetuating it.
If the only point you want to make is that God the Father is "Maker of heaven and Earth, of all things seen and unseen", then I agree. But you're not trying to make that point. You're trying to convince me that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that humans are unrelated to primates, and that the fossil record reflects these ideas.

Well ultimately I think that they like you are missing the point when it comes to arguing origins. But I like to hear what they say as much as I listen to you because its important to think about these things. Its all guess work in the end though. I admit I hold to the ancient teachings of the church by faith.
I am not sure these teachings can be proven scientifically nor disproved either because no arguments by analogy are possible, because the evidence is limited and degraded and because of the time distance.

I'm not terribly comfortable with this type of relativism. I would expect it more from an atheist than from a Christian!

 

[mindlight]

This is a circular argument. You were originally trying to explain hominid fossils by hypothesizing a decrease in genetic diversity after the Flood. Now you're trying to defend a supposed decrease in genetic diversity after the Flood with reference to the fossils. That's classic circularity.
I am saying the means by which to break that circularity would be to look for evidence of a genetic bottleneck in the human species at the time of the Flood. There is no such evidence!

Isn't it a bit extreme to jump straight to genetic bottleneck when all I was talking about was a probable reduction in genetic diversity overall. Genetic diversity may have been sufficient for reproduction after the flood without being as richly diverse as before. Thus human potential was eroded by the flood without any catastrophic reproductive bottlenecks. God saved Noahs sons and their wives.

I realize you are unfamiliar with comparative anatomy, so all I will say is that we can tell quite a bit more from a skeleton than you presume.
But if you're seriously going to argue that skeletons do not provide enough evidence for us to say anything with any confidence about what constitutes a species, then why in the world did you originally posit greater variation in human and other ape species with reference to fossil skeletons???

Tell me different if you like but bones have no flesh, ligaments, nerves, blood etc. You are missing 2/3rds of the hardware without even beginning to explore the living intelligence of the species. The reduction in human lifespan following the flood is one of my issues and this is a possible explanation for this. When it comes to the crunch many of your skull pictures looked like the bone structure of various people I had met in real life. I am not sure that you can argue much from a skeleton anyway cause a massive amount of what made that a living being is missing. A greater preflood diversity in ape and human species would account for many of the so-called transitory forms as would genetic experiments by wicked but advanced preflood humans.

Evolutionary theory has allowed us to predict where to find fossils with transitional morphologies (like Tiktaalik). It has allowed us to coherently explain the origins biodiversity. It has allowed to explain biogeography. It has allowed us to develop new medicines. It has opened entire new fields of research, like evolutionary development (evo-devo). These are tangible results -- not simply some illusion seen through rose-coloured glasses

You say that you are "hardly surprised that [we] are finding stuff which is suitable for the places [we] have hypothesised for them", but you should be. If the hypotheses made by evolutionary theory were as empty as you claim they are, we should find no means to support them whatsoever!.

We'd have to go through each of these case by case and discuss how beneficial each of them were and how much evolutionary theory actually contributed to any actual tangible advances in the human condition. Maybe one day... The confidence that comes from believing in scripture from cover to cover is a tangible benefit clearly demonstrated in the lives of billions of Christians.

The doctrine of creation dates back to Judaism, I agree. Even evolutionary creationists subscribe to the doctrine of creation. This is the same doctrine expressed in the creeds.
But you are not arguing for the doctrine of creation. You are arguing for Young Earth Creationism, and you are trying to support it with reference to science (hypothesizing causes for variation in the hominid fossil record, etc.). This new (neo)creationism is a modern movement, having its roots in Seventh Day Adventism, and you are perpetuating it.
If the only point you want to make is that God the Father is "Maker of heaven and Earth, of all things seen and unseen", then I agree. But you're not trying to make that point. You're trying to convince me that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that humans are unrelated to primates, and that the fossil record reflects these ideas.

Now I am sorry to say it but this is rubbish.

6 day creation, literal Adam and Eve, young earth (see Jewish calendar and church calendars) and a global flood has been the standard interpretation since before Moses. It is simply dishonest to suggest that creationism of the sort I am talking about is anything less than 3000 years old. Neo-Platonism and Evolutionary theory have been distractions from the mainstream view.

 

[Melethiel]

We can tell a lot more from skeletons than you think. In fact, one of my anatomy profs last year was a forensic anthropologist, and she said that when she is called to investigate a case, her lab first removes all remaining flesh, etc from a specimen because they can tell a lot more from the bones.

 

[mindlight]

Well ultimately I think that they like you are missing the point when it comes to arguing origins. But I like to hear what they say as much as I listen to you because its important to think about these things. Its all guess work in the end though. I admit I hold to the ancient teachings of the church by faith.
I am not sure these teachings can be proven scientifically nor disproved either because no arguments by analogy are possible, because the evidence is limited and degraded and because of the time distance.

I'm not terribly comfortable with this type of relativism. I would expect it more from an atheist than from a Christian!

Its more agnostic than atheist but its only origins and remote cosmology that do this to me. But I also think that it is my fundamental position in this origins discussion. Science is worthwhile only when it produces practical results that actually benefit human beings. The areas of remote cosmology and origins are inaccessible to its methods and scientists have overreached themselves in talking about things about which it is impossible to be certain. Evidence is degraded, limited and mainly not analogous.

Regarding fossils:

1) only 14% of a human beings body weight is skeleton. Which means that you are missing 86% of the hardware for your investigations even when you have a complete skeleton to work with.

2) Fossils are completely rare and most creatures never become fossils so we only have a limited sample of what actually lived and mainly thanks to floods creating them in sedimentary rocks.

3) Fossils that are preserved over time can be distorted by a large number of factors (e.g. compression, taphonomy, acid water) such that their shape is changed and the messages they communicate distorted also.

4) We have no way of checking dating mechanisms applied to individual samples accuracy over thousands of years where there is no human historical check to be applied and no way of cataloging the countless influences that may or may not have interacted with the sample being studied.

5) We have no analogies to the unique events like the global flood and creation story. The unique combination of circumstances are simply not duplicable or even discernible.

So yes I believe there is little that can be said with any certainty

 

[mindlight]

We can tell a lot more from skeletons than you think. In fact, one of my anatomy profs last year was a forensic anthropologist, and she said that when she is called to investigate a case, her lab first removes all remaining flesh, etc from a specimen because they can tell a lot more from the bones.

Give me some examples

 

[Mallon]

[/I]Isn't it a bit extreme to jump straight to genetic bottleneck when all I was talking about was a probable reduction in genetic diversity overall. Genetic diversity may have been sufficient for reproduction after the flood without being as richly diverse as before. Thus human potential was eroded by the flood without any catastrophic reproductive bottlenecks. God saved Noahs sons and their wives.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. If you want to believe that, I can't stop you. Just so long as you don't pretend it's a scientifically sound hypothesis supported by any evidence whatsoever. It is an entirely ad hoc story designed solely to prop up a crumbling hermeneutic. Maybe you could propose some means by which we could test your hypothesis?

Tell me different if you like but bones have no flesh, ligaments, nerves, blood etc. You are missing 2/3rds of the hardware without even beginning to explore the living intelligence of the species. The reduction in human lifespan following the flood is one of my issues and this is a possible explanation for this. When it comes to the crunch many of your skull pictures looked like the bone structure of various people I had met in real life. I am not sure that you can argue much from a skeleton anyway cause a massive amount of what made that a living being is missing. A greater preflood diversity in ape and human species would account for many of the so-called transitory forms as would genetic experiments by wicked but advanced preflood humans.

Ditto.

We'd have to go through each of these case by case and discuss how beneficial each of them were and how much evolutionary theory actually contributed to any actual tangible advances in the human condition. Maybe one day... The confidence that comes from believing in scripture from cover to cover is a tangible benefit clearly demonstrated in the lives of billions of Christians.

The many ex-Christians who have fallen away from the faith because they could no longer swallow the type of malarkey pushed on them by creation 'scientists' like Kent Hovind might disagree. Believing in Scripture is one thing. Believing that we must deny the wonders of God's creation in order to uphold a literal hermeneutic is quite another.

Now I am sorry to say it but this is rubbish.

6 day creation, literal Adam and Eve, young earth (see Jewish calendar and church calendars) and a global flood has been the standard interpretation since before Moses. It is simply dishonest to suggest that creationism of the sort I am talking about is anything less than 3000 years old. Neo-Platonism and Evolutionary theory have been distractions from the mainstream view.

I didn't deny that many Christians have long held the belief that the earth was created in 6 days (Genesis 2 and theologians like Augustine notwithstanding). Early Jews and Christians also believed the earth was flat and stationary. My point is that none of them ever thought we could support such views scientifically. And traditionally, when science has showed a literal reading of the Bible to be false, (most) Christians have been relatively quick to adopt a different interpretation of Scripture. Modern creationism is different. Modern creationism says that we must never adopt a non-literal interpretation of the Bible in light of new findings in science (flat earthism and geocentrism notwithstanding).

 

[Drekkan85]

Some general examples from just bones:

You can tell smoeone's diet based off of jaw structure and tooth types. You can tell not only if someone was typically malnourished during their life, but specifically what periods they were malnourished by variance in teeth. You can tell skull brain capacity, and you can tell the shape of the brain cavity on the basis of brow formation. You can tell their posture during life and whether or not they walked upright by the spine, pelvis, and shoulders. You can tell whether or not the hands were used as hands or as secondary feet based on wear and structure of the knuckles and thumb.

The skeleton may not tell you everything, but it can tell you a huge amount about how someone or something lived, moved, and survived.

 

[Melethiel]

It is also possible to tell age from the bones, and sex from the morphology of the pelvis and skull.

 

[Mallon]

You can also tell pathologies, relative intake of grasses vs. browse, position in the water column where an animal might have lived, lifestyle (aquatic, scansorial, arboreal, fossorial, etc.), muscle insertions (something I'm working on right now), social combat behaviours, seasonality of the environment, etc., etc., etc.

 

[The Barbarian]

And by the size and location of muscle insertions, you can infer much about the person's activity or even their profession.

And there's this:
Neandertal skeletal injuries are much like those of rodeo cowboys.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nhCeVkgZxC8C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=injuries+Neandertals+%22rodeo+cowboys%22&source=bl&ots=QRkNSZJpBs&sig=b8EesUXr88BYTlAyO_YPO0eNWmA&hl=en&ei=v_SgScr9BojKNIuqqOoL&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

 

[shernren]

I am not sure these teachings can be proven scientifically nor disproved either because no arguments by analogy are possible, because the evidence is limited and degraded and because of the time distance.

And again this strange argument. What time distance?

For comparison, the earliest copies of the entire Bible date back to about 300AD, and the earliest fragments of the Old Testament (the Dead Sea Scrolls) to about 150BC. That's roughly two thousand years ago. According to you, the universe is at most four to five times this age. Why shouldn't we be able to identify clear signs of youth if that is the case?

 

[mindlight]

Whatever helps you sleep at night. If you want to believe that, I can't stop you. Just so long as you don't pretend it's a scientifically sound hypothesis supported by any evidence whatsoever. It is an entirely ad hoc story designed solely to prop up a crumbling hermeneutic. Maybe you could propose some means by which we could test your hypothesis?

I am not pretending anything. I am saying that the kind of scientific method that you regard as authoritative does not work with this kind of unique event. Argument from analogy simply cannot work here. It is pretence to imagine it does- like someone who thinks he must say something when there is really nothing that can be said.


Maybe you cannot live without a scientific theory to cover origins - I can and believe it to be the more honest position in the circumstances.

The many ex-Christians who have fallen away from the faith because they could no longer swallow the type of malarkey pushed on them by creation 'scientists' like Kent Hovind might disagree. Believing in Scripture is one thing. Believing that we must deny the wonders of God's creation in order to uphold a literal hermeneutic is quite another.

What reasons other people have for doubting the faith should not influence a person in choosing a path which they believe to be true. God will judge how the other person handles the truth they are given. Nor do I worry so much what non Christians think about my position. I worry about what God thinks about it. But I agree there is a wonder to creation and I accept that without being able to explain it.

Modern creationism is different. Modern creationism says that we must never adopt a non-literal interpretation of the Bible in light of new findings in science (flat earthism and geocentrism notwithstanding).

Christians were clearly wrong about flat earths and geocentricism. I do not believe the bible supports either view. However a global historical flood and literal Adam and Eve and very probably 6 day creation are harder to dismiss.

 

[mindlight]

Some general examples from just bones:

You can tell smoeone's diet based off of jaw structure and tooth types. You can tell not only if someone was typically malnourished during their life, but specifically what periods they were malnourished by variance in teeth. You can tell skull brain capacity, and you can tell the shape of the brain cavity on the basis of brow formation. You can tell their posture during life and whether or not they walked upright by the spine, pelvis, and shoulders. You can tell whether or not the hands were used as hands or as secondary feet based on wear and structure of the knuckles and thumb.

The skeleton may not tell you everything, but it can tell you a huge amount about how someone or something lived, moved, and survived.

Some of these may well be helpful in distinguishing ape like behaviour from human behaviour and assessing a level of intelligence for an individual being and the level of nutritional wellbeing might say something about the capabilities of the social group they were in. However it is a very abbreviated view and does nothing to support the view that this being was a transitional form between two other abbreviated pictures of apparent humanoids.

 

[mindlight]

It is also possible to tell age from the bones, and sex from the morphology of the pelvis and skull.

Neither piece of info will help you prove its a transitional form. But they will help you categorise and describe an individual fossil set.

 

[mindlight]

You can also tell pathologies, relative intake of grasses vs. browse, position in the water column where an animal might have lived, lifestyle (aquatic, scansorial, arboreal, fossorial, etc.), muscle insertions (something I'm working on right now), social combat behaviours, seasonality of the environment, etc., etc., etc.

However carefully and professionally you categorise this remains an abbreviated appraisal of a life. It does not constitute an unambiguous proof of a transitory form.

 

[The Barbarian]

One can certainly tell transitionals by bones. The key is to identify structures that are modified in the transitional. For example, the mammalian lower jaw has just one bone, while reptiles have several. Two of the reptilian jaw bones are closely associated with the stapes in the reptilian middle ear, conducting vibrations to it. (this is why reptiles put their head to the ground to pick up sound) Over time, these bones became smaller and smaller. But there was a problem for evolution here; one of these bones also hinged the jaw to the skull. So how, during the transition, did an animal do without a jaw joint? No one knew, until Diarthrognathus was found. It had both the reptilian and mammalian jaw joints. Eventually, the two bones became quite small, lost their connection to the dentary, and only connected to the stapes. They form the other two bones of the mammalian middle ear.

The story is very clear in the fossil record. But the evidence doesn't end there. In the opossum, the fetus has three bones in the lower jaw. During development, the bones become relatively smaller, and eventually end up in the middle ear, just as is documented in the fossil record.

In fact, there is now a fossil animal known to have this condition:
The ear bones in Yanoconodon are partly separated from the jaw, and more similar to those modern mammals than to mammaliaforms, but still retain the premammalian condition that the jaw and the ear are connected to each other. Because it is structurally intermediate between the distant mammalian relatives and modern mammals, it provides crucial fossil evidence for a major evolutionary transition for mammalian origins.
http://www.carnegiemnh.org/news/07-jan-mar/fossil/index.htm

Amazing stuff. And impossible to deny.

 

[mindlight]

One can certainly tell transitionals by bones. The key is to identify structures that are modified in the transitional. For example, the mammalian lower jaw has just one bone, while reptiles have several. Two of the reptilian jaw bones are closely associated with the stapes in the reptilian middle ear, conducting vibrations to it. (this is why reptiles put their head to the ground to pick up sound) Over time, these bones became smaller and smaller. But there was a problem for evolution here; one of these bones also hinged the jaw to the skull. So how, during the transition, did an animal do without a jaw joint? No one knew, until Diarthrognathus was found. It had both the reptilian and mammalian jaw joints. Eventually, the two bones became quite small, lost their connection to the dentary, and only connected to the stapes. They form the other two bones of the mammalian middle ear.

The story is very clear in the fossil record. But the evidence doesn't end there. In the opossum, the fetus has three bones in the lower jaw. During development, the bones become relatively smaller, and eventually end up in the middle ear, just as is documented in the fossil record.

In fact, there is now a fossil animal known to have this condition:
The ear bones in Yanoconodon are partly separated from the jaw, and more similar to those modern mammals than to mammaliaforms, but still retain the premammalian condition that the jaw and the ear are connected to each other. Because it is structurally intermediate between the distant mammalian relatives and modern mammals, it provides crucial fossil evidence for a major evolutionary transition for mammalian origins.
http://www.carnegiemnh.org/news/07-jan-mar/fossil/index.htm

Amazing stuff. And impossible to deny.

Hey I am a creationist - so there is no such thing as "impossible to deny" ;-)

For instance with the above you have a series of discoveries which share characteristics to a considerable degree. But there is a variation between the discoveries of the number of bones. You associate the greater number of bones with reptiles and the single bone with mammals and give good reasons why reptiles need the extra bones. You insert the fossil discoveries on your evolutionary tree between a more reptilian form to mammalian one in accordance with evolutionary theory and assert that these are examples of transitory forms on the way from the more reptilian to the more mammilian.

Unless that is some bones are missing from some of the discoveries. Or distortions of the evidence have occurred over time to give a different appearance from the original. How many fossil samples for each "transition" are we talking about for this particular "impossible to deny" mapping. Or we are talking about distinct species or sub types of the same species. How much of the rest of the skeletal structure is also distinct from its prior evolutionary transitions. Are these differences significant enough to postulate a different species altogether. Creatures that share what scientists postulate as mammalian characteristics and reptilian characteristic are possible in Gods creation as a species in their own right rather than a transitional form between the two types. We can agree on distinctions between species that share considerable commonalities without concluding that macro-evolutionary type to type transitions are in play.

 

[Melethiel]

Of course transitional forms are species in their own right. That still doesn't prelude them from being transitional.

 

[mindlight]

And again this strange argument. What time distance?

For comparison, the earliest copies of the entire Bible date back to about 300AD, and the earliest fragments of the Old Testament (the Dead Sea Scrolls) to about 150BC. That's roughly two thousand years ago. According to you, the universe is at most four to five times this age. Why shouldn't we be able to identify clear signs of youth if that is the case?

This is an OP in its own right and I need to think about it more.

 

[mindlight]

Of course transitional forms are species in their own right. That still doesn't prelude them from being transitional.

But nor does it imply it. I am not attempting to explain stuff comprehensively here because frankly I do not believe it possible to do this. I only need to prove grounds for reasonable doubt in the theory of evolution to remain a "diehard fundie" and to suggest that TEs are playing to a worldly audience when they should be more concerned for the things of God.

If the evidence does not have to imply transitional forms but could be interpreted as merely providing "an abbreviated catalog of what we can say from limited available evidence about different types of creature observed in the fossil record" then evolution is far from being the "impossible to deny" theory that Mallon and Barbarian clearly believe it is.