What's The Matter?

[Skaloop]

How do we know what traits are necessary?

By definition. To be a hominin fossil, said fossil must meet certain requirements. Which is why a canine fossil does not meet the requirements, for example.

 

[Oncedeceived]

By definition. To be a hominin fossil, said fossil must meet certain requirements. Which is why a canine fossil does not meet the requirements, for example.

How are those requirements determined?

 

[Skaloop]

How are those requirements determined?

Well, a nested hierarchy. If it has certain traits but not others, it is in one category. To be a hominin cranium, it needs to meet certain traits while not meeting other traits. Like being a mammal. It has to have hair and mammary glands, but it can't have feathers.

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread has undergone a cleanup due to flaming posts so if your post is gone that is the reason or you quoted someone that did. I will remind everyone not to flame/goad each other. Address the post not the poster.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Davian]

...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1

...

Argument from Design

• Davian
• Jul 19, 2015

 

[Oncedeceived]

Argument from Design

• Davian
• Jul 19, 2015

He didn't really need to explain anything to the life forms that lived prior to Man His goal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, these are measurements of what?

Did you even look at it? Do you know what a y-axis is?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, and how is it determined that they are hominin craniums?

Through measurements elsewhere in the fossil. Scientists use objective multivariate methodologies to determine if a fossil belongs to one group or another:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...measurements&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,13&as_vis=1

Where is your objective methodology?

 

[Loudmouth]

Notice the difference between Loudmouth picture from mine? It's called "details".

What objective details are you using to differentiate between designed and undersigned biological organisms? What is the objective methodology you are using? What is the unit of measure? What statistical tests are you using to test the null hypothesis?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did you even look at it? Do you know what a y-axis is?

Yes, it is a line used for reference. Now, please answer Loudmouth...are these skulls objective evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, it is a line used for reference.

What is the label next to the y-axis? What units is it measured in?

Now, please answer Loudmouth...are these skulls objective evidence?

Already answered in previous posts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Through measurements elsewhere in the fossil. Scientists use objective multivariate methodologies to determine if a fossil belongs to one group or another:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=multivariate+analysis+morphology+fossil+measurements&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,13&as_vis=1

Where is your objective methodology?

1. Many skulls are just skulls and have no other bones of the body.
2. How do they determine what measurements are necessarily shown to be for a certain group?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is the label next to the y-axis? What units is it measured in?



Already answered in previous posts.

Yes or no, are the skulls objective evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

1. Many skulls are just skulls and have no other bones of the body.

There are many measurable points in the skull that can be compared between fossils. These are objective comparisons.

2. How do they determine what measurements are necessarily shown to be for a certain group?

Through the multivariate analysis that I described above. This is what real science looks like:

Sexual dimorphism was examined in 221 randomly selected adult African Muscovy ducks extensively reared in north central Nigeria using univariate and multivariate measures of body size and skeletal proportions. The body parameters investigated included body weight, 8 primary linear body measurements [breast circumference (BTC), thigh circumference (THC), body length (BDL), bill length (BLL), neck length (NKL),foot length (FTL), total leg length (TLL) and wing length (WNL)] and 4 morphological indices (massiveness, stockiness, long-leggedness and condition index). The univariate analysis showed male dominance (p<0.05) in all the morphometric measurements, with the exception of stockiness and longleggedness where significantly higher mean values were recorded for females. Low, moderate and high positive and negative correlations among the body size and shape characters of the ducks were recorded. The canonical discriminant analysis on body weight and primary linear body measurements revealed that wing length was the most discriminating variable between the sexes, followed by body weight, neck circumference, total leg length, body length and foot length respectively. Three other variables not qualified to enter the model were expunged. The single discriminant function obtained (D= -3.116 + 0.280WNL+ 0.921BWT + 0.191NKL - 0.196TLL 0.063BDL - 0.283FTL) correctly classified 91.4% of individuals of known-sex ducks. This might aid in ecological studies, conservation and improvement of the indigenous ducks.
http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?...0004-05922011000400027&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
​

Scientists don't say, "it has the appearance of a duck". They actually use objective measures and statistical tests to test their hypotheses.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes or no, are the skulls objective evidence?

I gave you the objective evidence for those skulls.

 

[Davian]

He didn't really need to explain anything to the life forms that lived prior to Man His goal.

What is this "goal"?

 

[Davian]

I know you have a hard time <snip>

Don't tell me what I am thinking.

The burden of evidence for ID is on the ID folks. Agreed?

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are many measurable points in the skull that can be compared between fossils. These are objective comparisons.


Through the multivariate analysis that I described above. This is what real science looks like:

Sexual dimorphism was examined in 221 randomly selected adult African Muscovy ducks extensively reared in north central Nigeria using univariate and multivariate measures of body size and skeletal proportions. The body parameters investigated included body weight, 8 primary linear body measurements [breast circumference (BTC), thigh circumference (THC), body length (BDL), bill length (BLL), neck length (NKL),foot length (FTL), total leg length (TLL) and wing length (WNL)] and 4 morphological indices (massiveness, stockiness, long-leggedness and condition index). The univariate analysis showed male dominance (p<0.05) in all the morphometric measurements, with the exception of stockiness and longleggedness where significantly higher mean values were recorded for females. Low, moderate and high positive and negative correlations among the body size and shape characters of the ducks were recorded. The canonical discriminant analysis on body weight and primary linear body measurements revealed that wing length was the most discriminating variable between the sexes, followed by body weight, neck circumference, total leg length, body length and foot length respectively. Three other variables not qualified to enter the model were expunged. The single discriminant function obtained (D= -3.116 + 0.280WNL+ 0.921BWT + 0.191NKL - 0.196TLL 0.063BDL - 0.283FTL) correctly classified 91.4% of individuals of known-sex ducks. This might aid in ecological studies, conservation and improvement of the indigenous ducks.
http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?...0004-05922011000400027&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
​

Scientists don't say, "it has the appearance of a duck". They actually use objective measures and statistical tests to test their hypotheses.

I would like to stick to the skulls I posted rather than ducks if you don't mind. thanks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is this "goal"?

Man like I said.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Don't tell me what I am thinking.

The burden of evidence for ID is on the ID folks. Agreed?

No I do not agree. The burden rests on those that make the claim that the evidence of design in life forms is an illusion produced by evolutionary processes.