Daedalean's_Sun
New member
This is pointless until we can agree on a definition of transitional fossil.
Real Science Radio's List of Missing Fossils
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
There are two links in the post. The first link has several tables of transitional fossils of which archaeoptrryxis but one and the second link is a definition of transitional fossil. All I am trying to do at this point is to establish a common definition of transitional fossil that we can all use so that the conversation can proceed reasonably. As it stands, I think there is a lot of argument over transitional fossil simply because we do not agree on a definition. I have proposed a definition. Either agree with it or propose your own.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
This is pretty much what I expected would happen.
6days
New member
So....a transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group? We can Find a 1,000 different fossils and line them in a pattern. When we find similar features we can call that homologous....evidence of common ancestry? And when we find similar features that don't fit in our pattern, we will call that analogous...evidence of the power of evolution.
Is that correct?
The thing is with ToE, it has so much plasticity that everything fits... it isn't falsifiable. Many 'rabbits' have been found in the very 'early' fossil record such as sophisticate complex eyes. It doesn't fit the pattern of slow gradual change, but evolutionists wave their magic wand incorporating pseudoscientific explanations.
Your link did mention archaeopteryx as the best known transitional fossil. We can discuss it if you wish.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Would you mind answering this?
One Eyed Jack
New member
How about an ape with human feet (i.e. no thumbs)?
6days
New member
OneEyedJack said:
Sure!
Or, how about a apelike humanoid with human feet that is....
* unable to walk erect. A*hairy stooped beast about halfway between apes and modern man.
* dimwitted yet *with a brain larger than modern humans
* Incapable of speech / inarticulate subhuman.
* Carnivore
* Too stupid to bury their dead, or without ceremony.
* Too stupid or doesnt have enough humanity to care for their elderly
* Too apelike to have culture like us humans ( They wouldn't use art, jewellery, music etc)
Etc
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Are you expecting to see a modern looking ape with feet resembling modern humans? Do you think evolution predicts this kind of chimera?
6days
New member
Yes...of course...holding a pet crocoduck.
Uh...I think you understood Jacks point. There is no transition...
In the beginning, God created..
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
He seems to be expecting some frankenstein monster of cobbled-together parts of extant animals, not dissimilar to Ray Comfort's crocoduck.
What we might expect is an intermediate foot form, with an intermediate posture, gait, and all other such features.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
The "thumb" on the foot is the same digit as the big toe of humans extended at a different angle to permit better grasping.
One Eyed Jack
New member
I'm not expecting to see anything, but if I were, it certainly wouldn't be considered a modern ape.
Of course not.
What do you make of the Laetoli prints -- ape or human? Whatever made them had feet shaped like ours.
Last edited:
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Of course not, because you posit something that evolution doesn't predict anyway.
The first thing I want to clear up is that humans ARE apes, in much the same way that we are also mammals. We posses physical characteristics that define us as such. Just as the presence of hair, the giving of live birth, and possession of mammary glands defines us as mammals; Our possession of forward facing eye orbits, an admixture of three or more teeth types, nails instead of claws, clavicle, prehensile fingers/toes, stereoscopic vision, and absence of a tail define us as apes.
Granted, I know you're referring to non-human apes, and there is no good term for non-human apes, but I wanted to make sure that you understand this. Given the imprecise terminology it lends to arbitrary declarations.
To answer your question, the Laetoli prints are believed to have been made by Australopithecus afarensis. Certainly they are bipedal apes (see above) but I don't know that by even the loosest definition of human, I could regard them as humans, despite their gait and foot structure being very similar to ours.
One Eyed Jack
New member
I thought apes worked just fine until you guys started classifying humans as apes. I blame the cladists.
Fair enough.
So, other than these prints, what evidence do we have that their feet were shaped like ours?
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
It was Carl Linneaus that first categorized humans as apes, and by modern standards he was a creationist. Obviously he didn't have common ancestry in mind when he devised his system of taxonomic classification, as this was before Darwin.
Well, the footprints on their own are pretty good evidence, imo.
Spoiler
But we also have fossil evidence, that indicates certain forms of locomotion, which has certain implications for foot structure:
Phalanx
Femur
Sacrum
Then of course the foot bones themselves:
Ankle bones from related austrolopithecine.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Actually, he classified both as primates, but I'm not going to get sidetracked arguing about this.
We know their feet are shaped like this, because they left footprints like this, because their feet are shaped like this? That's circular reasoning. They could have been left by humans for all you know.
I know, I know -- they've been radiometrically dated at 3.6 to 3.8 million years old. K-Ar. But this same method arrived at similar dates for ash (from Mt. St. Helens) that was known to be less than 30 years old. So, really, how do you know some couple and their kid didn't make them while taking a stroll through the area sometime after the last volcanic eruption?
But we also have fossil evidence, that indicates certain forms of locomotion, which has certain implications for foot structure:
Phalanx
These are finger bones. What does that have to do with their feet?
Then of course the foot bones themselves:
I think without the rest of the foot bones, you'd hard-pressed to guarantee their arrangement in this way. What find was this from, anyway?
Ankle bones from related austrolopithecine.
What kind of feet was A. sediba supposed to have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australopithecus_sediba_and_Lucy.jpg
According to this picture (I can't post the image for some reason), they, as well as Lucy, had pretty standard looking ape-feet.
gcthomas
New member
It smells like a misapplication of the technique to me. I haven't seen K-Ar dating used for samples less than half a million years old or so, since potassium has a half life of over a billion years and the low levels of argon that would leave in a young sample would put huge error bars around the 'date'.
Do you have a source? Was it Steven A. Austin, Ph.D., Creationist Geology Professor? If it was, there are some serious shortcomings of his to address.
One Eyed Jack
New member
It always is, when it doesn't work.
Maybe, but wouldn't that leave just as much of an error bar around the date of any sample? Including the ones taken at Laetoli?
Yeah, and it was dacite, not ash. My bad.
What shortcomings would those be?