Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
"Lucy"

Let's get to human evolution. Today's topic will be the famous Australopithecus afarensis.

They had reduced canines and molars compared to other great apes, although still larger than humans. It appears they were in transition.

The curvature of the fingers and bones seem to be approaching modern-day apes, and seem well-suited for tree climbing.

They had a wrist locking mechanism, suggesting they could walk on their knuckles.

Scans of the skulls reveal a canal and bony labyrinth morphology that some suggest is not conducive to proper bipedal locomotion.

The pelvis, however, is far more human than ape like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and positioned directly behind the hip joint, and there is clear evidence of a strong attachment for the knee extensors.

Importantly, the femur also angles in towards the knee from the hip. This trait would have allowed the foot to have fallen closer to the midline of the body, and is a strong indication of habitual bipedal locomotion. However, one can still argue that that particular feature is also present in modern day Orangutans and Spider monkeys. There is a big problem with this, however. The feet. The feet also feature adducted big toes, making it difficult if not impossible to grasp branches with the hindlimbs. The loss of a grasping hindlimb also increases the risk of an infant being dropped or falling as primates typically hold onto their mothers as the mother goes about her daily business. Without the second set of grasping limbs the infant cannot maintain as strong a grip and likely had to be held with help from the mother. The problem of holding the infant would be multiplied if the mother also had to climb trees. The toes are all along the front of the feet, and not the sides, like tree climbing apes, which only serves to increase this problem. The ankle joint of A. afarensis is also markedly human-like.

AiG likes to use the fact that A. Afarensis has a very gorilla-like jaw, which one could see as a problem seei8ng as how gorillas branched off a good deal sooner than chimps and humans. However, thsi is only a problem for direct ancestry. Instead of Lucy being our "great-grandmother", it's more like our "great aunt". Since it is so obviously close to our direct ancestor, much data can be collected on what our direct ancestor was ike by studying it.

You're off to a terribly poor start - Lucy has been disproved even by evolutionists

"Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor."

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0606454104v1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let's get to human evolution. Today's topic will be the famous Australopithecus afarensis.

They had reduced canines and molars compared to other great apes, although still larger than humans. It appears they were in transition.

The curvature of the fingers and bones seem to be approaching modern-day apes, and seem well-suited for tree climbing.

They had a wrist locking mechanism, suggesting they could walk on their knuckles.

Scans of the skulls reveal a canal and bony labyrinth morphology that some suggest is not conducive to proper bipedal locomotion.

The pelvis, however, is far more human than ape like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and positioned directly behind the hip joint, and there is clear evidence of a strong attachment for the knee extensors.

Importantly, the femur also angles in towards the knee from the hip. This trait would have allowed the foot to have fallen closer to the midline of the body, and is a strong indication of habitual bipedal locomotion. However, one can still argue that that particular feature is also present in modern day Orangutans and Spider monkeys. There is a big problem with this, however. The feet. The feet also feature adducted big toes, making it difficult if not impossible to grasp branches with the hindlimbs. The loss of a grasping hindlimb also increases the risk of an infant being dropped or falling as primates typically hold onto their mothers as the mother goes about her daily business. Without the second set of grasping limbs the infant cannot maintain as strong a grip and likely had to be held with help from the mother. The problem of holding the infant would be multiplied if the mother also had to climb trees. The toes are all along the front of the feet, and not the sides, like tree climbing apes, which only serves to increase this problem. The ankle joint of A. afarensis is also markedly human-like.

AiG likes to use the fact that A. Afarensis has a very gorilla-like jaw, which one could see as a problem seei8ng as how gorillas branched off a good deal sooner than chimps and humans. However, thsi is only a problem for direct ancestry. Instead of Lucy being our "great-grandmother", it's more like our "great aunt". Since it is so obviously close to our direct ancestor, much data can be collected on what our direct ancestor was ike by studying it.

Re: You're off to a terribly poor start - Lucy has been disproved even by evolutionists

I already mentioned that in my post. It's only a problem for direct ancestry. It doesn't suddenly destroy Lucy's credibility in the least.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor."

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0606454104v1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let's get to human evolution. Today's topic will be the famous Australopithecus afarensis.

They had reduced canines and molars compared to other great apes, although still larger than humans. It appears they were in transition.

The curvature of the fingers and bones seem to be approaching modern-day apes, and seem well-suited for tree climbing.

They had a wrist locking mechanism, suggesting they could walk on their knuckles.

Scans of the skulls reveal a canal and bony labyrinth morphology that some suggest is not conducive to proper bipedal locomotion.

The pelvis, however, is far more human than ape like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and positioned directly behind the hip joint, and there is clear evidence of a strong attachment for the knee extensors.

Importantly, the femur also angles in towards the knee from the hip. This trait would have allowed the foot to have fallen closer to the midline of the body, and is a strong indication of habitual bipedal locomotion. However, one can still argue that that particular feature is also present in modern day Orangutans and Spider monkeys. There is a big problem with this, however. The feet. The feet also feature adducted big toes, making it difficult if not impossible to grasp branches with the hindlimbs. The loss of a grasping hindlimb also increases the risk of an infant being dropped or falling as primates typically hold onto their mothers as the mother goes about her daily business. Without the second set of grasping limbs the infant cannot maintain as strong a grip and likely had to be held with help from the mother. The problem of holding the infant would be multiplied if the mother also had to climb trees. The toes are all along the front of the feet, and not the sides, like tree climbing apes, which only serves to increase this problem. The ankle joint of A. afarensis is also markedly human-like.

AiG likes to use the fact that A. Afarensis has a very gorilla-like jaw, which one could see as a problem seei8ng as how gorillas branched off a good deal sooner than chimps and humans. However, thsi is only a problem for direct ancestry. Instead of Lucy being our "great-grandmother", it's more like our "great aunt". Since it is so obviously close to our direct ancestor, much data can be collected on what our direct ancestor was ike by studying it.

You would know about poor starts. I corrected you on this last time you posted it.

Lucy was not "been disproved even by evolutionists". This fossil is still important in understanding hominid evolution. Australopithecus aferensis shares a common ancestor with humans. It is considered to be on a separate lineage that departed from the human line.

Soon after the discovery there was some speculation that this species might have been a direct ancestor for the human line and the later Australopithecenes. This was pretty limited. Many paleontologists agreed that Lucy was important, but did not see it as ancestoral to humans. Like the argument for direct ancestory, the arguments against were somewhat speculative. More fossils and analysis of these finds have made it clear that she was not a direct ancestor.

It seems pretty clear from BalmungSama's post that he understands that. You don't seem to grasp the nuance presented in the post and feel that quoting an article that doesn't address his post somehow refutes his argument. It seems you are mistaken about who is off to a terribly poor start.

You admit Lucy is NOT our ancestor but shares a common ancestor?

Evolutionists claim all sorts of fossils are our ancestors but, when they can prove it, let us know.

It's interesting that even evolutionist, Henry Gee (see quote on www.whoisyourcreation.com) acknowledges that human ancestory is impossible to summarize through the fossil record.

What other fossils will eventually come out of the closet? Again, since evolution is still occurrring around us, why don't you point to a similar living example of ANY transition. Wouln't that be easier for you?

Re: You admit Lucy is NOT our ancestor but shares a common ancestor?

Okay, the link you gave doesn't work, it says "page doesn't exist", but lets see, is it by any chance this quote ??

""New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. - Henry Gee, 1999. In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life. (New York: The Free Press), page 32""

A yes or no will suffice.


On the deal of transitions being here, you need a clear definition of transition first to really answer that, please either link or explain what an acceptable clear definition of transition is to you ??
Why do I ask this ?, because everytime we give an explenation you pull up the bar a bit higher.

So give us a good acceptable clear definition of transitional and we will see what we can do.


I can answer your question now with "In principle every living creature is a transitional at this moment, seeing as changes will go on in the future, mutations occur and through natural selection todays species will give birth to tomorrows new species (unless they go extinct).."

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evolutionists claim all sorts of fossils are our ancestors but, when they can prove it, let us know.

It's interesting that even evolutionist, Henry Gee (see quote on www.whoisyourcreation.com) acknowledges that human ancestory is impossible to summarize through the fossil record.

What other fossils will eventually come out of the closet? Again, since evolution is still occurrring around us, why don't you point to a similar living example of ANY transition. Wouln't that be easier for you?

Henry Gee quote - Creationists raising the bar?

No - It's not part of any quote you mentioned.

His quote was from a letter to NSCE from Gee that was on NSCE's site. How interesting that NSCE had it on its site, but not now. I'll find it and repost.

In the time being, use this quote from Gee:

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validy as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
Henry Gee, In Search of Time: Beyond the Fossil Record ato a New History of Life, New York, The Free Press, 1999 page 126-127.

Evolutionists keep talking about creationists raising the bar. No, evolutionists used junk science to attempt to validate their theory and creationists came along to hold them accountable for presenting actual scientific proof. That is what is called a bar.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Okay, the link you gave doesn't work, it says "page doesn't exist", but lets see, is it by any chance this quote ??

""New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. - Henry Gee, 1999. In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life. (New York: The Free Press), page 32""

A yes or no will suffice.


On the deal of transitions being here, you need a clear definition of transition first to really answer that, please either link or explain what an acceptable clear definition of transition is to you ??
Why do I ask this ?, because everytime we give an explenation you pull up the bar a bit higher.

So give us a good acceptable clear definition of transitional and we will see what we can do.


I can answer your question now with "In principle every living creature is a transitional at this moment, seeing as changes will go on in the future, mutations occur and through natural selection todays species will give birth to tomorrows new species (unless they go extinct).."

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evolutionists claim all sorts of fossils are our ancestors but, when they can prove it, let us know.

It's interesting that even evolutionist, Henry Gee (see quote on www.whoisyourcreation.com) acknowledges that human ancestory is impossible to summarize through the fossil record.

What other fossils will eventually come out of the closet? Again, since evolution is still occurrring around us, why don't you point to a similar living example of ANY transition. Wouln't that be easier for you?

Re: Henry Gee quote - Creationists confusing the issue.

The source of the quotes is up at NCSE at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3167_pr90_10152001__gee_responds_10_15_2001.asp

It has been all along. The material at the link explains that Gee was upset with Jonathan Wells at the Discovery Institute for misrepresenting his work. Gee does not question evolution or common ancestry of humans and other homonids. He does question claims of direct ancestory. Gee would agree that A. aferensis and H. sapiens share a common ancestor. He (and most scientists) don't think that A. aferensis is ancestoral to us. You can quote Henry Gee if you want to, but the quote doesn't support your position.

Re: Henry Gee quote - Creationists raising the bar?

Wow, more utter garbage. FYI, to make this slightly less nauseating, a theory can never be proven, it can only be disproven.

Re: You admit Lucy is NOT our ancestor but shares a common ancestor?

Lucy isn't a DIRECT ancestor, but is very closely related to our direct ancestor. Therefore, we can derive much information on our direct ancestor from studying Lucy.

"Again, since evolution is still occurrring around us, why don't you point to a similar living example of ANY transition. Wouln't that be easier for you?"

Is that your question for everything? Whenever there's evidence that you can't argue against, you say "where are living transitions of this". It's rather annoying. Evolution doesn't have to repeat. When humans and the other apes branched off from each other, humans took a bipedal path while the other apes chose a more quadrupedal, hunched-over posture. Until a population of apes decides to move into plains, we won't be seeing this again. They are extremely well-evolved to their environment, and their leaving is rather unlikely at the present moment. You forget we branched off rather recently.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evolutionists claim all sorts of fossils are our ancestors but, when they can prove it, let us know.

It's interesting that even evolutionist, Henry Gee (see quote on www.whoisyourcreation.com) acknowledges that human ancestory is impossible to summarize through the fossil record.

What other fossils will eventually come out of the closet? Again, since evolution is still occurrring around us, why don't you point to a similar living example of ANY transition. Wouln't that be easier for you?

Re: You admit Lucy is NOT our ancestor but shares a common ancestor?

I have a question for you. AiG says that during their flood model mutation rates were hundreds of thousands of times faster than today's in order to accommodate for two animals of each kind producing every species today. Why is it that selective pressure and mutation rates aren't that high today? What caused such spectacular evolution 4400 years ago? Why don't we see it today? Why is it that all data today suggests that if the mutation rates were ever that high every animal on the planet would be dead? How do you explain this?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evolutionists claim all sorts of fossils are our ancestors but, when they can prove it, let us know.

It's interesting that even evolutionist, Henry Gee (see quote on www.whoisyourcreation.com) acknowledges that human ancestory is impossible to summarize through the fossil record.

What other fossils will eventually come out of the closet? Again, since evolution is still occurrring around us, why don't you point to a similar living example of ANY transition. Wouln't that be easier for you?

Its' your theory so you answer why evolution isn't occurring today

Considering your astonishing admission to evolution NOT occurring today, why doesn't it?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I have a question for you. AiG says that during their flood model mutation rates were hundreds of thousands of times faster than today's in order to accommodate for two animals of each kind producing every species today. Why is it that selective pressure and mutation rates aren't that high today? What caused such spectacular evolution 4400 years ago? Why don't we see it today? Why is it that all data today suggests that if the mutation rates were ever that high every animal on the planet would be dead? How do you explain this?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evolutionists claim all sorts of fossils are our ancestors but, when they can prove it, let us know.

It's interesting that even evolutionist, Henry Gee (see quote on www.whoisyourcreation.com) acknowledges that human ancestory is impossible to summarize through the fossil record.

What other fossils will eventually come out of the closet? Again, since evolution is still occurrring around us, why don't you point to a similar living example of ANY transition. Wouln't that be easier for you?

It was a question about your 'theory' and you didn't answer it.

There was no admission made. Ham and Co. claim that evolution somehow occurred at a breakneck pace in the past. They also claim that it does not occur now. There is no scientific evidence for or explanation of these ridiculously wild claims. He wanted to know if you could provide one. It is clear that you can't.

No, you must prove that evolution presently occurs.

To prove quotes are false, provide us with scientific FACTS or any direct observation that evolution occurred or is presently occurring.

That would be the best way to debate, verses complaining about every quote.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

There was no admission made. Ham and Co. claim that evolution somehow occurred at a breakneck pace in the past. They also claim that it does not occur now. There is no scientific evidence for or explanation of these ridiculously wild claims. He wanted to know if you could provide one. It is clear that you can't.

Evolution has been established and observed. Ham's half-baked assertions have not.

The facts are that the Earth about 750,000 times older than Ham supposes. The life on it is about 615,000 times older than Ham asserts. He has absolutely no evidence to support his claims of a young Earth.

Speciation has been observed both in the lab and the field.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Beyond that evolution can be inferred from the fossil record, homology, genetics, shared proteins, etc.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You have been provided with evidence for evolution in all these ways and more. You have been unable to support creationism or effectively refute the evidence for evolution.

Both you and Ham have the same problem. You need to provide a better explanation for the evidence based on science. Evolution is established theory, meaning it explains this evidence. Creationism isn't even a well-formulated, testable hyphothesis.

Re: No, you must prove that evolution presently occurs.

We vhave. Mutations still occur. Beneficial, deleterious and neutral ones. Natural selection will always exist as long as life exists. Evolution doe hapen. We´ve been over this many times before.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

To prove quotes are false, provide us with scientific FACTS or any direct observation that evolution occurred or is presently occurring.

That would be the best way to debate, verses complaining about every quote.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

There was no admission made. Ham and Co. claim that evolution somehow occurred at a breakneck pace in the past. They also claim that it does not occur now. There is no scientific evidence for or explanation of these ridiculously wild claims. He wanted to know if you could provide one. It is clear that you can't.

Re: Its' your theory so you answer why evolution isn't occurring today

I admitted no such thing. I saidf that it isn´t occuring at the fantastic rates that creationist organizations claim it once did, and they cannot offer any reason as to why.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Considering your astonishing admission to evolution NOT occurring today, why doesn't it?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I have a question for you. AiG says that during their flood model mutation rates were hundreds of thousands of times faster than today's in order to accommodate for two animals of each kind producing every species today. Why is it that selective pressure and mutation rates aren't that high today? What caused such spectacular evolution 4400 years ago? Why don't we see it today? Why is it that all data today suggests that if the mutation rates were ever that high every animal on the planet would be dead? How do you explain this?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evolutionists claim all sorts of fossils are our ancestors but, when they can prove it, let us know.

It's interesting that even evolutionist, Henry Gee (see quote on www.whoisyourcreation.com) acknowledges that human ancestory is impossible to summarize through the fossil record.

What other fossils will eventually come out of the closet? Again, since evolution is still occurrring around us, why don't you point to a similar living example of ANY transition. Wouln't that be easier for you?

Gee quote does not deny evolution or common descent.

It is interesting to see that you are still trying to misuse the Gee quote to support your position.

We talked about the Gee quote earlier. He was offended by the Discovery Institute dishonestly cherry picking his work to try to deny evolution. Gee accepts evolution and common descent. His statement says nothing opposing a common ancestor between humans and Australopithecus aferensis.

As I indicated in the last post and earlier ones on this subject, the consensus has been for some time that A. aferensis is not a direct ancestor. That does not refute that Lucy is a transitional species. It simply means that aferensis was not directly in the line of human ancestory.

Other fossils are indeed closer and are considered more likely to be ancestoral.

Re: Gee quote does not deny evolution or common descent.

I bet 5 bucks that she's looking for some more quotes to try to discredit A. afarensis.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It is interesting to see that you are still trying to misuse the Gee quote to support your position.

We talked about the Gee quote earlier. He was offended by the Discovery Institute dishonestly cherry picking his work to try to deny evolution. Gee accepts evolution and common descent. His statement says nothing opposing a common ancestor between humans and Australopithecus aferensis.

As I indicated in the last post and earlier ones on this subject, the consensus has been for some time that A. aferensis is not a direct ancestor. That does not refute that Lucy is a transitional species. It simply means that aferensis was not directly in the line of human ancestory.

Other fossils are indeed closer and are considered more likely to be ancestoral.

Re: Re: Gee quote does not deny evolution or common descent.

She hasn't found one yet, but that doesn't mean she won't try to stretch something to fit.

Your posting

Enough of your insults, Arneson.

If you want to personally insult me, stand in line.

If you want to debate in a mature manner with information, it will give more credibility.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

She hasn't found one yet, but that doesn't mean she won't try to stretch something to fit.

Re: Your posting

You quoted Gee in a manner that didn't support your position. It was a stretch, indeed. It was not an insult, but an observation.

Quotes discrediting 'Lucy' by evolutionists

Lucy was discredited years ago, but now it's finally official:

“Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans … The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.”
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0606454104v1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I bet 5 bucks that she's looking for some more quotes to try to discredit A. afarensis.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It is interesting to see that you are still trying to misuse the Gee quote to support your position.

We talked about the Gee quote earlier. He was offended by the Discovery Institute dishonestly cherry picking his work to try to deny evolution. Gee accepts evolution and common descent. His statement says nothing opposing a common ancestor between humans and Australopithecus aferensis.

As I indicated in the last post and earlier ones on this subject, the consensus has been for some time that A. aferensis is not a direct ancestor. That does not refute that Lucy is a transitional species. It simply means that aferensis was not directly in the line of human ancestory.

Other fossils are indeed closer and are considered more likely to be ancestoral.

Your quotes only discreds yourself

We've talked about this quote and the one from Gee before. The Isreali scientists determined that A. afarensis was not directly ancestoral to humans. This is a conclusion that most scientists had come to already. The article does indicate clearly that Lucy was transitional as my post in April indicated.

http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/706426/

The quote had nothing to do with the original you are posting about

The quote is from a letter from Gee to NCSE about the use of the original quote.

Would you like to correct Gee on this one too?

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
Henry Gee, In Search of Time: Beyond the Fossil Record ato a New History of Life, New York, The Free Press, 1999 page 126-127.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It is interesting to see that you are still trying to misuse the Gee quote to support your position.

We talked about the Gee quote earlier. He was offended by the Discovery Institute dishonestly cherry picking his work to try to deny evolution. Gee accepts evolution and common descent. His statement says nothing opposing a common ancestor between humans and Australopithecus aferensis.

As I indicated in the last post and earlier ones on this subject, the consensus has been for some time that A. aferensis is not a direct ancestor. That does not refute that Lucy is a transitional species. It simply means that aferensis was not directly in the line of human ancestory.

Other fossils are indeed closer and are considered more likely to be ancestoral.

Gee doesn't need correcting...

However, your inappropiate aplication of his quote does.

Please share with us what Gee actually 'meant'

The original quote was from:
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3167_pr90_10152001__gee_responds_10_15_2001.asp

Since you claim my application of Gee's quote was 'inappropriate,' please be specific and state exactly what Gee 'meant' to say so we can apply it correctly.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

However, your inappropiate aplication of his quote does.

Read the whole article and think about how you have represented Gee.

Let's break it down for you.

He is a scientist who accepts the validity of the theory of evolution and common descent.

His quotation had nothing to do with any dispute about the validity of Lucy as a transitional. Beyond that, his point in "In Search of Deep Time" was only that researchers should not claim direct lineage that they can't establish with evidence. No one here in this thread claimed that Lucy was ancetoral to humans. She was, however, transitional and neither Gee nor competent scientists deny that fact.

He was specifically talking about how creationists misrepresent his views to support a position that neither he nor the evidence supports.

Finally, I think he sums up your problem pretty nicely in point 4 of his response to Jonathan Wells dishonest quote mining.

"In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals."

Back to religion again

Gee believes that all fossils are 'transitional' because:
"if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here."

It's his faith in evolution he is referring to, not scientific proof for it.


Gee's quote:
"That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. Unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view. However, this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great scientific coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live by dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a mark of health rather than decay. However, the point of IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific."

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let's break it down for you.

He is a scientist who accepts the validity of the theory of evolution and common descent.

His quotation had nothing to do with any dispute about the validity of Lucy as a transitional. Beyond that, his point in "In Search of Deep Time" was only that researchers should not claim direct lineage that they can't establish with evidence. No one here in this thread claimed that Lucy was ancetoral to humans. She was, however, transitional and neither Gee nor competent scientists deny that fact.

He was specifically talking about how creationists misrepresent his views to support a position that neither he nor the evidence supports.

Finally, I think he sums up your problem pretty nicely in point 4 of his response to Jonathan Wells dishonest quote mining.

"In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals."

Actually, no. You should read the quote you posted.

Gee put it pretty well in your quote:
"Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution."

Although Gee is a believer, it has nothing to do with religious faith. This is a matter of science and scientific evidence.

We know that Lucy was transitional because of the mosaic of characteristics exhibited in the fossil. The Isreali scientists you quoted found that Lucy's species was transitional toward the Australopithecus robustus.

Your quotes don't address the issue.

A. afarensis is transitional. No one here has claimed that this species is in the direct line to man, nor did the Gee quote address A. afarensis at all. You are stretching a quote to try to refute a position that none of us have taken.