I think this is the ‘living trilobites’ thing - note the general lack of scientific rigour, the use of bogus terms (‘devolutionary’) and the layman arguments (‘it looks a bit like a trilobite, so it is a trilobite’)
If indeed the depicted creatures are more than a hoax.
Actually, I think that’s a perfectly valid use of the word “evolve”. I worked in an antibody evolution lab, where we tricked bacteria into evolving enzymes (using artificial selection as the selective pressure rather than natural selection, sure, but it was still change through variation + competition, so it was still evolution).
Sigh, I know. Genetic algorithms are one of those neat ideas that I had an inkling of but never pushed in time. As soon as I get some more work done on the evolution tutorial I’m writing in my spare time (involving a really rough genetic algorithm), I’ll post a link (right now it’s unbearably slow… which might work for the tutorial, I guess, since I can point out that evolution works on a larger timeframe than we humans are used to waiting for, but I think I’d still like to speed things up a bit :)).
Indeed. Even the bits that pretend to be science, such as intelligent design, don’t bother to actual use the scientific method, which defines all real science. Observation, hypothesis, and experimentation are required of science, and creationists can’t seem to pull of that third step.
Oh dear, it’s a crustacean - it’s not even the correct class, let alone having the unique calcite eyes!
So does this mean velociraptors (or whatever birds evolved from) aren’t extinct, because birds exist? Or, better, yet, triceratops aren’t extinct, because birds exist (since these modern “trilobites” are only distantly related to their extinct cousins)?
Indeed; it isn’t any more a trilobite than one of these.
Birds evolved from manoraptoran dinosaurs (which includes the likes of Dromaeosaurus, Velociraptor and Deinonychus). So Velociraptor is a “cousin” to birds. The critter in Mangetout’s link was a tadpole shrimp, which is a branchiopod crustacean, which are classified within the phylum Arthropoda. Trilobites are also within Phylum Arthropoda, but that’s where they diverge. It would be more akin to saying that something like, I dunno, Yunnanozoon lividum (a fossil chordate) isn’t extinct because birds aren’t extinct.
That should be “maniraptoran”…
Good point. I hadn’t thought about how far that thing actually was from a trilobite. Thanks for the correction.
ARG! That thing is not a trilobite, any more than a shark is an icthyosaur!
Fercryingoutloud!
And bodswood, you’ve repeated over and over how the fossil record is patchy, and we only have a few scraps of bones. But you really have no idea. Have you ever been to dinosaur national monument in Utah? Or many other fossil sites around the world? There are places where you could back up dumptrucks and load up hundreds of tons of fossils.
Sure, the fossil record for humans is pretty sparse, compared to more prolific species. But even then, we’ve got hundreds of specimens.
You complained that perhaps an Australopithecine was simply an ape. Sure, I agree. But so is a human. There is no consistent scientific definition of “ape” that would include chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and Australopithecines and exclude humans.
Maybe you don’t really understand what these critters were. If you made a list of characteristics of humans, and characteristics of chimpanzees, you’d find Australopithecines sharing more traits with humans than with chimps. They walked on two legs like humans, they had human-like teeth, human-like hands, feet, knees, hips, etc. Except their brains were similar in size to a chimp’s brain.
You are asking for a creature intermediate between apes and humans. Yet when we show you one you complain that it is really an ape. And when we show you a Homo erectus skeleton, you complain that…well, actually you haven’t said a thing about it. Here’s that picture again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
Is that a fossil of an ape? Is it the fossil of a human? A human with a very small brain, huge brow ridges, and thick bones? Or is it an extinct species very much like humans? This isn’t a pig’s tooth, or the filed bones of an orangutan stained to look older. What exactly do you think this thing is? Fake? Planted by Satan?
Any idea why the last three days, each time I try to post after 4.15pm (HK time) = 3.15am (CST), there are problems? Anyway, my latest scribblings:
[Yesterday’ post]
It’s possible, SM, but if I was asked under oath whether I agreed with this I would have to say no. To say that I did would be a lie.
It’s a conviction, a belief; one that doesn’t I think so much fly in the face of all the evidence (I know you and many others will think that) as remains a possibility, however remote. Again, I accept it is an impossibility (or as near as possible for any scientific theory, which is incapable of “proof”) for you and many others.
I hope you appreciate why I could not be true to myself (at the current moment - things can change) and agree.
Anyway, I can’t see how my puny beliefs could upset you or anyone else. Anyone reading this thread - and there seem to be quite a few - will probably consider that I have received a good licking.
Both the theory of evolution has been established, and by and large the generosity of spirit of those who have championed the cause has been made manifest.
Actually, I wish some people who were (or still are) sitting on the fence would speak up. It would be interesting to know if anyone has changed their mind as a result of following the discussion (and following the links, of course).
[Today’s post]
Lemur, re human fossil evidence, there is first off a marked paucity of the stuff. Psychologically, I also feel that human have in the last 150 years or so been conditioned to believe in all sorts of intermediate human forms. In much the same way that we have been conditioned for the last 500 years to believe that Jesus was a tall handsome European fellow with soft skin when he was more probably a short stocky Jew with rough skin. I think we must appreciate the impact of Thomas Huxley and his drawings going from ape to man. I believe these drawings were made before there was any fossil evidence dealing with “human evolution”.
Re the few human fossils we do have, there is considerable overlap between some of the fossils categorised as erectus and some of those categorised as sapiens. Since they were pretty similar below the neck and since their morphology might be ascribed to disease, added to the key factors that there are just so few of them and that we modern humans have such danged fertile imaginations, I’d take a raincheck on the human fossil evidence.
“Re the few human fossils we do have, there is considerable overlap between some of the fossils categorised as erectus and some of those categorised as sapiens.”
Overlap in time periods assigned to them, I should have added.
Of course there was signifcant overlap. It took at least 10, 000 years for ours species to reach the SE tip of Asia, probably closer to 40, 000. During that entire time both H. apsiens and H. erectus existed side by side. The fact that there is considerable overlap is exactly what evolutionary theory predicted we should find.
Why do you believe this overlap in some way invalidates evoution? At worst it is neutral and in fact it supports the theory. If erectus fossils were all replaced by sapiens fossils across their entire range at the same tim it would some close to being death blow for all the cuurently accepted theories of human evolution. A lack of considerable overlap would be nearly impossible to explain using current evoutionary theories.
You’re still failing to grasp the essence of what evolution truly is. The fact that there are temporal overlaps is evidence for evolution. Read my goldfish analogy again.
We start with two populations of H. erectus. One population is subject to selective pressures for a larger brain, etc. This population eventually evolves, independently of the other population, to begin resembling what we call H. sapiens. Yet, there is still the other population of H. erectus! They continue to co-exist, possibly for millions of years. But eventually, for any number of reasons, H. erectus dies out and H. sapiens lives on. All of the H. erectus don’t suddenly turn into humans, leaving none behind.
Indeed, Blake. But another interpretation could be that erect and sap are one and the same.
When I said “possibly for millions of years,” I meant that my hypothetical populations could co-exist for millions of years, not that H. erectus and H. sapiens did. It was far less time than that.
The reason you can’t post during that time period is that the servers are taken down for maintenance.
Bodswood that is indeed one interpretation of that single, specific piece of evidence. That is why scientists look at all the evidence, not just the bots that support our prejudices. You have been shown all the other evidence that rejects any suggestion that the two are the same species, yet you don’t want to believe it.
Others have said it and I will repeat it. If you want to believe that evolution isn’t true that’s your prerogative. If you want to state that there is any evidence that suggests that evolution isn’t true then you are propagating ignorance and will get short shrift on these boards.
So, you’re implying that paleontologists aren’t capable of distinguishing between two different species and two individuals of the same species that bear superficial differences?
Thanks for that info, Isla. You’d be affected too over in NZ.
What is the actual duration of the period - if you know - so that I know when to avoid posting?
Isla wrote: “So, you’re implying that paleontologists aren’t capable of distinguishing between two different species?”
I think it’s possible, especially given the physical and psychological factors outlined above.
“So, you’re implying that paleontologists aren’t capable of distinguishing between two individuals of the same species that bear superficial differences?”
Could you expand?
This argument that hominid fossils such as Neanderthal or homo erectus could just be freak homo sapiens is not a new one, has never been strong in any case and with DNA technology can be absolutely dispensed with.
DNA testing can show definitively if a sample is “human” or not. Neanderthals are close but still outside what is possible for the normal range of genetic variation for homos sapiens. The freakiest of human freaks will never have a sagittal crest, for instance, for the same reason he will never have feathers. There are parameters for how radical a single mutation can be.
Leaving aside the DNA evidence, it would be impossible to find entire communities of the exact same “freaks” living together and reproducing for hundreds of generations.