- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,18:27) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans
http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/greatapes/greatapes.html
The great apes belong to the taxonomic family Homindae, which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and humans.
thttp://australianmuseum.net.au/Humans-are-apes-Great-Apes
Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea).This ape group can be further subdivided into the Great Apes and Lesser Apes. Humans have bodies that are genetically and structurally very similar to those of the Great Apes and so we are classified in the Great Apes sub-group which is also known as the hominids (Family Hominidae).
As I asked before, why does that fact appear to present you with a difficulty?
Stuart
Classification are not actual things even Darwin admitted that NS was taken up by him for classification purposes.These classifications have not always remained the same, it is simply materialists garbage
Quote reasonably be expected to look –stu
Here's the thing, stu.
People see that picture that you posted, and they think it is proof of something. All I'm saying is, that with each picture like that, is should very clearly be explained that this is what scientists 'reasonably expect' them to look like, and that their appearance is not based on any real science, but mostly on imagination and what one would “expect” if this were true.
Quote My original point was about how accurate plasticine reconstructions based on skulls are
And my point is that they are not accurate at all. The plasticine models of 20 years ago look nothing like the ones of today. And the ones of 5 years from now will probably look a lot different. And the documentary I was watching that was reconstructing Pharoahs face had two independant “scientists” using “scientific methods” (which as it turns out, is more of an art) and they came up with two quite different faces. It's clever how the documentary tried to hide this fact. They only showed the one face rather quickly. I had to rewind a couple times and slow down the video. Besides the obvious hair and skin color, (which are just guesses,) the actual face although it did have some similarities in the nose maybe, really didn't look very much alike at all.Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 01 2010,06:05) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,18:27) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans
http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/greatapes/greatapes.html
The great apes belong to the taxonomic family Homindae, which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and humans.
thttp://australianmuseum.net.au/Humans-are-apes-Great-Apes
Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea).This ape group can be further subdivided into the Great Apes and Lesser Apes. Humans have bodies that are genetically and structurally very similar to those of the Great Apes and so we are classified in the Great Apes sub-group which is also known as the hominids (Family Hominidae).
As I asked before, why does that fact appear to present you with a difficulty?
Stuart
Classification are not actual things even Darwin admitted that NS was taken up by him for classification purposes.These classifications have not always remained the same, it is simply materialists garbage
What is “NS”?What was his “admission”?
As for the Linnaean classification of humans as apes,
1. Linnaeus designated humans as apes in the mid C18th, so for as long as there has been a proper biological classification system, some 250 years, we have been classified as apes, and
2. this “materialists garbage” as you put it, was invented by a devout christian creationist
Islam: the religion for those who like putting their hands over their ears and shouting I can't hear you!
…and telling lies.
Stuart
Quote (david @ Feb. 01 2010,17:26) Quote reasonably be expected to look –stu
Here's the thing, stu.
People see that picture that you posted, and they think it is proof of something. All I'm saying is, that with each picture like that, is should very clearly be explained that this is what scientists 'reasonably expect' them to look like, and that their appearance is not based on any real science, but mostly on imagination and what one would “expect” if this were true.
Quote My original point was about how accurate plasticine reconstructions based on skulls are
And my point is that they are not accurate at all. The plasticine models of 20 years ago look nothing like the ones of today. And the ones of 5 years from now will probably look a lot different. And the documentary I was watching that was reconstructing Pharoahs face had two independant “scientists” using “scientific methods” (which as it turns out, is more of an art) and they came up with two quite different faces. It's clever how the documentary tried to hide this fact. They only showed the one face rather quickly. I had to rewind a couple times and slow down the video. Besides the obvious hair and skin color, (which are just guesses,) the actual face although it did have some similarities in the nose maybe, really didn't look very much alike at all.
Here are some homo erectus reconstructions:
I don't see the problem personally. It is a subjective opinion you are giving: really you couldn't say they were any more different than a randomly selected group of modern humans. There are some bits with which you would have to use some creative licence, but why could you not reasonably apply the same principles to erectus reconstruction as you do to human reconstruction and expect to arrive at something representative of homo erectus, even if it looked more like another one than the individual who formerly occupied the skull when alive.
You have not addressed the issue of how dubious you must think such reconstructions are in their routine use for identifying human skulls.
Stuart
Believe it or not there are people that look like that today.
The only part that really looks ape like are the end of the nostrils which have no bone structure, so are open to interpretation anyway.Scientists have for the first time confirmed color in a dinosaur. So all the versions we have been shown in the past were an imagined possible way that they could look. I would say the same thing about that ape man.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 01 2010,19:42) Islam: the religion for those who like putting their hands over their ears and shouting I can't hear you! …and telling lies.
Stuart
TruthQuote (Ed J @ Feb. 02 2010,16:48) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 01 2010,19:42) Islam: the religion for those who like putting their hands over their ears and shouting I can't hear you! …and telling lies.
Stuart
Truth
Peace be with you.Quote (t8 @ Feb. 01 2010,23:44) Believe it or not there are people that look like that today.
The only part that really looks ape like are the end of the nostrils which have no bone structure, so are open to interpretation anyway.
What do you mean the part that “looks like ape”?The whole thing you are looking at is ape, just as is the thing doing the looking!
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 01 2010,23:50) Scientists have for the first time confirmed color in a dinosaur. So all the versions we have been shown in the past were an imagined possible way that they could look. I would say the same thing about that ape man.
Can you share the link t8? I'd be interested to know their way of determining colour. I assume it was fossil and not genetic evidence.The whole world was in black and white until 1908, according to the evidence of cinema. Not surprising that today's dinosaurs can be seen in colour.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 02 2010,18:27) What do you mean the part that “looks like ape”? The whole thing you are looking at is ape, just as is the thing doing the looking!
Stuart
It is also 45% daffodil.You forget that.
You do not understand the nature of code Stu.
Many things that are not even closely related share the same code. This is true of DNA, software, and anything else that uses building blocks. e.g., in binary everything boils down to 0s and 1s, (on, off). In the physical realm we have Quantum where 1s and 0s are not static. From Quantum Mechanics, scientists hope to build a Quantum computer which will be capable of calculations beyond anything we have today.
Just because something shares some or much of the same code, doesn't prove that one came from the other, but that one has similar features as the other.
Your theory that somehow a primitive ape is an ancestor of humans is pure imagination, speculation, and religion.
The only thing you can conclusively prove is that the more shared code, the more similar the model.
Humans have decided to rank species by their similar features. That is a fair enough way to classify something. But to say that one came from the other with no proof apart from a theory, then you are the one joining the dots as you see fit.
Have you ever looked up into a cloud and seen the image of a face or an animal. That was your imagination looking to make sense of something. It is not meant to be taken that the actual cloud was a persons face or an animal.
Many people who espouse the theory of evolution actually know very little about code and how code can be put into binaries or objects and how these binaries can form libraries which contain code and data that provide services to independent programs. This allows the sharing and changing of code and data in a modular fashion. Because there is no point in reinventing the wheel every time you make a wheel is there? Rather it is better to use a library for specific needed functions. So often time, you end up adding larger building blocks together in a unique way to create something new.
The fact that humans program this way, and that species have shared code blocks is no surprise to me if they are both written by an intelligence of some kind. Perhaps Evolution is just a fairytale for grown-ups that tries to explain this common code Stu? They kind of say hey look, that ape looks like a human so that means that the ape became a human after millions of years of mutations. It is lame Stu. No problem with theories, but when you believe in it with blind faith, then that is kind of sad.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 02 2010,19:41) Can you share the link t8? I'd be interested to know their way of determining colour. I assume it was fossil and not genetic evidence. The whole world was in black and white until 1908, according to the evidence of cinema. Not surprising that today's dinosaurs can be seen in colour.
Stuart
“Pigments have been found in fossil dinosaurs for the first time, a new study says.”http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news….-nature
Also, people use to walk faster and talk higher when the world was in black and white.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 02 2010,23:49) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 02 2010,19:41) Can you share the link t8? I'd be interested to know their way of determining colour. I assume it was fossil and not genetic evidence. The whole world was in black and white until 1908, according to the evidence of cinema. Not surprising that today's dinosaurs can be seen in colour.
Stuart
“Pigments have been found in fossil dinosaurs for the first time, a new study says.”http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news….-nature
Also, people use to walk faster and talk higher when the world was in black and white.
And fall off ladders into buckets of water, landing face-first in cream pies. Thank goodness for the invention of colour film.Very cool dino fluff. Thanks for the link.
Stuart
t8
Quote You do not understand the nature of code Stu. Many things that are not even closely related share the same code. This is true of DNA, software, and anything else that uses building blocks. e.g., in binary everything boils down to 0s and 1s, (on, off). In the physical realm we have Quantum where 1s and 0s are not static. From Quantum Mechanics, scientists hope to build a Quantum computer which will be capable of calculations beyond anything we have today.
Just because something shares some or much of the same code, doesn't prove that one came from the other, but that one has similar features as the other.
Fair enough. Did you think I didn’t realise any of that?Quote Your theory that somehow a primitive ape is an ancestor of humans is pure imagination, speculation, and religion.
So how would it be if a member of an ancient species were to ‘write’ in its DNA a characteristic marker that, because of its sequence and exact position within the genome, was damning evidence of ancestry in a descendent, a kind of letter to the future? That has not been done by ancient species of course, but it has been done by retroviruses:Quote The only thing you can conclusively prove is that the more shared code, the more similar the model.
Humans have decided to rank species by their similar features. That is a fair enough way to classify something. But to say that one came from the other with no proof apart from a theory, then you are the one joining the dots as you see fit. Have you ever looked up into a cloud and seen the image of a face or an animal. That was your imagination looking to make sense of something. It is not meant to be taken that the actual cloud was a persons face or an animal.
My turn to mention something you don’t understand. These is no such thing as proof, except in maths. We are no longer ranked by features, but by morphology and molecular evidence. Morphology gives us one way of determining phylogenetic relationships, and molecular evidence gives us exactly the same relationships, independently. This is not about opinion, it is about relating animals according to how closely the evidence says they are related.Quote Many people who espouse the theory of evolution actually know very little about code and how code can be put into binaries or objects and how these binaries can form libraries which contain code and data that provide services to independent programs. This allows the sharing and changing of code and data in a modular fashion. Because there is no point in reinventing the wheel every time you make a wheel is there? Rather it is better to use a library for specific needed functions. So often time, you end up adding larger building blocks together in a unique way to create something new. The fact that humans program this way, and that species have shared code blocks is no surprise to me if they are both written by an intelligence of some kind.
Natural history has not been investigated with respect to what ‘doesn’t surprise’ you. It has been formulated as a theory which you have not disproved, which you have not done because you have said absolutely nothing at all. Which your concept of the origin of species?A. You would expect common design to produce the same way of doing the same job in different species, or
B. You can’t tell what the creator was thinking, there is no rhyme or reason to it.
or
C. When I find an example of common design I will use that as evidence for common design, when the example does not show common design I will just not mention it.Quote Perhaps Evolution is just a fairytale for grown-ups that tries to explain this common code Stu?
Rather believe in a fairy tale for grown ups than one for children. Which is what creationism obviously is, because creationists are always trying to get to the young before they learn about real biology. What do you call a fairy tale that is completely compatible with every scrap of evidence and is contradicted by none?I’d call that a fact, actually.
Quote They kind of say hey look, that ape looks like a human so that means that the ape became a human after millions of years of mutations. It is lame Stu. No problem with theories, but when you believe in it with blind faith, then that is kind of sad.
Point 1: You are an ape by Linnaean definition. It is arbitrary, but by denying it you are only trying to divide the living world up into smaller chunks, which brings less meaning to the classification system, not more meaning. You surely must think Australopithecus afarensis was of the same biblical kind as homo sapiens. Isn’t that the great creationist argument for the ark staying afloat, that you only had to have two (or seven) pairs of each “kind” with super-rapid evolution afterwards, to give the variety of life on the planet? If not you are inventing enough “kinds” in that statement to sink the ark many times over.
Point 2: You have not accounted for the fossil record. Do you not believe in the biblical tenet that life begets life? Do you consider every birth to be an illusion, every instance of sexual recombination of DNA a hoax?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 03 2010,19:51) t8 Quote You do not understand the nature of code Stu. Many things that are not even closely related share the same code. This is true of DNA, software, and anything else that uses building blocks. e.g., in binary everything boils down to 0s and 1s, (on, off). In the physical realm we have Quantum where 1s and 0s are not static. From Quantum Mechanics, scientists hope to build a Quantum computer which will be capable of calculations beyond anything we have today.
Just because something shares some or much of the same code, doesn't prove that one came from the other, but that one has similar features as the other.
Fair enough. Did you think I didn’t realise any of that?Quote Your theory that somehow a primitive ape is an ancestor of humans is pure imagination, speculation, and religion.
So how would it be if a member of an ancient species were to ‘write’ in its DNA a characteristic marker that, because of its sequence and exact position within the genome, was damning evidence of ancestry in a descendent, a kind of letter to the future? That has not been done by ancient species of course, but it has been done by retroviruses:Quote The only thing you can conclusively prove is that the more shared code, the more similar the model.
Humans have decided to rank species by their similar features. That is a fair enough way to classify something. But to say that one came from the other with no proof apart from a theory, then you are the one joining the dots as you see fit. Have you ever looked up into a cloud and seen the image of a face or an animal. That was your imagination looking to make sense of something. It is not meant to be taken that the actual cloud was a persons face or an animal.
My turn to mention something you don’t understand. These is no such thing as proof, except in maths. We are no longer ranked by features, but by morphology and molecular evidence. Morphology gives us one way of determining phylogenetic relationships, and molecular evidence gives us exactly the same relationships, independently. This is not about opinion, it is about relating animals according to how closely the evidence says they are related.Quote Many people who espouse the theory of evolution actually know very little about code and how code can be put into binaries or objects and how these binaries can form libraries which contain code and data that provide services to independent programs. This allows the sharing and changing of code and data in a modular fashion. Because there is no point in reinventing the wheel every time you make a wheel is there? Rather it is better to use a library for specific needed functions. So often time, you end up adding larger building blocks together in a unique way to create something new. The fact that humans program this way, and that species have shared code blocks is no surprise to me if they are both written by an intelligence of some kind.
Natural history has not been investigated with respect to what ‘doesn’t surprise’ you. It has been formulated as a theory which you have not disproved, which you have not done because you have said absolutely nothing at all. Which your concept of the origin of species?A. You would expect common design to produce the same way of doing the same job in different species, or
B. You can’t tell what the creator was thinking, there is no rhyme or reason to it.
or
C. When I find an example of common design I will use that as evidence for common design, when the example does not show common design I will just not mention it.Quote Perhaps Evolution is just a fairytale for grown-ups that tries to explain this common code Stu?
Rather believe in a fairy tale for grown ups than one for children. Which is what creationism obviously is, because creationists are always trying to get to the young before they learn about real biology. What do you call a fairy tale that is completely compatible with every scrap of evidence and is contradicted by none?I’d call that a fact, actually.
Quote They kind of say hey look, that ape looks like a human so that means that the ape became a human after millions of years of mutations. It is lame Stu. No problem with theories, but when you believe in it with blind faith, then that is kind of sad.
Point 1: You are an ape by Linnaean definition. It is arbitrary, but by denying it you are only trying to divide the living world up into smaller chunks, which brings less meaning to the classification system, not more meaning. You surely must think Australopithecus afarensis was of the same biblical kind as homo sapiens. Isn’t that the great creationist argument for the ark staying afloat, that you only had to have two (or seven) pairs of each “kind” with super-rapid evolution afterwards, to give the variety of life on the planet? If not you are inventing enough “kinds” in that statement to sink the ark many times over.
Point 2: You have not accounted for the fossil record. Do you not believe in the biblical tenet that life begets life? Do you consider every birth to be an illusion, every instance of sexual recombination of DNA a hoax?Stuart
STU,Information technology states that information will double exponentially so why would diversity of lifeforms need millions of years as opposed to thousands of years.
Enter the Exponent 9 generations
Enter the Base 8 people from the ark1,34,217,728
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 05 2010,13:56) Information technology states that information will double exponentially so why would diversity of lifeforms need millions of years as opposed to thousands of years. Enter the Exponent 9 generations
Enter the Base 8 people from the ark1,34,217,728
Like I said before, get back to us when you have something relevant to share.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 02 2010,18:27) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 01 2010,23:44) Believe it or not there are people that look like that today.
The only part that really looks ape like are the end of the nostrils which have no bone structure, so are open to interpretation anyway.
What do you mean the part that “looks like ape”?The whole thing you are looking at is ape, just as is the thing doing the looking!
Stuart
So then we are all apparently agreed. T8 resembles the ape. (Just kidding.) What I meant to say was:What parts of that reconstruction that aren't based on artistic license and bias differ from some humans today?
To me, it seems like the longer we interpret the bones, the more we realize that those “half ape, half man” images from years ago were actually “man” with artistic lisense and bias injected into them. Today, they look a lot more present day-ish.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
