[_ Old Earth _] Did Chimpanzees need Chiropodists?

[Asyncritus]

It's All In The Feet!

As there's so much hoo-hah about humans being descended from apes/chimpanzees millions of years ago, I though I'd put up 2 drawings of the feet of a man and the feet of a chimp.

The evolutionists never bother with this sort of trivial stuff - they've got bigger fish to fry.

But there's a problem here as anyone can see.

Here are diagrams of the foot of a man and of a chimpanzee.

Remember, the foot of the chimpanzee has to 'evolve' into the foot of the man. I wonder how?

View attachment 2089

And worse still:
​

View attachment 2090

Notice, in man (the right hand diagram) ALL FIVE TOES ARE JOINED TOGETHER BY WHAT IS CALLED THE METATARSAL LIGAMENT. See it?

In the chimpanzee FOUR TOES ARE JOINED, and THE GREAT TOE is free for grasping branches etc.

Now the foot of the chimp has to 'evolve' into the foot of the man. Think it's possible chaps?

If so, how?
​

 

[lordkalvan]

It's All In The Feet!

As there's so much hoo-hah about humans being descended from apes/chimpanzees millions of years ago, I though I'd put up 2 drawings of the feet of a man and the feet of a chimp.

The evolutionists never bother with this sort of trivial stuff - they've got bigger fish to fry.

But there's a problem here as anyone can see.

Here are diagrams of the foot of a man and of a chimpanzee.

Remember, the foot of the chimpanzee has to 'evolve' into the foot of the man. I wonder how?

View attachment 2372

And worse still:
​

View attachment 2373

Notice, in man (the right hand diagram) ALL FIVE TOES ARE JOINED TOGETHER BY WHAT IS CALLED THE METATARSAL LIGAMENT. See it?

In the chimpanzee FOUR TOES ARE JOINED, and THE GREAT TOE is free for grasping branches etc.

Now the foot of the chimp has to 'evolve' into the foot of the man. Think it's possible chaps?

If so, how?
​

As well as personal incredulity, dubious maths and demands for proof, I see I should have mentioned misrepresentations, misunderstandings and probably a complete ignorance of the evolutionary relationship between humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). If you truly think that evolutionary theory proposes that human beings evolved from chimpanzees, I am afraid you are more clueless than I had imagined. And I honestly don't mean to be insulting with that remark, but this is so stupendous a misunderstanding that I don't know how else to categorize it.

 

[cedward1]

I'm afriad Lord Kalvan is right in the respect that evolutionary theory does not claim that humans evolved from chimpanzees. The idea is of a common ancestor for both. This common ancestor, it is my understanding, is what is sometimes referred to as the "missing link" although that term is rather misleading as well. Theoretically, in the process of evolution, there is an entire gradient of species that are constantly evolving (over millions of years) via mutations to adapt to the environment of the organisms.

That having been said, one wonders where the evidence is for the required multitude of missing links between this ancestor and the humans and chimpanzees that it spawned. Remember, there would have had to have been a large enough population of each for at least one advantageous mutation to develop. And as we all know, almost all mutations on this high of a level of organization are detrimental (cancer, is an example). So there should be quite a few fossilized remains of these intermediate species, right?

I don't know. I believe in a literal view of Biblical creation, but I think there is room for evolution on a smaller scale. It happens all the time with populations (Darwin finches are a classic example). But always to adapt to current conditions, and among multicelled organisms the selection is always among already existing genes (to my knowledge). Theoretically mutations could create a gene that is more advantageous, but the higher the complexity of the organism the less likely this is.

 

[lordkalvan]

I'm afriad Lord Kalvan is right in the respect that evolutionary theory does not claim that humans evolved from chimpanzees. The idea is of a common ancestor for both. This common ancestor, it is my understanding, is what is sometimes referred to as the "missing link" although that term is rather misleading as well. Theoretically, in the process of evolution, there is an entire gradient of species that are constantly evolving (over millions of years) via mutations to adapt to the environment of the organisms.

Your summary is concise and to the point. I think that between 5 and 7 million years ago is the most widely accepted estimate in the relevant literature for this last common ancestor, based on genetic analysis.

That having been said, one wonders where the evidence is for the required multitude of missing links between this ancestor and the humans and chimpanzees that it spawned.

This is an approximate list of identified human species and ancestors. Many of the fossils that have been identified as representing these species display transitional features.

Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo cepranensis
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens idaltu (our subspecies)
Homo floresiensis
Oreopithecus
Paranthropus
Australopithecus
Sahelanthropus tchadensis (first human species)
Orrorin
Ardipithecus
Kenyanthropus

Remember, there would have had to have been a large enough population of each for at least one advantageous mutation to develop.

I think it depends on the extent to which such populations were co-existing. Research suggests that advantageous mutations can become fixed quite rapidly in populations.

And as we all know, almost all mutations on this high of a level of organization are detrimental (cancer, is an example). So there should be quite a few fossilized remains of these intermediate species, right?

The list I posted attempts to address this question.

I don't know. I believe in a literal view of Biblical creation, but I think there is room for evolution on a smaller scale. It happens all the time with populations (Darwin finches are a classic example). But always to adapt to current conditions, and among multicelled organisms the selection is always among already existing genes (to my knowledge). Theoretically mutations could create a gene that is more advantageous, but the higher the complexity of the organism the less likely this is.

Although I am not a believer in the Christian God, I see no reason why it is not possible to postulate that this God created the first simple life, that evolution was his 'design plan' and that the diversity of life that we see today and in the fossil record is a result of that initial act of creative genius. The problem I see with 'evolution on a smaller scale' is that I have seen no one suggest what biological mechanism prevents micro becoming macro, neither how that biological mechanism operates, nor how it can be identified. Furthermore, fossils displaying transitional features and the known existence of ring species seems to indicate that speciation is entirely possible.

 

[Asyncritus]

As well as personal incredulity, dubious maths and demands for proof, I see I should have mentioned misrepresentations, misunderstandings and probably a complete ignorance of the evolutionary relationship between humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). If you truly think that evolutionary theory proposes that human beings evolved from chimpanzees, I am afraid you are more clueless than I had imagined. And I honestly don't mean to be insulting with that remark, but this is so stupendous a misunderstanding that I don't know how else to categorize it.

Let's think about this.

How many toes did hypothetical 'common ancestor' have, and were they joined or not?

Remember, there's no halfway house.

Over to you.

 

[Asyncritus]

You are nothing if not optimistic, or maybe blindfolded LK. And as usual, you have nothing whatsoever to offer by way of possible methods by which the differences can be accounted for. 'Mutations' did I hear you say?

Nothing, that is, apart from the usual ad hom remarks. It's time for a change, isn't it? Some science wouldn't go amiss.

Have you any conception of the magnitude of the differences between humans (H. sapiens) and any given anthropoid you could name?

Here are a few dozen.

How do you see these arising?

[FONT=&quot]To put it as simply as possible, the differences are just too great to be overcome, and certainly a chromosomal structural resemblance is completely inadequate to explain such enormous differences.

The most apparent differences are the mental and psycho-spiritual ones.

The intellectual powers of a human child far exceed those of any primate. The said child has a conception of religion, spirituality, and some abstract thought. If we think of the young Mozart writing magnificent pieces of music, and playing highly complex pieces of music with his hands behind him, and compare that with the exploits of the most highly trained chimpanzee, the mind boggles.

The intellectual and spiritual powers of an adult human are light years beyond those of a chimpanzee, and to say that an allegedly fused chromosome is proof of their descent from a common ancestor defies belief.

Here are some of the major such differences.

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]Man is the only creature with the ability to count extensively
Man is the only creature with the ability to have a religion
Man is the only creature with the ability to have a moral sense
Man is the only creature with the ability to appreciate beauty
Man is the only creature with the ability to have a complex language
Man is the only creature with the ability to bury its dead
Man is the only creature with the ability to reason abstractly
Man is the only creature with the ability to manufacture tools and weapons
Man is the only creature with the ability to make articles of dress and adornment
Man is the only creature with the ability to make fire
Man is the only creature with the ability to sow and reap
Man is the only creature with the ability to improve its appearance
Man is the only creature with the delicacy and precision of touch that enables eye surgery as an example

I call upon the common descent advocates to account for the origin and implantation of the instincts in the common ancestor which manifest themselves in the characteristics above.[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Here are some physical differences.

[FONT=&quot]1 The Pelvis[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

The shape of the pelvis is entirely different. In man it is broad, low, and basin-shaped.
In the apes, for example, its broad axis is from back to front

In man, its width from one iliac crest to the other is greater than its height. In apes, it is the other way round.

The pubic symphysis is short in man, long in apes.

In man the lower part of the pelvis is almost equally distributed in front of and behind the socket bone. In apes it is inserted much further back, to permit the forward bending posture.

(The picture will not load. Please go here to view:
http://custance.org/old/evol/5ch3/5ch3.html)

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The special features of the human pelvis appear early in embryonic development , and are not preceded by conditions even resembling those that prevail in apes.

The large ilia, broad pelvis and well-developed spines all serve to give us our erect posture.

Here are a few words about how essential our upright posture really is:

To my mind, the most thorough single paper on this question was written by F. A. Hallebrandt and E. B. Franseen, entitled "Physiological Study of the Vertical Stance in Man."74 The following brief extracts will give a useful summary of this paper that runs into some thirty-six pages. The authors stated in introducing their subject:75
Many clinical papers in the current literature on posture indicate that stance defects may result ultimately in a variety of malfunctions including lessened respiratory efficiency, prolapse of the abdominal viscera, impairment of digestion, pressure and derangement of the pelvic organs, dysmenorrhea, haemorrhoids, varicose veins, constipation, cyclic vomiting, foot strain, backache, neuritis, and arthritis. Barring orthopedic disabilities, few of the etiologic associations are based on demonstrable fact....
74. Hallebrandt, F. A., and Franseen, E. B., "Physiological Study of the Vertical Stance in Man," Physiol. Rev. 22-23 (1943):221.

From this it must be obvious that any allegedly intermediate stages must have been hopelessly ill.

One of the less well recognized results of truly erect posture in man is its effect upon his powers of communication. The neck structure allows a certain configuration of the windpipe and vocal organs which permits men to talk easily to one another while maintaining the natural and normal position of the head. Both speaking and singing are possible for man without any such straightening out of the head and neck as must occur in other animals when they give voice
ibid

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

3 The coccyx is longer in human beings than in anthropoid apes (4 fused in humans, 3 fused in apes).

The human coccyx is placed lower than in the ape. It reaches almost to the end of the pubic symphysis, involving the production of a transverse perineum, as opposed to the oblique one of the ape.

The absence of a tail in man is due to the impedance it would offer to movement in an upright posture.

4 The straight legs of man are unique to man. Those of the anthropoids cannot be straightened.

5 Man is the only fully plantigrade primate.

The foot presses on the ground at three points which form the pillars of a double arch.

In the anthropoids, only the outer edge of the foot presses on the ground when the animal is standing.

In the apes, the relative lengths of the fingers are similar to those of the toes.

The first toe of the ape is opposable to the others. Those four are bound together by a broad band of fibre known as the transverse metatarsal ligament. In man, this ligament includes the big toe, and so binds all 5 toes together.

 

[Asyncritus]

6 In the spinal column, there are other unique features.

The axis vertebra is absolutely vertical in man. In the apes it is oblique.

In order that that the head may rest on the spine in the vertical axis, the spinal column is curved to the front in the neck region, then it curves backwards and then forward in the lumbar region. This last curve is exhibited by no other animal.

The image will not load. Please go here to view:
http://custance.org/old/evol/5ch3/5ch3.html)


[FONT=&quot]7 The human arm differs markedly from that of any anthropoid.

It alone can be stretched so that upper and lower arm form a straight line.
The arm is relatively much shorter than that of any anthropoid, and the ratio of the length of the upper to the forearm is lower.
The human arm hangs differently from that of any anthropoid: the thumb points forward. In the apes, it points inward.

8 Man’s thumb is perfectly opposed to the rest of the fingers and is much bigger than that of the apes. The transverse lines on the palms run obliquely, rather than transversely as in the apes.

9 The scapula is applied to the back of the thorax in man. In other animals it is applied to the side of the thorax.
The socket for the insertion of the humerus faces outwards in man. In the apes, it faces downwards.

10 Man is unique among land animals in not possessing a covering of hair or fur. As a result, unlike other animal, has to adopt clothing of one sort or another to retain heat and ward off cold.

The absence of hair is difficult to explain – because the young anthropoid clings to the hair of its mother like a leech. The mother therefore need not bother too much about the infant when she is moving about. There is not the faintest resemblance to this in the human species.

11 Among other features exhibited by man and not the anthropoids are the following:
the bed of fat beneath the skin, the legs being longer than the arms, the large size and permanent separation of the nasal bones in man, the shortness of the external ear, the human brachial artery lying below the median nerve, the lack of sexual differentiation in the teeth, the premolar teeth of man having fewer roots than the anthropoids.

Whole theses have been written on the similarity of the features of the crowns of the teeth. But there is a most significant fact which is conveniently ignored.

The premolar teeth of man have usually only one root, though sometimes the first upper pre molar is double rooted. In the anthropoids and monkeys each upper premolar has 3 roots and each lower two roots.

12 The brain size of a man is, relative to the size of the body, smaller than that of the tarsier monkey. Therefore, size alone is incapable of explaining the psychological gulf outlined in Section 1 above.

13 Sexual female anatomy is also different. In other animals, the vagina is parallel to the abdomen. In the human female it is tilted backwards because of the upright posture. You may wish to comment on the question as to whether the upright posture created the angling of the vagina, or whether the angling created the upright posture. Or whether it was created that way.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The foregoing shows that there is nothing to indicate human common descent from a common ancestor of any description, and any similarity in chromosome structure is purely fortuitous, and cannot begin to explain the size of these differences.

Now your nice list of alleged human ancestors does begin to look somewhat shaky.

[/FONT]

 

[jasoncran]

interesting i know that its a big leap but not THAT big of a leap.

 

[lordkalvan]

Let's think about this.

How many toes did hypothetical 'common ancestor' have, and were they joined or not?

Remember, there's no halfway house.

Over to you.

Perhaps you should demonstrate that you at least have a grasp of the theory you are so confident about your ability to undermine before we address questions that appear to be based on your general misunderstanding of what that theory says and why multiple lines of evidence are viewed as supporting it?

 

[Asyncritus]

Perhaps you should demonstrate that you at least have a grasp of the theory you are so confident about your ability to undermine before we address questions that appear to be based on your general misunderstanding of what that theory says and why multiple lines of evidence are viewed as supporting it?

Do I understand from that comment that you have nothing to say in response to the facts being advanced?

I believe that you have nothing to say really, and that all this smoke screen is really trying to hide that fact.

Of course, you can always produce some science to prove me wrong about this and several other matters now before you on the board.

 

[lordkalvan]

You are nothing if not optimistic, or maybe blindfolded LK. And as usual, you have nothing whatsoever to offer by way of possible methods by which the differences can be accounted for. 'Mutations' did I hear you say?

Maybe we should deal with your bizarre idea that human beings evolved from chimpanzees first of all. Do you still believe this to be the case?

Nothing, that is, apart from the usual ad hom remarks. It's time for a change, isn't it? Some science wouldn't go amiss.

If you demonstrate gross misunderstanding of a subject, do you expect this gross misunderstanding to go unremarked? And mentioning apparent cluelessness is not an ad hominem as it goes to the heart of your arguments. If I dismissed your ideas on the basis of some perceived physical failing or mental deficiency, or if I said your arguments are a priori wrong because you are a Christian, that would be an ad hominem.

Have you any conception of the magnitude of the differences between humans (H. sapiens) and any given anthropoid you could name?

No. Why don't you go ahead and tell us? And make sure you define what you mean by 'magnitude' and what you regard as 'differences'.

Here are a few dozen.

How do you see these arising?

Descent with modification. Why do you regard these things you have listed as particularly significant? Why do you categorize them as differences of some 'magnitude' (which seems to be another way off saying that you don't believe evolutionary theory can account for them)?

To put it as simply as possible, the differences are just too great to be overcome...

Why? It is insufficient simply to assert this.

...and certainly a chromosomal structural resemblance is completely inadequate to explain such enormous differences.

Why? And why are they 'enormous differences'? They look like differences of degree to me.

The most apparent differences are the mental and psycho-spiritual ones.

Why? Behavioral traits that we see in the great apes have direct analogues in human behaviour.

The intellectual powers of a human child far exceed those of any primate.

At what age?

The said child has a conception of religion, spirituality, and some abstract thought.

Evidence?

If we think of the young Mozart writing magnificent pieces of music, and playing highly complex pieces of music with his hands behind him, and compare that with the exploits of the most highly trained chimpanzee, the mind boggles.

Why does it boggle? Why would you expect a chimpanzee to be able to do what Mozart did?

The intellectual and spiritual powers of an adult human are light years beyond those of a chimpanzee...

Light years, huh? Is that one of those scientific explanations that you are so eager for others to supply?

...and to say that an allegedly fused chromosome is proof of their descent from a common ancestor defies belief.

Eh, no, it just defies your belief, which is the whole point of your threads. You can't believe X may have a naturalistic explanation, therefore it can't.

Here are some of the major such differences.

Yes? And?

 

[lordkalvan]

Do I understand from that comment that you have nothing to say in response to the facts being advanced?

You should understand from my comment what it says. Would you like me to clarify it?

I believe that you have nothing to say really, and that all this smoke screen is really trying to hide that fact.

What you believe is between you and your personal incredulity.

Of course, you can always produce some science to prove me wrong about this and several other matters now before you on the board.

Maybe you should return to some of those threads you have started and abandoned where you have been asked to deal with 'some science', not to mention questions, points and counter-arguments arising from your various assertions and claims.

 

[Rhea]

So I'm reading through your list and thinking, "wait, this has all been established by evidence and mechanism years ago! Where's this stuff from!?"

...and I read...

Here are some physical differences.

74. Hallebrandt, F. A., and Franseen, E. B., "Physiological Study of the Vertical Stance in Man," Physiol. Rev. 22-23 (1943):221.

Aaaahhhh, I thought so.

By the way asyncritus, I will give the benefit of the doubt and ask, not assume, are these things you are posting your own writings? Because as one reads through and sees the reference notation, one wonders, "what is the source of this writing? Is it copyrighted?"

So, if you please, can you verify - are these your words or someone else's?

 

[lordkalvan]

So I'm reading through your list and thinking, "wait, this has all been established by evidence and mechanism years ago! Where's this stuff from!?"

...and I read...





Aaaahhhh, I thought so.

By the way asyncritus, I will give the benefit of the doubt and ask, not assume, are these things you are posting your own writings? Because as one reads through and sees the reference notation, one wonders, "what is the source of this writing? Is it copyrighted?"

So, if you please, can you verify - are these your words or someone else's?

I have asked Asyncritus a number of times from where he sources his various quotes and references, but he has been shy of telling. I suspect (though don't know) that they come from secondary, tertiary or even more distant sources.

 

[Rhea]

I have asked Asyncritus a number of times from where he sources his various quotes and references, but he has been shy of telling. I suspect (though don't know) that they come from secondary, tertiary or even more distant sources.

you mean ... copied without credit to the author!?!

 

[lordkalvan]

you mean ... copied without credit to the author!?!

I did a few minutes' quick research on the Intratoobs and found that the Hallebrandt & Franseen references in Post #8 are direct quotes from the Doorway Papers by Arthur Custance here: http://w ww. custance.org/old/evol/5ch3/5ch3.html. The diagrams in the OP also come from Custance, in the second case from a secondary source used by Custance.

 

[Rhea]

Interesting web-site. Custus' writing are, we see, decades out of date. That might explain why they have so many errors. It could also be that Custus was not trained in evolutionary biology, nor genetics.

Still one has to admit that posting Custus' work without citation (and directly ignoring requests for citation) is quite bleak.

I know what my colleagues would think of someone who posts someone else's work as their own.

It's really not hard to cite. To just say, "and this, written by Custus[cite], brings up a good point". But to make it look like one's own, and not answer calls for citation....leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

And Asyncritus claimed he is a scientist!

I would like to give the benefit of the doubt, but since Custus has been dead for 25 years, I'm going to have to conclude that this is not Asyncritus' own work.