[_ Old Earth _] Did Chimpanzees need Chiropodists?

[Asyncritus]

LK

I note again that you have offered no scientific rebuttal of the FACTS I have listed. The ad homs continue undiluted by any science. Do try to produce some, willya?

As far as I know, the anatomy of the ape and the human have not changed much recently.

You will find those details in any textbook of anatomy of the human and the anthropoid.

Gray's anatomy will do for the human anatomy.

The older texts by people like Sir Arthur Wood Jones will furnish you with the anatomy of the anthropoid foot.

The list of physical differences comes from Douglas Dewar's 'Man, a Special Creation', with annotations by myself.

In connection with the psychological differences between man and the anthropoids, you might like to consider the following :

Neuroscientist and Nobel Prize winner Sir John Eccles has said that the materialistic theory of mind is ‘impoverished and empty’ and fails to account for ‘the wonder and mystery of the human self with its spiritual values, with its creativity, and with its uniqueness for each of us’.
Quoted in: The ape-ancestry myth (3)

Rhea, in answer to your screamed point about 1943, may I say that Sir Isaac Newton published his laws of motion in the 1700's. They haven't changed much either.

 

[lordkalvan]

LK

I note again that you have offered no scientific rebuttal of the FACTS I have listed.

What 'scientific facts' are these that require 'rebuttal'. Stating that X is a difference between Homo sapiens sapiens and Pan troglodytes and that you find it incredible that such a difference could have been produced naturalistically by evolutionary change is not a 'scientific fact'; it is a statement of your opinion and you have produced no 'scientific facts' to support this opinion to require 'rebuttal'.

I also note that you have replied to none of my questions or points arising from your various assertions and examples. What should I make of that?

The ad homs continue undiluted by any science. Do try to produce some, willya?

See my earlier replies to these points. Do you wish me to repeat them?

As far as I know, the anatomy of the ape and the human have not changed much recently.

You don't appear to 'know' that, taxonomically, humans are apes. What do you mean by 'recently'? You also seem to be acknowledging that change has occurred in Hominid anatomy. What do you think drives this change? Is it naturalistically or supernaturalistically driven? What evidence supports your argument either way?

You will find those details in any textbook of anatomy of the human and the anthropoid.

Gray's anatomy will do for the human anatomy.

The older texts by people like Sir Arthur Wood Jones will furnish you with the anatomy of the anthropoid foot.

Um, humans are anthropoids. Why do you imagine that the anatomical details you refer to are indicative of the impossibility of evolutionary change?

The list of physical differences comes from Douglas Dewar's 'Man, a Special Creation', with annotations by myself.

Hmm, a 1936 source now? Don't you think you would be better off bringing yourself up to date with comparative anatomy studies? here is an interesting article: Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion by W E H Harcourt-Smith and L C Aiello (ww w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571304/).

In connection with the psychological differences between man and the anthropoids, you might like to consider the following :

Neuroscientist and Nobel Prize winner Sir John Eccles has said that the materialistic theory of mind is ‘impoverished and empty’ and fails to account for ‘the wonder and mystery of the human self with its spiritual values, with its creativity, and with its uniqueness for each of us’.
Quoted in: The ape-ancestry myth (3)

I would be happier if you could provide the original context for Sir John Eccles's words, rather than sourcing them from a secondary source. Eccles has been quotemined by creationists before. And you are aware that in Evolution of the Brain, Eccles traces the evolutionary development of humanity? His belief in divine intervention appears to be limited to the 'ensoulment of humanity'?

Rhea, in answer to your screamed point about 1943, may I say that Sir Isaac Newton published his laws of motion in the 1700's. They haven't changed much either.

Are you trying to suggest that our understanding of physics has not progressed since 1687?

These three laws hold to a good approximation for macroscopic objects under everyday conditions. However, Newton's laws (combined with universal gravitation and classical electrodynamics) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very small scales, very high speeds (in special relativity, the Lorentz factor must be included in the expression for momentum along with rest mass and velocity) or very strong gravitational fields.

Source: en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion#Importance_and_range_of_validity

 

[Barbarian]

Well, looks like more garbage to take out, so being lazy, I'll clean up some of the easier messes:

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

Hmm....

Note that no remarkable changes are required to morph from a bipedal ape pelvis to a bipedal ape or human pelvis. Now, this is not quite a transition, since chimps are themselves rather evolved from primitive apes as are humans.

So here's a comparison of chimp, Proconsul (a very primitive ape), Ardipithicus ramidus (a primitive hominin) and an Australopithecine. The last two were bipedal. Notice the key change in the pelvis. Not also that chimps are reasonably close to the primitive apes in this respect.

You could put a human in there, and see that the primitive hominins are transitional between primitive ape and human.

One down.

 

[Barbarian]

Let's go on. In the case of the hallux (big toe) of humans and other apes, the change is not a very great one. In utero, the developing embryo has webbed feet and hands, with all the digits joined by skin and connective tissue. As development procedes, programmed death of the cells in the webbing cuts back the spaces until there is the normal separation of fingers and toes. In apes, this continues until there is the normal separation for the hallux as well.

The digits arise as the growth plate hooks across the end of the limb, sprouting fingers and toes as it goes. The hallux is the last to form, and the number of digits is merely a function of how long the digital arch takes to complete its work.

If the programmed death of cells is delayed, you end up with a hallux connected to the other toes instead of splayed to one side. Just a change in timing.

Two down.

 

[Barbarian]

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

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

So what is the point of the absence of a tail in apes?

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.

Oreopithecus was fully plantigrade. It is not unique to humans. Moreover, a number of other human and non-human hominins were plantigrade, such as H. erectus, H. ergaster, A. afarensis, etc.

Three down.

BTW, plagiarizing old creationist stories is not a good idea. They are easily disposed of.

 

[Asyncritus]

Two points.

1 What was it you said about the metatarsal ligament?

2 What was it you said about the psychological facts?

 

[lordkalvan]

Two points.

1 What was it you said about the metatarsal ligament?

2 What was it you said about the psychological facts?

And the points that Barbarian has raised? What do you have to say about those?

 

[lordkalvan]

And the points that Barbarian has raised? What do you have to say about those?

I guess that's nothing, then.....

 

[Asyncritus]

I guess that's nothing, then.....

Barbarian?

About those two questions then?

1 The metatarsal ligament

2 The psychological differences?

Any fossils or fantasises to help you out of this hole?

 

[lordkalvan]

Barbarian?

About those two questions then?

1 The metatarsal ligament

2 The psychological differences?

Any fossils or fantasises to help you out of this hole?

And the points that Barbarian has raised? What do you have to say about those? Still nothing?

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian? About those differences then?

 

[lordkalvan]

Barbarian? About those differences then?

So you still have absolutely nothing to say about the points Barbarian has raised, but simply imagine that only you can set the terms of discussion?

 

[Asyncritus]

I started the thread.

I asked the questions first.

I'm waiting for an answer.

Mind you, I don't expect to get one. But that's life with evolution, as they say.

 

[lordkalvan]

I started the thread.

I asked the questions first.

You clearly don't have a clue how a debate works, do you?

I'm waiting for an answer.

Like youth is wasted on the young, answers appear wasted on you.

Mind you, I don't expect to get one. But that's life with evolution, as they say.

What you appear to mean is that you don't expect to get one that you're willing to accept.

 

[Barbarian]

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

Oreopithecus, which is only a very distant relative of man, has such a vertebra. The skulls of A. afarensis and A. sediba also show that they had such vertebrae.

In 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.

A. afarensis and very likely A. sediba.

The human arm differs markedly from that of any anthropoid.

The human arm hangs differently from that of any anthropoid: the thumb points forward. In the apes, it points inward.

A. sediba has a human-like hand, in that and many other respects.

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.

Hand of A. sediba.

The socket for the insertion of the humerus faces outwards in man. In the apes, it faces downwards.

Take a look:

Man is unique among land animals in not possessing a covering of hair or fur.

Naked mole rats.

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.

Ever put your finger into the hand of a newborn? They grasp automatically. In newborns, the feet also "grasp" although they no longer can do it effectively. It's one of the tests for normal function in newborns.

What you don't know, can hurt you. Cribbing lists from creationist websites is no excuse for knowing what you're talking about.

 

[Asyncritus]

I'm still waiting.

I see nothing in your replies abut the two major points made.

a. The psychological gulf

b. The metatarsal ligaments.

Ignoring such mammoth differences can hurt too, and I sense that you are suffering - since you don't mention these at all.

But I live in hope.

 

[lordkalvan]

I'm still waiting.

I see nothing in your replies abut the two major points made.

a. The psychological gulf

b. The metatarsal ligaments.

Ignoring such mammoth differences can hurt too, and I sense that you are suffering - since you don't mention these at all.

But I live in hope.

So no matter how many of your 'mammoth points' are refuted or shown to be misunderstandings or misrepresentations, you remain confident that your remaining 'mammoth points' are sufficient to cause 'suffering.' Why is this, given that you can't manage rebuttals that amount to very much more than 'Nuh-uh' when various gaping holes in your arguments are exposed for what they are?

 

[Barbarian]

I see nothing in your replies abut the two major points made.

a. The psychological gulf

What mental process found in humans is not present in chimpanzees?

b. The metatarsal ligaments.

I don't see a problem. Why does the differential growth of the metatarsal ligament in utero mean anything?

 

[Asyncritus]

What mental process found in humans is not present in chimpanzees?

If you read my relevant post, then you've got to be kidding.

Even if you haven't, you've still got to be kidding.

You are kidding, aren't you? Or bluffing?

I don't see a problem. Why does the differential growth of the metatarsal ligament in utero mean anything?

You don't see a problem? Then you aren't looking too hard. Will you have a look at the relevant post, or shall I put it up again?

 

[Asyncritus]

So no matter how many of your 'mammoth points' are refuted or shown to be misunderstandings or misrepresentations,

Um, which ones?

you remain confident that your remaining 'mammoth points' are sufficient to cause 'suffering.' Why is this, given that you can't manage rebuttals that amount to very much more than 'Nuh-uh' when various gaping holes in your arguments are exposed for what they are?

In this particular case, there are 2 'gaping holes'.

a. The psychological gulf between man and chimp

b. The metatarsal ligament in man and the chimp.

You've seen Barbarian being silly (in his last post). Have a word with him, willya?