Foramen Magnum Placement

[ps418]

I'm putting this in a new thread because 1) there is some discussion about closing the Ed Thread (here), (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38346) and 2) I want a thread to discuss this narrowly-defined topic of foramen magnum placement.

Originally posted by Ed
The differences in the shape of the skulls are part of the important information differentiating humans from apes. Also, my measurements did not show australopiths being in between humans and gorillas. It showed them being closer to gorillas.

Well, then, obviously you either do not know how to use a ruler, or you suffer from some sort of perceptual disorder that prevents you from accurately measuring. In the image below are slices through the median sagittal plane for the gorilla, A. africanus, and H. sapiens, from the same illustration that you took your measurements on.

http://members.aol.com/ps418/msp.jpg

Notice that in this illustration, the FM placement in Gorilla and A. africanus does not overlap at all, whereas A. africanus and H. sapiens overlap almost completely. This would be a good time to whack yourself on the head with that ruler again.

Ps418:
What you should be looking at instead is the placement of the FM relative to the landmarks on the basicranium, for instance the bitympanic line. When this is done, you can see that the anterior margin of the FM in the gorilla lies well behind the BTL, while in H. sapiens the anterior margin of the FM just meets the BTL. Interestingly, the australopith FM is not intermediately place relative to the BTL -- it is actually a bit more anteriorly placed than H. sapiens (e.g. Sts 5, ER 406; Dean and Wood, 1982).

Ed:
Hey we finally agree on something! Except it is more than a bit!

Lol. First, the only reason you think we agree is that you still have not learned what 'anterior' means, and you literally don't know your posterior from a hole in the ground, despite the fact that I already corrected you on this point. Anterior is towards the front or ventral aspect. Your whole point has been the FM in the australopiths is posteriorly placed as in gorillas, rather than more anteriorly placed, as in H. sapiens. Even in light of your previous blockbuster performance, I find it hard to believe that you made this very same error again! You earn another whack with the ruler for that one. And yes, the difference in FM placement between australopithecus and H. sapiens quite obviously is trivial.

Ps418:
Also, ER 1813, which virtually all creationist paleoanthropologists would regard as an australopith or ape, despite being assigned to H. habilis, has a FM placement exactly the same as H. sapiens (Wood and Dean, 1982). And OH 24, which is also assigned to H. habilis, which is specimen E in Oolon's image above, and which you have already judged to be human, has an FM placement exactly like the australopiths.


Ed:
There must be some mistake here. Two members of the same species have FM in different places on their skulls?? Something is not right in Kansas.

You're slow, but you're finally catching on! There is indeed a mistake here. The mistake is with your ridiculous overgeneralization to entire genera based on a single illustration of a single specimen, and your 'measurement' itself, which is obviously confounded by the fact that the degree of facial prognathism and occipital expansion varies dramatically within and between the genera of interest. As I already showed, when you consider the placement of the FM relative to the basicranial landmarks, the australopiths were 'more human than humans,' whereas if you consider the FM placement in other ways, the australopiths are merely intermediate. In either case, the character obviously aligns the australopiths with homonids and is hardly a problem with the hypothesis of Australopithecus-Homo common ancestry. Further, it matters not one iota which species you assign the two crania (ER 1813 and OH 24) to, because either way it shows that the range of variation in FM placement in supposed supposed 'apes' (and indeed, that's what most creationists think ER 1813 and OH 24 are) overlaps completely that in humans.

Ed:
Have you got drawings and evidence of this weird fact? This sounds pretty far fetched.

Why, of course, Ed. I have evidence for every claim I make, otherwise I wouldn't be making it. I realize this may seem like a strange practice to someone with your background, but its true. From Aiello and Dean (Human Evolutionary Anatomy, 1990, pp. 211-212):

"The relative position of the foramen magnum has also been assessed in basal view using the bitympanic line across the cranial base as a reference plane. In this way, the influence of the face and nuchal regions on assessment of position can be overcome . . . When studied in this way great apes all have a foramen magnum that lies well behind the bitympanic line even during infancy and so are quite distinct from early fossil homonids and modern Homo sapiens. The anterior margin of the foramen magnum in Paranthropus lies consistently in front of the bitympanic line; the foramen magnum of Australopithecus africanus also lies just in front of the bitympanic line. . . Some specimens attributed to early Homo (SK 847, OH 24, and KNM ER 1805) have a foramen magnum whose anterior margin, like that of Paranthropus, lies in well in front of the bitympanic line. However, modern Homo as well as other fossils attributed to early Homo (KNM ER 1813, 3733, and 3883) have a foramen magnum whose anterior margin lies on or slightly behind the bitympanic line"

And its hard to see what you think the problem is with within-genus or even within-species variation in FM placement. After all, by classifying ER 1470 as a human, your are allowing for an utterly enormous range of variation in cranio-facial features. Talk about straining a gnat and swallowing a camel! If you are making even a minimal attempt at consistency, it certainly does not show.

Ed:
If what you say is true, then the location of the FM is totally trivial and irrelevant to telling us anything about determining even the SPECIES of hominid much less the family or genus!

Nah. It just tells us that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. I scanned an illustration for you, from Aeillo and Dean (p. 211), and it includes Gorilla, H. sapiens, H. erectus, a couple of australopiths, and ER 1813. It does not include OH 24, unfortunately.

http://members.aol.com/ps418/fm.jpg


Ed:
Why don't you whack yourself whacker boy?

Because I'm not packing every post with an ark-load of excruciatingly simplistic methodological errors, false factual claims, and self-contradictions. When and if I begin to do so, I will judge myself far more harshly that you judge yourself.

Patrick

Edited to add link to now closed Ed Thread for historical research purposes. May it rest in peace.

- Didymus

[Oolon Colluphid]

Nice post Patrick!

Just one question: please pardon my ignorance, but since you've scanned and posted it, perhaps you can explain just what the Aiello & Dean diagrams mean please? I've got the book too, as you know, but while I'm sure they're revelatory, I can't make head nor tail -- or should I say anterior nor posterior -- out of them! Are they mathematical representations or something? I thought the circle was the FM, but what's the triangular stuff to the sides?

Cheers, Oolon the anatomically inept

[Ed]

Originally posted by ps418
I'm putting this in a new thread because 1) there is some discussion about closing the Ed Thread (here), and 2) I want a thread to discuss this narrowly-defined topic of foramen magnum placement.

Yes, they closed it, since the only subject that is being revived is the foramen magnum, I am assuming that they are conceding defeat on the other subjects ;)



Originally posted by Ed
The differences in the shape of the skulls are part of the important information differentiating humans from apes. Also, my measurements did not show australopiths being in between humans and gorillas. It showed them being closer to gorillas.


ps: Well, then, obviously you either do not know how to use a ruler, or you suffer from some sort of perceptual disorder that prevents you from accurately measuring. In the image below are slices through the median sagittal plane for the gorilla, A. africanus, and H. sapiens, from the same illustration that you took your measurements on.

Notice that in this illustration, the FM placement in Gorilla and A. africanus does not overlap at all, whereas A. africanus and H. sapiens overlap almost completely. This would be a good time to whack yourself on the head with that ruler again.

But those measurements are from the front teeth. By measuring from the front teeth it distorts the location of the FM for the gorilla and the australopith, because of the prognathism. By measuring the from that location it causes it to appear to be more basal than it actually is. Even a dog FM would appear basal with that measuring point!



ps418:
Also, ER 1813, which virtually all creationist paleoanthropologists would regard as an australopith or ape, despite being assigned to H. habilis, has a FM placement exactly the same as H. sapiens (Wood and Dean, 1982). And OH 24, which is also assigned to H. habilis, which is specimen E in Oolon's image above, and which you have already judged to be human, has an FM placement exactly like the australopiths.

Ed:
There must be some mistake here. Two members of the same species have FM in different places on their skulls?? Something is not right in Kansas.

ps: You're slow, but you're finally catching on! There is indeed a mistake here. The mistake is with your ridiculous overgeneralization to entire genera based on a single illustration of a single specimen, and your 'measurement' itself, which is obviously confounded by the fact that the degree of facial prognathism and occipital expansion varies dramatically within and between the genera of interest. As I already showed, when you consider the placement of the FM relative to the basicranial landmarks, the australopiths were 'more human than humans,' whereas if you consider the FM placement in other ways, the australopiths are merely intermediate. In either case, the character obviously aligns the australopiths with homonids and is hardly a problem with the hypothesis of Australopithecus-Homo common ancestry. Further, it matters not one iota which species you assign the two crania (ER 1813 and OH 24) to, because either way it shows that the range of variation in FM placement in supposed supposed 'apes' (and indeed, that's what most creationists think ER 1813 and OH 24 are) overlaps completely that in humans.

So basically what you are saying is that the placement of the FM is totally irrelevant to classification of hominids! I think many anthropologists would disagree with you. Also I mentioned another fossil that had a skull very similar to those two,ie OH 62, where the post cranial material is very australopithicinelike, it is shorter than even Lucy. So my determination that they are human should probably be revised.



Ed:
Have you got drawings and evidence of this weird fact? This sounds pretty far fetched.

ps: Why, of course, Ed. I have evidence for every claim I make, otherwise I wouldn't be making it. I realize this may seem like a strange practice to someone with your background, but its true. From Aiello and Dean (Human Evolutionary Anatomy, 1990, pp. 211-212):

Huh? Where have I not provided evidence?



"The relative position of the foramen magnum has also been assessed in basal view using the bitympanic line across the cranial base as a reference plane. In this way, the influence of the face and nuchal regions on assessment of position can be overcome . . . When studied in this way great apes all have a foramen magnum that lies well behind the bitympanic line even during infancy and so are quite distinct from early fossil homonids and modern Homo sapiens. The anterior margin of the foramen magnum in Paranthropus lies consistently in front of the bitympanic line; the foramen magnum of Australopithecus africanus also lies just in front of the bitympanic line. . . Some specimens attributed to early Homo (SK 847, OH 24, and KNM ER 1805) have a foramen magnum whose anterior margin, like that of Paranthropus, lies in well in front of the bitympanic line. However, modern Homo as well as other fossils attributed to early Homo (KNM ER 1813, 3733, and 3883) have a foramen magnum whose anterior margin lies on or slightly behind the bitympanic line"


And its hard to see what you think the problem is with within-genus or even within-species variation in FM placement. After all, by classifying ER 1470 as a human, your are allowing for an utterly enormous range of variation in cranio-facial features. Talk about straining a gnat and swallowing a camel! If you are making even a minimal attempt at consistency, it certainly does not show.

This still does not refute my above contention that you have dealt a death blow to any use for the FM in determining a species genus or even family. And even modern humans have a large range of cranio facial features as shown by the Kow Swamp fossils.



Ed:
If what you say is true, then the location of the FM is totally trivial and irrelevant to telling us anything about determining even the SPECIES of hominid much less the family or genus!

ps: Nah. It just tells us that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. I scanned an illustration for you, from Aeillo and Dean (p. 211), and it includes Gorilla, H. sapiens, H. erectus, a couple of australopiths, and ER 1813. It does not include OH 24, unfortunately.

See above.


Ed:
Why don't you whack yourself whacker boy?

ps:Because I'm not packing every post with an ark-load of excruciatingly simplistic methodological errors, false factual claims, and self-contradictions. When and if I begin to do so, I will judge myself far more harshly that you judge yourself.

Patrick



Evidence?

[Ergaster]

If I may:

The circle is the FM, the dots are landmarks on the basicranium, and the lines connect them. Aiello and Dean, alas, do not explain what each of these landmarks are, but give a reference: Dean and Wood 1982 Basicranial anatomy of Plio-Pliestocene hominids from East and South Africa. AJPA 59:157-174. I don't have this article, so I can only guess at the landmarks. The dots at the apex of the triangles are no doubt the external auditory meatus, and probably the dot/circle along the horizontal line that connect them is the carotid canal.

As for the rest: there are a number of possible candidates for each, so all I can do is guess. Possibly the short horizontal line at the end of the short vertical line that runs up from the FM represents hormion, a landmark represented by the posterior edge of the sphenoid. If so, then the black dots near it might be the foramen lucerum, and the open ovals above that the foramen ovale.

But I could be completely wrong. :)

I shouldn't get into this discussion, because a) I simply couldn't make myself plow through that enormous thread and probably have missed important bits and b) I'll be leaving for a week and won't be online. But anyway, a couple of points.

The position of the FM is not used to *classify* hominoids (so yeah, I am disagreeing with Ed!). It can be indicative of postural behaviour, which in turn, and with other more important information, can influence how we identify a fossil, but we can certainly classify a fossil as a hominid or hominin in the absence of a preserved foramen magnum. It is done all the time, in fact.

Despite the sort of "formalized" discussions in tomes such as Aiello and Dean, in reality the determination of the placement of the FM is rather more subjective than people realize. The general explanation is via the use of the "bitympanic line", but no-one has specified where, exactly, one places the "line" in relation to the external auditory meatus: is it at the anterior edge of the opening? The posterior? At the midpoint? "Somewhere around there" seems to be "good enough". As well, one can also use the bicarotid line, a line drawn between the carotid foramina, but once again with a bit of fuzziness in actual determination.

The point is that *in general*, and with some minor variation due to intraspecific variation, taxonomic fuzziness, and preservational distortion, the placement of the FM in extinct hominins *tends* to be intermediate between the great apes and living humans. Hominins are identified (and certainly classified) on far more important evidence than the placement of the FM, so if a fossil happens to have an FM that seems slightly "off", that alone cannot disqualify it from being a hominin.

Deb


Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Nice post Patrick!

Just one question: please pardon my ignorance, but since you've scanned and posted it, perhaps you can explain just what the Aiello & Dean diagrams mean please? I've got the book too, as you know, but while I'm sure they're revelatory, I can't make head nor tail -- or should I say anterior nor posterior -- out of them! Are they mathematical representations or something? I thought the circle was the FM, but what's the triangular stuff to the sides?

Cheers, Oolon the anatomically inept

[Doubting Didymus]

Yes, they closed it, since the only subject that is being revived is the foramen magnum, I am assuming that they are conceding defeat on the other subjects

There is a currently active noahs ark/global flood thread if you feel like it, and you can start any other topics yourself. The idea is being able to keep discussions on topic.

[Ed]

So far Patrick is unable to refute my post, it has been about 48 hours. I'm waiting..........:cool:

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Ed
So far Patrick is unable to refute my post, it has been about 48 hours. I'm waiting..........:cool:
Ed, you've just broken my irony meter.

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Ed, you've just broken my irony meter.

And reduced mine to writhing on the floor, howling with helpless laughter. Ed, if it shits on the rug, I'm sending you the cleaning bill!

doov

[ps418]

Ed:
Yes, they closed it, since the only subject that is being revived is the foramen magnum, I am assuming that they are conceding defeat on the other subjects

As with many of your other beliefs, this one does not actually have any basis in reality. In fact, I've never seen a single person so decisively refuted so many times in a single thread.

Ed:
But those measurements are from the front teeth. By measuring from the front teeth it distorts the location of the FM for the gorilla and the australopith, because of the prognathism.

Yes, this is a point I've been trying to drill into your head for the past week or so. I'm glad that it finally seems to have sunken in. However, as my quote points out, its not just the facial prognathism that confounds the between-species comparisons, but also the degree of occipital expansion. This is precisely why we've been discussing the placement of the FM relative to the landmarks on the basicranium, which overcomes both the influence of facial prognathism and occiptal expansion. As I've been saying all along, considered in this way, the placement of the australopith FM is even more anteriorly placed than in H. sapiens, rather than intermediate between H. sapiens and Gorilla, refuting your claim that the FM placment in australopiths is inconsistent with obligate bipedality. Whether australopiths were obligate bipeds or not, the FM placement in itself certainly does not prove that they were not.

Ed:
By measuring the from that location it causes it to appear to be more basal than it actually is.

Its obvious from the context here that you do not know what the word 'basal' means. I looked back though your posts on the E/C thread, and you repeatedly use the word in a nonsensical way there too. In some instances, you appear to mean 'posterior,' and in other instance you appear to mean 'primitive,' though in no case is it clear from the context exactly what you mean. At any rate, it is clear that if you corrected for the greater prognathism in A. africanus, this would make the FM placement in A. africanus and H. sapiens more similar, not more different, because the FM in A. africanus would then be shifted anteriorly, thus aligning even better with the FM of H. sapiens.

Ed:
So basically what you are saying is that the placement of the FM is totally irrelevant to classification of hominids! . . . a death blow to any use for the FM in determining a species genus or even family.

A glaringly obvious nonsequiter. What my observations about the FM palcement in OH 24 and ER 1813 indicate is not that " the placement of the FM is totally irrelevant to classification of hominids," merely that there is a range of variation in H. habilis in the placement of the FM relative to the BTL, so that this one character, in isolation, does not reliably discriminate every H. habilis specimen from later homonid taxa. However, FM placement still discriminates Australopithecus from H. rudolphensis, H. ergaster, H. erectus, and H. sapiens. So, no FM placement is not at all 'irrelevant' to homonid classification, although there is some variation within Australopithecus and Homo.

But even if it were true that my observations indicated that "the placement of the FM is totally irrelevant to classification of hominids," this would hardly be a problem for any position of mine. This would be no different from many, many other characters, for instance, pelvic morphology, which easily and reliably differentiates H. sapiens from extant primates, but does not reliably differentiate between extinct homonid taxa, who either share these features or having overlapping distributions of these features. For instance, there range of homonid cranial capacities also shows considerable within-species and within-genus variation, and between-species overlap, and so by itself this one character does not perfectly differentiate homonid species. Big deal.

And further, just because a character does not perfectly differentiate between species does not mean it is useless, since character states can overlap between species but still have dramatically different distributions between species. For instance, if character A is present in 90% of species 1, and character A is absent in 90% of species 2, this would not mean the character is irrelevant, but you would want to consider other characters as well. For example, Schaefer (1999) showed that while the relationship between the carotid foramina and the foramen magnum does indeed "on average" distinguish humans from chimps, there is "considerable overlap between species, indicating that the distance from the foramen magum to the bicarotid cord is not a certain indicator." Luckily for paleoanthropologists, skeletal anatomy provides numerous characters that allow for finer-grained taxonomic subdivision.


Ed:
I think many anthropologists would disagree with you.

Many would indeed disagree with your obvious nonsequiter, and indeed with just about everything you're ever written about fossil homonids, but few would disagree with what I actually wrote.

Ed:
Also I mentioned another fossil that had a skull very similar to those two,ie OH 62, where the post cranial material is very australopithicinelike, it is shorter than even Lucy.

Your psychic powers are truly amazing. After all, aside from a small piece of the maxilla, there is no cranium with OH 62, so your claim that the skull of OH 62 is "very similar" to OH 24 and KNM ER 1813 is a gross overstatement, unless you are referring to maxillary morphology alone. Second, there are no postcranial bones associated with either OH 24 and ER 1813, so there simply is not the material to compare the skull or postcranial skeleton of OH 62 with those of OH 24 and ER 1813, or to determine the range of postcranial variation that existed in H. habilis.

And to repeat, no creationist anthropologist would call ER 1813 (H. habilis) a member of the 'human kind,' and instead would refer this fossil to australopithecus, which is not totally unreasonable, but in which case there can be no other conclusion but that the FM placement in some australopiths basically duplicates that of H. sapiens, which of course would refute your original claim on the E/C thread that there is a 'significant' gap in FM placement between Homo and Australopithecus. Frankly the differences were very small to begin with, but would be made even less signficant by including ER 1813 into Australopithecus. However, its not just the FM placement that aligns ER 1813 with Homo, but other basicranial characters as well. Dean and Wood (1982, p. 171) note that "the pattern of basicranial morphology in KNM-ER 1813 is strongly in favor of its inclusion in Homo, and for it not to be regarded as a 'gracile' australopithecine."

http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/hominids/oh62.jpg
Yeah, its spooky how similar that cranium is to ER 1813 and OH 24. . .

Ed:
So my determination that they are human should probably be revised.

This is about the tenth time you've changed your homonid taxonomy. From ape to human and back again. I guess those fossils are very hard to sort into human and ape bins after all. Let me know when you finally do decide which specimens are human and which are not.

Ed:
And even modern humans have a large range of cranio facial features as shown by the Kow Swamp fossils.

Which only begs the question of why you seem to think there is a problem with accepting within-species or within-genus variation in FM placement. However, I don't know why you use the Kow Swamp H. sapiens fossils to make your point that there exist lots of variation. You've already accepted the common ancestry of ER 1470 (H. rudolphensis), H. ergaster, H. erectus. and H. sapiens, which entails a far, far greater range of variation in all sorts of skeletal characters. For you to now express puzzlement that there exists within-genus or even within-species variation in FM placement is odd, to say the least. You are truly straining and gnat and swallowing a camel.

Oolon,

As it turns out, Dean and Wood (1982) do give some information on ER 1470 basicranium, but not on the placement of the FM, which is not preserved (this paper looks at several different basicranial characters, not just FM placement). As far as can be determined, the basicrania of ER 1470 and ER 1813 are very similar, and both are similar to later homonids. They conclude that:

". . . the homonid group KNM-ER 1470 most closely resembles is Homo erectus. There are clear contrasts between the cranial base of KNM-ER 1470 and that of the 'gracile' australopithecines, and the breadth across the infratemporal crests distinguishes it from 'robust' australopithecine crania. Although the overall morphology of the cranial vault and the face of KNM-ER 1470 set it apart from crania and calottes attributed to Homo erectus, the form of its cranial base suggests that if it assigned to Homo habilis then the cranial base of this taxon had already developed some of the probable derived features we presently associate with Homo erectus and Homo sapiens" (p. 170-171).

Patrick

[Ed]

Originally posted by ps418

Ed:
Yes, they closed it, since the only subject that is being revived is the foramen magnum, I am assuming that they are conceding defeat on the other subjects

ps: As with many of your other beliefs, this one does not actually have any basis in reality. In fact, I've never seen a single person so decisively refuted so many times in a single thread.

Name one.



Ed:
But those measurements are from the front teeth. By measuring from the front teeth it distorts the location of the FM for the gorilla and the australopith, because of the prognathism.


ps: Yes, this is a point I've been trying to drill into your head for the past week or so. I'm glad that it finally seems to have sunken in. However, as my quote points out, its not just the facial prognathism that confounds the between-species comparisons, but also the degree of occipital expansion. This is precisely why we've been discussing the placement of the FM relative to the landmarks on the basicranium, which overcomes both the influence of facial prognathism and occiptal expansion. As I've been saying all along, considered in this way, the placement of the australopith FM is even more anteriorly placed than in H. sapiens, rather than intermediate between H. sapiens and Gorilla, refuting your claim that the FM placment in australopiths is inconsistent with obligate bipedality. Whether australopiths were obligate bipeds or not, the FM placement in itself certainly does not prove that they were not.


Ed:
By measuring the from that location it causes it to appear to be more basal than it actually is.

ps: Its obvious from the context here that you do not know what the word 'basal' means. I looked back though your posts on the E/C thread, and you repeatedly use the word in a nonsensical way there too. In some instances, you appear to mean 'posterior,' and in other instance you appear to mean 'primitive,' though in no case is it clear from the context exactly what you mean. At any rate, it is clear that if you corrected for the greater prognathism in A. africanus, this would make the FM placement in A. africanus and H. sapiens more similar, not more different, because the FM in A. africanus would then be shifted anteriorly, thus aligning even better with the FM of H. sapiens.

No, given that my point is the relationship to locomotion, my measurement from the back of the teeth makes more sense. This correlates better with the weight of the front of the skull, which determines the placement of the neck muscles and probably the placement of the spine for an animal that is quadrapedal for periods of time. In order for an animal whose eyes are placed forward-facing, the pivot point (FM) needs to be more posterior otherwise there would be greater strain on the neck muscles. This can be confirmed by getting on all fours yourself and you will realize it is difficult to hold your head in a forward position for an extended period of time.



Ed:
So basically what you are saying is that the placement of the FM is totally irrelevant to classification of hominids! . . . a death blow to any use for the FM in determining a species genus or even family.


ps: A glaringly obvious nonsequiter. What my observations about the FM palcement in OH 24 and ER 1813 indicate is not that " the placement of the FM is totally irrelevant to classification of hominids," merely that there is a range of variation in H. habilis in the placement of the FM relative to the BTL, so that this one character, in isolation, does not reliably discriminate every H. habilis specimen from later homonid taxa. However, FM placement still discriminates Australopithecus from H. rudolphensis, H. ergaster, H. erectus, and H. sapiens. So, no FM placement is not at all 'irrelevant' to homonid classification, although there is some variation within Australopithecus and Homo.

No, you stated that one has a FM in Australopith postion and one in the human position and yet they are both homo habilis. That makes its position irrelevant. You failed to adequately address this.

ps: But even if it were true that my observations indicated that "the placement of the FM is totally irrelevant to classification of hominids," this would hardly be a problem for any position of mine. This would be no different from many, many other characters, for instance, pelvic morphology, which easily and reliably differentiates H. sapiens from extant primates, but does not reliably differentiate between extinct homonid taxa, who either share these features or having overlapping distributions of these features. For instance, there range of homonid cranial capacities also shows considerable within-species and within-genus variation, and between-species overlap, and so by itself this one character does not perfectly differentiate homonid species. Big deal.

I never claimed that the FM is the one and only distinctive character.

ps: And further, just because a character does not perfectly differentiate between species does not mean it is useless, since character states can overlap between species but still have dramatically different distributions between species. For instance, if character A is present in 90% of species 1, and character A is absent in 90% of species 2, this would not mean the character is irrelevant, but you would want to consider other characters as well. For example, Schaefer (1999) showed that while the relationship between the carotid foramina and the foramen magnum does indeed "on average" distinguish humans from chimps, there is "considerable overlap between species, indicating that the distance from the foramen magum to the bicarotid cord is not a certain indicator." Luckily for paleoanthropologists, skeletal anatomy provides numerous characters that allow for finer-grained taxonomic subdivision.

Agreed, see above.




Ed:
I think many anthropologists would disagree with you.

ps: Many would indeed disagree with your obvious nonsequiter, and indeed with just about everything you're ever written about fossil homonids, but few would disagree with what I actually wrote.

Evidence?



Ed:
Also I mentioned another fossil that had a skull very similar to those two,ie OH 62, where the post cranial material is very australopithicinelike, it is shorter than even Lucy.


ps: Your psychic powers are truly amazing. After all, aside from a small piece of the maxilla, there is no cranium with OH 62, so your claim that the skull of OH 62 is "very similar" to OH 24 and KNM ER 1813 is a gross overstatement, unless you are referring to maxillary morphology alone. Second, there are no postcranial bones associated with either OH 24 and ER 1813, so there simply is not the material to compare the skull or postcranial skeleton of OH 62 with those of OH 24 and ER 1813, or to determine the range of postcranial variation that existed in H. habilis.

I was referring to maxillary morphology and teeth. They are very similar to the teeth and parts of skull. There have more significant conclusions than that in anthropology with even less evidence.

ps: And to repeat, no creationist anthropologist would call ER 1813 (H. habilis) a member of the 'human kind,' and instead would refer this fossil to australopithecus, which is not totally unreasonable, but in which case there can be no other conclusion but that the FM placement in some australopiths basically duplicates that of H. sapiens, which of course would refute your original claim on the E/C thread that there is a 'significant' gap in FM placement between Homo and Australopithecus. Frankly the differences were very small to begin with, but would be made even less signficant by including ER 1813 into Australopithecus. However, its not just the FM placement that aligns ER 1813 with Homo, but other basicranial characters as well. Dean and Wood (1982, p. 171) note that "the pattern of basicranial morphology in KNM-ER 1813 is strongly in favor of its inclusion in Homo, and for it not to be regarded as a 'gracile' australopithecine."

See my statement above about the location of the measurement.



Yeah, its spooky how similar that cranium is to ER 1813 and OH 24. . .

Read the May 1987 issue of Nature, I think there was more skull material than you claim.



Ed:
And even modern humans have a large range of cranio facial features as shown by the Kow Swamp fossils.

ps: Which only begs the question of why you seem to think there is a problem with accepting within-species or within-genus variation in FM placement. However, I don't know why you use the Kow Swamp H. sapiens fossils to make your point that there exist lots of variation. You've already accepted the common ancestry of ER 1470 (H. rudolphensis), H. ergaster, H. erectus. and H. sapiens, which entails a far, far greater range of variation in all sorts of skeletal characters. For you to now express puzzlement that there exists within-genus or even within-species variation in FM placement is odd, to say the least. You are truly straining and gnat and swallowing a camel.


No, I said 1470 was too damaged to make a definite call.

[ps418]

ps418:
As with many of your other beliefs, this one does not actually have any basis in reality. In fact, I've never seen a single person so decisively refuted so many times in a single thread.

Ed:
Name one.

Sure. How many examples would you like? You can find about 38 pages worth on the E/C thread. But if you'd like some specific and uncontroversial examples, here's one, from a post on June 1:

"But there are modern birds among archaeopteryxes."

As I showed you in detail, there is no plausible interpretation of this statement which is correct. There are no "modern" birds, by which I mean birds belonging to an existing order of aves, until the Cretaceous, long after Archaeopteryx.

And here's another. On June 15th, referring to the foramen magnum, you said that:

"australopithicines ARE apes in every other characteristic"

There is no plausible interpretation of this statement which is correct. There are a variety of postcranial and dental characters that australopiths share with humans but not with apes. If you'd like to defend either of these claims, then let's start a new thread for that specific topic.

Ed:
No, given that my point is the relationship to locomotion, my measurement from the back of the teeth makes more sense.

Since you don't appear to be even approaching an understanding of the points I've raised, this will be the last time I explain the following point to you: we have discussed two different ways to compare the position of the FM in primates. In the first way, the way you initially compared them, the placement of the FM in australopiths is intermediate between gorilla and H. sapiens. However, I pointed out, and subsequently you have agreed, that this type of measure is confounded by the fact that the degree of maxillary prognathism and occipital expansion varies between the specimens being compared. The influence of these differences can be ovecome by measuring in relation to basicranial landmarks. When measured in this way, the FM in australopiths are seen to actually be more anteriorly placed than in H. sapiens, rather than intermediate between gorilla and H. sapiens.

Ed:
No, you stated that one has a FM in Australopith postion and one in the human position and yet they are both homo habilis. That makes its position irrelevant. You failed to adequately address this.

I addressed it more than adequately, and showed precisely how you were wrong. You failed to understand the simple logic of what I said. I'll explain one more time. Your claim that within-species differences in FM placment in H. habilis makes the placement of the FM "totally irrelevant to classification of hominids," is a simple and obvious non-sequiter. For instance, I could easily discriminate any known australopith species from H. ergaster, H. erectus, and H. sapiens. It would be unwise, however, to try to diagnose H. habilis based solely on FM placement, however, and that is the only sense in which FM placement is 'irrelevant.'

Ed:
I was referring to maxillary morphology and teeth. They are very similar to the teeth and parts of skull.

What you actually said -- as opposed to what you now say you meant- is that OH 62 "had a skull very similar to" that of OH 24 and ER 1813. Next time you wish to refer to maxilla and teeth, say "maxilla and teeth," not skull.

Ed:
No, I said 1470 was too damaged to make a definite call.

Indeed, you've made numerous, contradictory claims about ER 1470. For instance, on June 1 you cited a paper by Dean Falk which claims that "the endocast of KNM-ER 1470 is shaped like that of a modern human," and back on Mar 8, 2002, you stated that it was "rather obvious" that ER 1813, OH24, and ER 1470 are humans (these are specimens D,E, and F in Oolon's image).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Of course, subsequently you changed your mind yet again, which is precisely my point -- by repeatedly moving fossils from human to ape and back again, you have proven yourself unable to meet Oolon's challenge to sort fossil homonids in human and ape bins.

Patrick

[GunnerJ]

ps: As with many of your other beliefs, this one does not actually have any basis in reality. In fact, I've never seen a single person so decisively refuted so many times in a single thread.


Name one.

No, no, he said he hasn't seen anyone who's been refuted as many times as you.

[Ed]

Originally posted by ps418

ps418:
As with many of your other beliefs, this one does not actually have any basis in reality. In fact, I've never seen a single person so decisively refuted so many times in a single thread.

Ed:
Name one.

ps: Sure. How many examples would you like? You can find about 38 pages worth on the E/C thread. But if you'd like some specific and uncontroversial examples, here's one, from a post on June 1:

"But there are modern birds among archaeopteryxes."

As I showed you in detail, there is no plausible interpretation of this statement which is correct. There are no "modern" birds, by which I mean birds belonging to an existing order of aves, until the Cretaceous, long after Archaeopteryx.

That was basically just a late night typo, I meant 100% birds.



ps: And here's another. On June 15th, referring to the foramen magnum, you said that:

"australopithicines ARE apes in every other characteristic"

There is no plausible interpretation of this statement which is correct. There are a variety of postcranial and dental characters that australopiths share with humans but not with apes. If you'd like to defend either of these claims, then let's start a new thread for that specific topic.

The primary differences between humans and apes are not skeletal, they are mental. And all the evidence related to the mental capacities of australopithicines points to them being apes.



Ed:
No, given that my point is the relationship to locomotion, my measurement from the back of the teeth makes more sense.

ps: Since you don't appear to be even approaching an understanding of the points I've raised, this will be the last time I explain the following point to you: we have discussed two different ways to compare the position of the FM in primates. In the first way, the way you initially compared them, the placement of the FM in australopiths is intermediate between gorilla and H. sapiens. However, I pointed out, and subsequently you have agreed, that this type of measure is confounded by the fact that the degree of maxillary prognathism and occipital expansion varies between the specimens being compared. The influence of these differences can be ovecome by measuring in relation to basicranial landmarks. When measured in this way, the FM in australopiths are seen to actually be more anteriorly placed than in H. sapiens, rather than intermediate between gorilla and H. sapiens.

See my post above about how prognathism affects weight distribution of the skull.



Ed:
No, you stated that one has a FM in Australopith postion and one in the human position and yet they are both homo habilis. That makes its position irrelevant. You failed to adequately address this.

ps: I addressed it more than adequately, and showed precisely how you were wrong. You failed to understand the simple logic of what I said. I'll explain one more time. Your claim that within-species differences in FM placment in H. habilis makes the placement of the FM "totally irrelevant to classification of hominids," is a simple and obvious non-sequiter. For instance, I could easily discriminate any known australopith species from H. ergaster, H. erectus, and H. sapiens. It would be unwise, however, to try to diagnose H. habilis based solely on FM placement, however, and that is the only sense in which FM placement is 'irrelevant.'

I never said that FM placement is the ONLY criteria. But see above concerning the use of my measurement.



Ed:
I was referring to maxillary morphology and teeth. They are very similar to the teeth and parts of skull.

ps: What you actually said -- as opposed to what you now say you meant- is that OH 62 "had a skull very similar to" that of OH 24 and ER 1813. Next time you wish to refer to maxilla and teeth, say "maxilla and teeth," not skull.

My source used the term skull. See article from Nature above.



Ed:
No, I said 1470 was too damaged to make a definite call.

ps: Indeed, you've made numerous, contradictory claims about ER 1470. For instance, on June 1 you cited a paper by Dean Falk which claims that "the endocast of KNM-ER 1470 is shaped like that of a modern human," and back on Mar 8, 2002, you stated that it was "rather obvious" that ER 1813, OH24, and ER 1470 are humans (these are specimens D,E, and F in Oolon's image).

Of course, subsequently you changed your mind yet again, which is precisely my point -- by repeatedly moving fossils from human to ape and back again, you have proven yourself unable to meet Oolon's challenge to sort fossil homonids in human and ape bins.

Patrick


I stated that they appeared to be human given the fragmentary evidence we had but that the damage is too great to say anything definitive.

[lpetrich]

Ed:
That was basically just a late night typo, I meant 100% birds.

And what, O Ed, do you mean by "100% birds"?

Ed:
The primary differences between humans and apes are not skeletal, they are mental. And all the evidence related to the mental capacities of australopithicines points to them being apes.

That would imply that Homo erectus, the Neanderthals, and similar species are not quite human, since their mental capabilities do not quite compare to those of Homo sapiens (sapiens).

That is evident from their artifacts. The Cro-Magnons were essentially our present-day species, and they made a lot of cave art and statuettes and the like -- their artifacts even had regional variation.

Predecessors, however, did much less of that -- there aren't a lot of cave paintings that were made by Neanderthals and earlier species, and their stone tools were much more stereotyped.

[ps418]

Ps418:
"But there are modern birds among archaeopteryxes."

As I showed you in detail, there is no plausible interpretation of this statement which is correct. There are no "modern" birds, by which I mean birds belonging to an existing order of aves, until the Cretaceous, long after Archaeopteryx.


Ed:
That was basically just a late night typo, I meant 100% birds.

No, it was not a a 'typo.' A typo is misspelling a word or using bad punctuation. I know because I have much experience with them. Your statement was obviously not a typo, it was a specific and false empirical claim. If it were a typo, you would have quickly corrected it, without having to be called to do so 10 times. Why not just admit your mistake, rather than destroy what's left of your credibility with such frankly implausible rationalizations?

Furthermore, Ed, your response proves that you still haven't adequately appreciated your error. Allow me to explain. Again.

There are a few different ways I can interpret "100% birds." First, you may mean 'a member of the class aves.' If that is the case, than your point is obviously nonsensical, since Archaeopteryx itself is a member of aves. And it is false to boot: the next youngest known members of aves are millions of years younger than Archie. So on this intepretation, your claim is nonsensical and factually false.

A second interpetation of "100% bird" is 'a member of an extant order of aves.' On that meaning, your claim is not as nonsensical, but still completely false, since the earliest fossils attributed to an extant order of aves are known from the Cretaceous, long after Archaeopteryx.

A third, more charitable interpretation of "100% bird" is simply as 'member of aves with many derived characters present in modern birds but not seen in Archaeopteryx.' Again, this claim is false. The earliest fossil aves showing such characters (e.g. tail reduction, pelvic fusion, tarsometatarsus, carpometacarpus, loss of teeth, etc.) are known from the Cretaceous, long after Archaeopteryx.

So, just as your original claim that moden birds exist alongside Archie proved to be unequivocally false, your new claim that '100% birds' exist alongside Archie is either false or nonsensical, depending on how you wish to interpret '100% bird.' Are you ready to admit your error yet? Or will you remain in painfully obvious denial of the facts?

Patrick

[ps418]

Ed:
The primary differences between humans and apes are not skeletal, they are mental. And all the evidence related to the mental capacities of australopithicines points to them being apes.

All of the osteological evidence which would allow one to make inferences about mental capacities points to the transition from Australopithecus to creationist-undisputed-human being step-wise and relatively gradual. For instance, both within and between species, there is a correlation between cognition and brain volume, and the evolution of brain volume in homonids is obviously gradual. For instance, the earliest H. ergaster, D2700, has a cranial capacity of around 600cc. . .

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700_side.jpg

. . . while ER 1813, which most creationists would refer to Australopithecus, has a cranial capacity of about 510cc. And ER 1813 is extremely similar to the ER 1470, which according to Falk displays endocast evidence for Broca's area.

Actually, no matter where you draw the line, there is no major leap from ape to human cranial volume. And certainly, as Lpetrich notes, there is no archaeological evidence to support the assertion that the earliest humans possessed all of the mental capacities that modern humans possess, which is hardly suprising given that their brain volumes were about half that of the average H. sapien.

Patrick

[lpetrich]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/brainsize.gif, from this talk.origins article on brain sizes (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_brains.html). The brain-size continuity is remarkable.

Also, check out Java Man and Turkana Boy (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java15000.html), two Homo erectus specimens. Creationist Duane Gish has claimed at various times that Java Man was some kind of ape and that the Turkana Boy was human. But here are their crania overlaid, JM on top of TB:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/overlay1.jpg
Finally, check out this page on creationist taxonomic gerrymandering (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html).

[lpetrich]

It seems to me that Ed is getting his ideas from the creationist Marvin Lubenow, who claims that Homo erectus and H. sapiens were one and the same species. Lubenow's favorite evidence is the Kow Swamp fossils, which he claims are H. erectus. However, most other paleoanthropologists disagree, as explained briefly here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html#kow), and in more detail here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/kowswamp.html).

[Ed]

Originally posted by GunnerJ
Name one. [quote]

No, no, he said he hasn't seen anyone who's been refuted as many times as you.

Har har har, very funny....NOT!

[Ed]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Ed:
That was basically just a late night typo, I meant 100% birds.

lp: And what, O Ed, do you mean by "100% birds"?

Creatures having the characteristics of birds.

Ed:
The primary differences between humans and apes are not skeletal, they are mental. And all the evidence related to the mental capacities of australopithicines points to them being apes.

lp: That would imply that Homo erectus, the Neanderthals, and similar species are not quite human, since their mental capabilities do not quite compare to those of Homo sapiens (sapiens).

That is evident from their artifacts. The Cro-Magnons were essentially our present-day species, and they made a lot of cave art and statuettes and the like -- their artifacts even had regional variation.

Predecessors, however, did much less of that -- there aren't a lot of cave paintings that were made by Neanderthals and earlier species, and their stone tools were much more stereotyped.

Homo erectus had a cranial capacity within the range of sapiens. Just because we have not found any artwork associated with them does not prove they didn't do it. Since there is a significant overlap in time between erectus and sapiens the cave art could have been done by erectus and also they may have preferred to work with wood therefore it would be less likely to be preserved.

[lpetrich]

Ed:
Creatures having the characteristics of birds.

Which begs the question of what counts as birdishness.

Homo erectus had a cranial capacity within the range of sapiens.

But look at some H. erectus specimens some time, like the Turkana Boy. His skull is difficult to mistake for a present-day human skull.

Unless, of course, one is an extreme lumper, the sort who thinks that Equus is one species, Panthera is one species, etc. But do horses and donkeys and zebras look like one species? Do lions and tigers and leopards and jaguars look like one species? As a rough guess, their skeletons resemble each other at least as much as those of H. erectus and H. sapiens do.

Just because we have not found any artwork associated with them does not prove they didn't do it.

However, that alleged artwork has remained remarkably hidden. Though numerous stone tools have been found, plausible examples of pre-Homo sapiens (sapiens) artwork are very rare. I looked for examples of Neanderthal artwork, and most was from their last days, when they coexisted with the Cro-Magnons. And H. erectus artwork was even rarer.

Since there is a significant overlap in time between erectus and sapiens the cave art could have been done by erectus

WHAT overlap?

and also they may have preferred to work with wood therefore it would be less likely to be preserved.

Maybe maybe maybe (sarcasm). There exist lots of H. erectus stone tools, so they were not averse to working with stone. Surely if they had some artistic ability, they would have carved statuettes in the fashion that the Cro-Magnons were to do.

[ps418]

Originally posted by Ed
Homo erectus had a cranial capacity within the range of sapiens.

If erectus gave rise to sapiens, then obviously one would expect the ranges of cranial volumes to overlap. No surprise there. However, you did not say or imply that their is range overlap; what you said implies that all erectus are within the range of sapiens, which is obviously false. In fact, only the very smallest H. sapiens skulls overlap with the very largest H. erectus. Obviously too is that H. ergaster, which is clearly related to H. erectus, had skulls well outside the range of sapiens (e.g. D2700, 600cc).

Ed:
But there are modern birds among archaeopteryxes.

Ed:
That was basically just a late night typo, I meant 100% birds.


lp: And what, O Ed, do you mean by "100% birds"?

Ed:
Creatures having the characteristics of birds.

So, then, we can intepret your original claim in the following way:

There are creatures that coexisted among archaeopteryxes that, like Archaeopteryx, have some characteristics of birds.

That's a nice bit of revisionist history, though it makes your original claim meaningless and irrelevant.

Patrick

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by ps418
If erectus gave rise to sapiens, then obviously one would expect the ranges of cranial volumes to overlap. No surprise there. However, you did not say or imply that their is range overlap; what you said implies that all erectus are within the range of sapiens, which is obviously false. In fact, only the very smallest H. sapiens skulls overlap with the very largest H. erectus. Obviously too is that H. ergaster, which is clearly related to H. erectus, had skulls well outside the range of sapiens (e.g. D2700, 600cc).
Patrick, Patrick, Patrick... when will you stop with this evolutionary presuppositionalism? :D

But this reminded me, so I'll remind everyone else, and especially Ed, something rather important in this context. According to Ed, a 'kind' is at least a genus, and possibly a family (though which apparently varies).

So let's remind ourselves what this means. Here's the 'rankings' of the main Linnaean groupings, as taken from my unrepeatable mnemonic from A Level days; there's tribes, subtribes sub- and supra-orders, and a bunch more, these days, but still...

Kingdom (kinky)
Phylum (Paula's)
Class (you get the idea... but it's a bloody effective mnemonic ;))
Order
Family
Genus
Species.

Now, the higher up this list you go, the greater the diversity. One Family, for instance, is the Bovidae, which includes sheep, cattle, and antelopes. 'Class' inclused Aves, ie all birds.

Ed thinks a 'kind' can have a family, or at least genus, level of diversity.

But what he is arguing with Patrick is about species-level diversity! That is, to what extent does a bit bigger brain or slightly more projecting face -- or slight variations in foramen magnum positioning -- put something in a different species!

Ed, please explain why all these critters aren't in the same genus... or family, is it?

TTFN, Oolon

PS the bird stuff is interesting, but please can we all remember the danger of Eddian ramifications... it's why this thread is so specific! ;)

[lpetrich]

Ed, consider the famous "Turkana Boy" Homo erectus fossil. Study his bones very carefully, especially his skull. Now imagine that the Turkana Boy had had a sister who was just like him, the Turkana Girl, and imagine that she got to be fully-grown.

Would you ever want to marry her?

[Ed]

Originally posted by ps418


Ps418:
"But there are modern birds among archaeopteryxes."

As I showed you in detail, there is no plausible interpretation of this statement which is correct. There are no "modern" birds, by which I mean birds belonging to an existing order of aves, until the Cretaceous, long after Archaeopteryx.

Ed:
That was basically just a late night typo, I meant 100% birds.

ps: No, it was not a a 'typo.' A typo is misspelling a word or using bad punctuation. I know because I have much experience with them. Your statement was obviously not a typo, it was a specific and false empirical claim. If it were a typo, you would have quickly corrected it, without having to be called to do so 10 times. Why not just admit your mistake, rather than destroy what's left of your credibility with such frankly implausible rationalizations?

No, it was a mental typo, not a finger slip typo. Sometimes I type something while I am actually thinking something else.

ps: Furthermore, Ed, your response proves that you still haven't adequately appreciated your error. Allow me to explain. Again.

There are a few different ways I can interpret "100% birds." First, you may mean 'a member of the class aves.' If that is the case, than your point is obviously nonsensical, since Archaeopteryx itself is a member of aves. And it is false to boot: the next youngest known members of aves are millions of years younger than Archie. So on this intepretation, your claim is nonsensical and factually false.

Fraid not, here is a direct quote from the University of California at Berkeley fossil bird website:
"The fossil record of birds is not extensive: the light, hollow bones of birds are not likely to survive as fossils. However, a growing number of unusually well-preserved fossil birds are contributing much to our understanding of bird evolution. The oldest known fossil unambiguously identified as a bird is still the dinosaur-like Archaeopteryx, from the Solnhofen Limestone of the Upper Jurassic of Germany. However, it was not the only bird of the time. Very recently, another bird of almost the same age was discovered in northeastern China, and named Confuciusornis (shown at left; click for a larger image); Confuciusornis resembles Archaeopteryx in having wing claws, but unlike Archaeopteryx and like modern birds, Confuciusornis lacked teeth. "

ps: A second interpetation of "100% bird" is 'a member of an extant order of aves.' On that meaning, your claim is not as nonsensical, but still completely false, since the earliest fossils attributed to an extant order of aves are known from the Cretaceous, long after Archaeopteryx.

A third, more charitable interpretation of "100% bird" is simply as 'member of aves with many derived characters present in modern birds but not seen in Archaeopteryx.' Again, this claim is false. The earliest fossil aves showing such characters (e.g. tail reduction, pelvic fusion, tarsometatarsus, carpometacarpus, loss of teeth, etc.) are known from the Cretaceous, long after Archaeopteryx.

So, just as your original claim that moden birds exist alongside Archie proved to be unequivocally false, your new claim that '100% birds' exist alongside Archie is either false or nonsensical, depending on how you wish to interpret '100% bird.' Are you ready to admit your error yet? Or will you remain in painfully obvious denial of the facts?

Patrick

No, see my quote above.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
PS the bird stuff is interesting, but please can we all remember the danger of Eddian ramifications... it's why this thread is so specific! ;) I suggest that we start another thread for it, since Ed insists on discussing it here.

And Ed has still not stated whether he'd ever want to marry a "Turkana Girl".

[Jack the Bodiless]

Ed: As you've ceased responding to the original topic, can we assume that you have conceded defeat on the issue of the placement of the foramen magnum?

Moderators: if Ed has finished with the original topic and is now trying to deviate from it, maybe this thread can be locked to prevent further digression/obfuscation, if everything relevant to this topic has been covered now?

[GunnerJ]

Moderators: if Ed has finished with the original topic and is now trying to deviate from it, maybe this thread can be locked to prevent further digression/obfuscation, if everything relevant to this topic has been covered now?

If he's finished, sure.

[pz]

And I will take it as a sign that he is finished if he goes amblin' off to talk about birds, rainbows, his Aunt Tillie's dentures, or anything other than the subject of the OP.

[Ed]

Originally posted by ps418
All of the osteological evidence which would allow one to make inferences about mental capacities points to the transition from Australopithecus to creationist-undisputed-human being step-wise and relatively gradual. For instance, both within and between species, there is a correlation between cognition and brain volume, and the evolution of brain volume in homonids is obviously gradual. For instance, the earliest H. ergaster, D2700, has a cranial capacity of around 600cc. . .

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700_side.jpg

. . . while ER 1813, which most creationists would refer to Australopithecus, has a cranial capacity of about 510cc. And ER 1813 is extremely similar to the ER 1470, which according to Falk displays endocast evidence for Broca's area.

Actually, no matter where you draw the line, there is no major leap from ape to human cranial volume. And certainly, as Lpetrich notes, there is no archaeological evidence to support the assertion that the earliest humans possessed all of the mental capacities that modern humans possess, which is hardly suprising given that their brain volumes were about half that of the average H. sapien.

Patrick

Although there is a general correlation between brain size and cognitive skills there are cases where humans have had very little brain matter and yet had completely normal intelligence. In addition, there is evidence that H. ergaster material is a mixture of erectus and australopiticine material, this fossil you mention is probably one of the australopiths. See my post to lpetrich above about why there may not be certain artifacts associated with erectus.

[Jack the Bodiless]

In addition, there is evidence that H. ergaster material is a mixture of erectus and australopiticine material...
Ah, yes. This is what you prefer to believe, therefore "there is evidence" for it. :rolleyes:

Ergaster is a transitional form, therefore of course Ergaster has features in common with both Erectus and the Australopithecines. But that is all.
See my post to lpetrich above about why there may not be certain artifacts associated with erectus.
...Are you referring to this:
Since there is a significant overlap in time between erectus and sapiens the cave art could have been done by erectus and also they may have preferred to work with wood therefore it would be less likely to be preserved.
Homo Sapiens DID NOT EXIST at this time. Yes, it's likely that Erectus still existed in isolated areas later on, after Sapiens HAD evolved, but this doesn't change the fact that NO artwork or other advanced artifacts come from the period before Sapiens.

[lpetrich]

Ed:
Although there is a general correlation between brain size and cognitive skills there are cases where humans have had very little brain matter and yet had completely normal intelligence.

Whatever those cases might possibly be.

In addition, there is evidence that H. ergaster material is a mixture of erectus and australopiticine material, this fossil you mention is probably one of the australopiths.

What evidence? That H. ergaster (and H. habilis) looks like an intermediate between H. erectus and Australopithecus?

See my post to lpetrich above about why there may not be certain artifacts associated with erectus.

There you go again, O Ed. H. erectus seems to have hidden its manufacturing and artistic abilities very well.

[Ergaster]

Originally posted by Ed
...In addition, there is evidence that H. ergaster material is a mixture of erectus and australopiticine material, this fossil you mention is probably one of the australopiths. See my post to lpetrich above about why there may not be certain artifacts associated with erectus.

This is not clear--are you saying that H. ergaster is morphologically intermediate between erectus and australos? If so, well duh

Or are you claiming that the H. ergaster fossil hypodigm includes fossils from both erectus and asutralos? If so, could you provide documentation (references etc. from the peer-reviewed literature) to support this, er, interesting claim?

[lpetrich]

Thanx for showing up, Ergaster. Nice to see someone with actual professional experience in paleoanthropology.

A gentleman named Ed has been maintaining at length here that Homo erectus and H. sapiens are one species. I've never seen any serious paleoanthropologist claim that; in fact, H. erectus was originally named Pithecanthropus erectus.

Does he believe that Equus caballus and E. asinus are one species? That Panthera leo and P. tigris are one species? That Canis lupus and C. latrans are one species?

Ed has also claimed that H. erectus had artifact-making capabilities comparable to H. sapiens, but that H. erectus much preferred to work in perishable materials rather than carve statuettes and paint on the walls of caves. Which is remarkably convenient in a certain way.

[Ed]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Ed:
Creatures having the characteristics of birds.

lp: Which begs the question of what counts as birdishness.

Ask your local orinthologist.

Ed: Homo erectus had a cranial capacity within the range of sapiens.

lp: But look at some H. erectus specimens some time, like the Turkana Boy. His skull is difficult to mistake for a present-day human skull.

Unless, of course, one is an extreme lumper, the sort who thinks that Equus is one species, Panthera is one species, etc. But do horses and donkeys and zebras look like one species? Do lions and tigers and leopards and jaguars look like one species? As a rough guess, their skeletons resemble each other at least as much as those of H. erectus and H. sapiens do.

Humans were probably like dogs with a large variation in skull morphology.

lp: Just because we have not found any artwork associated with them does not prove they didn't do it.

lp: However, that alleged artwork has remained remarkably hidden. Though numerous stone tools have been found, plausible examples of pre-Homo sapiens (sapiens) artwork are very rare. I looked for examples of Neanderthal artwork, and most was from their last days, when they coexisted with the Cro-Magnons. And H. erectus artwork was even rarer.

At least you admit they did some artwork!

Ed: Since there is a significant overlap in time between erectus and sapiens the cave art could have been done by erectus

lp: WHAT overlap?

See my Kow Swamp reference where evidence is provided that erectus lived as recently as 10,000 years ago and probably interbred with sapiens.

ED: and also they may have preferred to work with wood therefore it would be less likely to be preserved.

lp: Maybe maybe maybe (sarcasm). There exist lots of H. erectus stone tools, so they were not averse to working with stone. Surely if they had some artistic ability, they would have carved statuettes in the fashion that the Cro-Magnons were to do.

Erectus may not have had as much leisure time as Cro-Magnon due to limited resources.

[lpetrich]

Ed:
(what are the distinctive features of birds)
Ask your local orinthologist.

Ed, I suggest that you take any more comments about birds to another thread here at E/C.

Humans were probably like dogs with a large variation in skull morphology.

However, dogs are relatively unusual in that respect, even for a domestic species.

Wild canids don't vary quite as much, and neither do chimps or gorillas.

(Homo-Erectus-created art...)
At least you admit they did some artwork!

I think that I may have misspoke myself. In all my reading about paleoanthropology, it is hard to find any examples of artwork convincingly attributed to an erectus. And certainly nothing on the scale of the Cro-Magnons, who left behind oodles of artwork.

See my Kow Swamp reference where evidence is provided that erectus lived as recently as 10,000 years ago and probably interbred with sapiens.

Except that most other paleoanthropologists think otherwise.

Erectus may not have had as much leisure time as Cro-Magnon due to limited resources.

And Ed considers a big expert on how H. erectus had lived?

[Ergaster]

Originally posted by Ed
Humans were probably like dogs with a large variation in skull morphology.

That's an absurd comparison. Domestic dog skulls are variable because of intense humn intervention: that is, they have been deliberately forced into certain configurations preferred by breeders. Wild and feral canid cranial morphology is not that variable.

Surely you are not suggesting that fossil hominids are the result of breeding experiments by ET, are you?


See my Kow Swamp reference where evidence is provided that erectus lived as recently as 10,000 years ago and probably interbred with sapiens.

The Kow Swamp individuals are modern Homo sapiens, not erectus. They do not resemble erectus in any way.

I haven't seen your "reference", but it sounds like it comes from Lubenow. You might want to see the response to this claim by Australian paleoanthropologist Peter Brown, found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/kowswamp.html

Erectus may not have had as much leisure time as Cro-Magnon due to limited resources.

And you know this because...?

[Ed]

Originally posted by ps418

Originally posted by Ed
Homo erectus had a cranial capacity within the range of sapiens.

ps: If erectus gave rise to sapiens, then obviously one would expect the ranges of cranial volumes to overlap. No surprise there. However, you did not say or imply that their is range overlap; what you said implies that all erectus are within the range of sapiens, which is obviously false. In fact, only the very smallest H. sapiens skulls overlap with the very largest H. erectus. Obviously too is that H. ergaster, which is clearly related to H. erectus, had skulls well outside the range of sapiens (e.g. D2700, 600cc).

No, the smallest erectus is 700 cc and the range for sapiens is 700 cc to 2200 cc. BTW I am not the only one that says they are sapiens, ever hear of Milford Wolpoff and Dr. William S. Laughlin? And they are not creationists. See above about ergaster.



Ed:
But there are modern birds among archaeopteryxes.

Ed:
That was basically just a late night typo, I meant 100% birds.

lp: And what, O Ed, do you mean by "100% birds"?

Ed:
Creatures having the characteristics of birds.

ps: So, then, we can intepret your original claim in the following way:

There are creatures that coexisted among archaeopteryxes that, like Archaeopteryx, have some characteristics of birds.

That's a nice bit of revisionist history, though it makes your original claim meaningless and irrelevant.

Patrick

No, please read my actual post, I said creatures that have THE characteristics of birds.:rolleyes:

[Ed]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Patrick, Patrick, Patrick... when will you stop with this evolutionary presuppositionalism? :D

But this reminded me, so I'll remind everyone else, and especially Ed, something rather important in this context. According to Ed, a 'kind' is at least a genus, and possibly a family (though which apparently varies).

So let's remind ourselves what this means. Here's the 'rankings' of the main Linnaean groupings, as taken from my unrepeatable mnemonic from A Level days; there's tribes, subtribes sub- and supra-orders, and a bunch more, these days, but still...

Kingdom (kinky)
Phylum (Paula's)
Class (you get the idea... but it's a bloody effective mnemonic ;))
Order
Family
Genus
Species.

Now, the higher up this list you go, the greater the diversity. One Family, for instance, is the Bovidae, which includes sheep, cattle, and antelopes. 'Class' inclused Aves, ie all birds.

Ed thinks a 'kind' can have a family, or at least genus, level of diversity.

But what he is arguing with Patrick is about species-level diversity! That is, to what extent does a bit bigger brain or slightly more projecting face -- or slight variations in foramen magnum positioning -- put something in a different species!

Ed, please explain why all these critters aren't in the same genus... or family, is it?

TTFN, Oolon



Ask your local taxonomist.

[Ed]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Ed, consider the famous "Turkana Boy" Homo erectus fossil. Study his bones very carefully, especially his skull. Now imagine that the Turkana Boy had had a sister who was just like him, the Turkana Girl, and imagine that she got to be fully-grown.

Would you ever want to marry her?


Since I consider H. erectus more like a race, generally speaking people are attracted to members of their own race so it is unlikely I would marry her. But apparently there were some sapiens that liked erectus women, see my reference to the Kow Swamp fossils in my original thread that was closed. How about you? Would you marry her?

[lpetrich]

Ed:
Since I consider H. erectus more like a race, generally speaking people are attracted to members of their own race so it is unlikely I would marry her.

But that does not seem to stop many interracial relationships and marriages. So set the racial differences aside and see what you get.

But apparently there were some sapiens that liked erectus women, see my reference to the Kow Swamp fossils in my original thread that was closed. How about you? Would you marry her?

I will now compare these two prospects:

Cassie from Kow Swamp
Tina the Turkana Girl
(notice my choice of names)

Cassie is Homo sapiens, though she's a bit of an early diverger, and she may look a bit odd. I'd have serious culture shock with the "original" Cassie, but if she had been adopted and raised in an American/European/otherwise-Western family, and she turned out reasonably mentally agile, I would have no trouble with her.

Tina, however, is Homo erectus, and even if she was adopted and raised as human, she would still not seem quite human -- her face would seem a bit simian, and she would seem rather mentally retarded by most human standards.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Ed
No, the smallest erectus is 700 cc and the range for sapiens is 700 cc to 2200 cc. BTW I am not the only one that says they are sapiens, ever hear of Milford Wolpoff and Dr. William S. Laughlin? And they are not creationists.They only claim that because they cannot draw a clear line between erectus and sapiens. But the existence of gray does not mean that black and white do not exist.

Furthemore, erectus and sapiens are different enough to require a fair amount of evolution to get from one to the other -- yet another example of how much evolution creationists are willing to accept.

You people might want to refer to this table of creationist opinions (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html) on early Homo fossils; for which fossil is which, check here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html). I'll give that table in abbreviated form:

The creationists listed are (each column):

Cuozzo 1998
Gish 1985
Mehlert 1996
Bowden 1981, Menton 1988, Taylor 1992, Gish 1979
Baker 1976, Taylor and Van Bebber 1995
Taylor 1996, Lubenow 1992

The fossils listed are (each row):

ER 1813 (510 cc) -- Homo habilis?
Java (940 cc) -- Homo erectus
Peking (915 - 1225 cc) -- Homo erectus
ER 1470 (750 cc) -- Homo habilis? / Homo rudolfensis?
ER 3733 (850 cc) -- Homo erectus / Homo ergaster
WT 15000 (880 cc) -- "Turkana Boy", Homo erectus / Homo ergaster

Opinion time:

A A A A A A
A A H A A H
A A H A H H
A A A H H H
A H H H H H
A H H H H H

A - ape
H - human

About the various Homo erectus specimens, all but Cuozzo agree that the two African ones (the bottom two rows) are human, but they have serious disagreements on the Java and Peking specimens (2nd and 3rd rows), with some of them stating that the Java one was an ape while the Peking ones were human.

And what is especially odd is the lack of interest among creationists in reconciling these differences of opinion.

[Ergaster]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed
No, the smallest erectus is 700 cc and the range for sapiens is 700 cc to 2200 cc. BTW I am not the only one that says they are sapiens, ever hear of Milford Wolpoff and Dr. William S. Laughlin? And they are not creationists. See above about ergaster.


Dr. Laughlin appears to be a minor physical anthropologist who specializes in modern Inuit peoples; he's not a paleoanthropologist so it is unclear why you should choose him rather than one of the many professional paleoanthropologists currently working in the feild.

As for what Wolpoff thinks--I suspect you have badly misunderstood what Wolpoff means by calling Homo erectus H. sapiens, and I suspect that this is because you are completely unfamiliar with his work. He does NOT believe that H. erectus is physically, anatomically, or behaviourally the same as us; the reason he calls H. erectus sapiens is a purely taxonomic matter. He believes that erectus evolved *into* sapiens and that there was no branching off of separate species, and if someone tries to draw a line, as it were, at some point along the evolutionary contiuuum it has to be an arbitrary line. Therefore, because he thinks that sapiens evolved anagenetically from erectus (i.e. in a linear fashion), it is taxonomically proper to refer to erectus as H. sapiens because H. sapiens has historical priority as a nomen according to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.

Once again--this does NOT mean that erectus is the same as sapiens, and he would assuredly find the notion absurd in the extreme.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Ed: As you've ceased responding to the original topic, can we assume that you have conceded defeat on the issue of the placement of the foramen magnum?

Moderators: if Ed has finished with the original topic and is now trying to deviate from it, maybe this thread can be locked to prevent further digression/obfuscation, if everything relevant to this topic has been covered now?

No, I have not conceded defeat on the FM issue. My last posts on the subject on June 25 and 30, have not been refuted. And your regular attempts to censor my posts are not reflecting very well on your character!

[Ergaster]

I have reviewed the thread--you wrote nothing of substance on those dates, so there was nothing to address. You have written nothing of substance on the topic subsequent to those dates, and everything you posted prior has been thoroughly refuted.

Are there some points that you think have not been addressed? Perhaps you could review them here.

PS: I haven't seen any evidence of anyone "censoring" your posts, either. Can you back up that accusation?




Originally posted by Ed
No, I have not conceded defeat on the FM issue. My last posts on the subject on June 25 and 30, have not been refuted. And your regular attempts to censor my posts are not reflecting very well on your character!

[GunnerJ]

And your regular attempts to censor my posts are not reflecting very well on your character!

He has made no attempts to censor you. What he has done is refered to the new moderational policy designed to keep you on topic: if you stop addressing the main point of a thread and digress onto some unrelated tangent, then this will be taken as a concession of defeat on the main topic, and the thread will be closed, and a new one opened to debate the topic of digression. Just letting you know about this explicitly, in the hopes that it will encourage you to stay on topic.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: In addition, there is evidence that H. ergaster material is a mixture of erectus and australopiticine material...

jtb: Ah, yes. This is what you prefer to believe, therefore "there is evidence" for it.

I could say the same thing about you. :banghead:

jtb: Ergaster is a transitional form, therefore of course Ergaster has features in common with both Erectus and the Australopithecines. But that is all.

I didn't say that ergaster has features of the two, I said that ergaster does not exist. The collection of material appears to be two separate species.



Ed: See my post to lpetrich above about why there may not be certain artifacts associated with erectus.

jtb: ...Are you referring to this:

"Since there is a significant overlap in time between erectus and sapiens the cave art could have been done by erectus and also they may have preferred to work with wood therefore it would be less likely to be preserved."

Homo Sapiens DID NOT EXIST at this time. Yes, it's likely that Erectus still existed in isolated areas later on, after Sapiens HAD evolved, but this doesn't change the fact that NO artwork or other advanced artifacts come from the period before Sapiens.


At what time? Not finding any yet does not prove that they did not produce artwork. Besides the possible reason above, they also may not have had any leisure time due to living in harsh environments. Down thru history only societies that have large amounts of resources and therefore more leisure time have produced the most artwork.

[lpetrich]

In reference to this chart of the disagreements of creationists on early Homo specimens,

A A A A A A
A A H A A H
A A H A H H
A A A H H H
A H H H H H
A H H H H H

A - ape
H - human

it must be pointed out that similar sorts of disagreements are common in cutting-edge research. But when some mainstream scientists have such disagreements, others try to figure out who's right. In fact, there is a joke among physicists that the function of theorists is to exasperate experimentalists into constructing tests of the theorists' pet ideas.

Closer to this subject, consider the multiregional vs. "Out of Africa" controversy about the origin of our present-day species. This has inspired a search for genetic material in Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon fossils to help in working out who's right.

But have any creationists tried to do something similar, to try to decide who's right about which ones are human and which ones are simian?

[Ed]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Ed:
[B]Although there is a general correlation between brain size and cognitive skills there are cases where humans have had very little brain matter and yet had completely normal intelligence.

lp: Whatever those cases might possibly be.

I gave an example in the now closed EoG thread.

Ed: In addition, there is evidence that H. ergaster material is a mixture of erectus and australopiticine material, this fossil you mention is probably one of the australopiths.

lp: What evidence? That H. ergaster (and H. habilis) looks like an intermediate between H. erectus and Australopithecus?

No, see above.

[lpetrich]

Ed:
I didn't say that ergaster has features of the two, I said that ergaster does not exist. The collection of material appears to be two separate species.

How so?

jtb:
... but this doesn't change the fact that NO artwork or other advanced artifacts come from the period before Sapiens.
Ed:
At what time? Not finding any yet does not prove that they did not produce artwork.

I've started a new thread on Homo erectus artwork, for anyone who's interested. But why be careful to create artwork only with perishable materials -- especially when one can make stone tools? Where are the statuettes, the rock carvings, the cave paintings?

Besides the possible reason above, they also may not have had any leisure time due to living in harsh environments. Down thru history only societies that have large amounts of resources and therefore more leisure time have produced the most artwork.

A thorougly ad hoc "explanation", like so many of Ed's other maybes.

[Ergaster]

Originally posted by Ed
I didn't say that ergaster has features of the two, I said that ergaster does not exist. The collection of material appears to be two separate species.

Thanks for clearing that up. Once again I ask: can you support this assertion with reference to the professional literature? I do note that you have been carefully ignoring my posts so far, but that does not mean I will stop asking.

Please list the fossils attributed to the H. ergaster hypodigm, and indicate which species each one really belongs to, with your reasoning. I'll help you get started:

KNM ER 992, the ergaster type specimen. This fossil is not H. ergaster, but really belongs to species ______________ because ________________ .

You get the idea.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ergaster
This is not clear--are you saying that H. ergaster is morphologically intermediate between erectus and australos? If so, well duh

Or are you claiming that the H. ergaster fossil hypodigm includes fossils from both erectus and asutralos? If so, could you provide documentation (references etc. from the peer-reviewed literature) to support this, er, interesting claim?


Anthropologists Craig Feibel, Francis Brown, Ian McDougall, and Becky Sigmon call KNM-ER 3733, KNM-ER 3883, and KNM-ER 992, Homo erectus. These are the fossils some call ergaster.

[l-bow]

Ed,


Didn't you previously say that H. Ergaster remains were actually from two separate species. You new statement implies that H.Ergaster should be classified as H. Erectus.

[Ergaster]

Yes, see the "Homo erectus artwork" thread about this: there are some professionals who prefer to regard the African form of these early Pleistocene fossils as erectus, and H. ergaster as a junior taxonomic synonym, and even lpetrich is using the term in the broad sense. However, they all agree that these fossils *are* morphologically distinct from traditional (i.e. Asian) erectus forms, and certainly they are temporally and geographically distinct.

The issue is this: your claim that the ergaster hypodigm is a mix of two different species is different from the professional claim that the ergaster hypodigm is simply a geographical variant of erectus. The professionals do NOT claim that "ergaster" is a mix of fossils of *different* species. That is YOUR claim, that YOU need to support with evidence. We are waiting.


Originally posted by Ed
Anthropologists Craig Feibel, Francis Brown, Ian McDougall, and Becky Sigmon call KNM-ER 3733, KNM-ER 3883, and KNM-ER 992, Homo erectus. These are the fossils some call ergaster.

What about the rest? What is KNM WT 15000, for example? So far you have only mentioned erectus. What is the other species?And what is YOUR reasoning? That's what I am asking--YOUR reasoning. I already know what the professionals think.

FYI: Feibel, Brown, and McDougall are geologists, not anthropologists. I am acquainted with Sigmond (she taught me a graduate course) and I am aware of her rather conservative views--she also does not accept the reality of H. habilis (we had a rather, er, interesting discussion about that), a view which almost nobody else holds anymore. She may not be your best source on this matter....

[Ed]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Ed:
(what are the distinctive features of birds)
Ask your local orinthologist.

lp: Ed, I suggest that you take any more comments about birds to another thread here at E/C.

Why? It is still dealing with E/C.

Ed:Humans were probably like dogs with a large variation in skull morphology.

lp: However, dogs are relatively unusual in that respect, even for a domestic species.

Wild canids don't vary quite as much, and neither do chimps or gorillas.


Apparently early humans were also unusual in that respect.


(Homo-Erectus-created art...)
Ed: At least you admit they did some artwork!

lp: I think that I may have misspoke myself. In all my reading about paleoanthropology, it is hard to find any examples of artwork convincingly attributed to an erectus. And certainly nothing on the scale of the Cro-Magnons, who left behind oodles of artwork.

Ed: See my Kow Swamp reference where evidence is provided that erectus lived as recently as 10,000 years ago and probably interbred with sapiens.

lp: Except that most other paleoanthropologists think otherwise.

In science the majority has been proven wrong many times over the years.


Ed: Erectus may not have had as much leisure time as Cro-Magnon due to limited resources.

lp: And Ed considers a big expert on how H. erectus had lived?

No, but as I stated earlier it is a historical fact that only societies that have more resources have the leisure time to produce large amounts of art.

[lpetrich]

lp: Ed, I suggest that you take any more comments about birds to another thread here at E/C.
Ed:
Why? It is still dealing with E/C.

But is inappropriate for this thread.

(Dogs' unusual variability...)
Apparently early humans were also unusual in that respect.

However, H. erectus differed from H. sapiens in more than brain size -- H. erectus skulls were well outside of the parameters of present-day H. sapiens variation -- outward-jutting jaws without a chin, a sloped-back face, brow ridges, etc.

In science the majority has been proven wrong many times over the years.

Examples?

lp: And Ed considers a big expert on how H. erectus had lived?

No, but as I stated earlier it is a historical fact that only societies that have more resources have the leisure time to produce large amounts of art.

But did H. erectus really have much less leisure than the Cro-Magnons, not to mention people discovered to have Paleolithic-level technology in historical times? They all have produced LOTS of art.

[pz]

Originally posted by Ed
Why? It is still dealing with E/C. Because you have a history here of building inordinately long, fuzzy-minded, incoherent threads which become a pain to manage and are so amorphous and poorly focused that they don't make sense. If you must talk about birds, you can freely do so in a different thread.

This thread is about foramen magnum placement. See the title? If you'd like, you can also go back and read the opening post. I can see a discussion of overall basicranium morphology in hominids being on topic here, but birds? Archaeopteryx? No.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ergaster
Originally posted by Ed
Humans were probably like dogs with a large variation in skull morphology.

erg: That's an absurd comparison. Domestic dog skulls are variable because of intense humn intervention: that is, they have been deliberately forced into certain configurations preferred by breeders. Wild and feral canid cranial morphology is not that variable.

Surely you are not suggesting that fossil hominids are the result of breeding experiments by ET, are you?


No, humans may have been so variable because of intense natural selection at the time.


Ed: See my Kow Swamp reference where evidence is provided that erectus lived as recently as 10,000 years ago and probably interbred with sapiens.

The Kow Swamp individuals are modern Homo sapiens, not erectus. They do not resemble erectus in any way.

I haven't seen your "reference", but it sounds like it comes from Lubenow. You might want to see the response to this claim by Australian paleoanthropologist Peter Brown, found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/kowswamp.html


No, it comes from Oolon Colluphid. Here it is and it deals with Dr. Brown's comments:

http://twmi.rr.com/canovan/kowswamp/kowswamp.htm

Ed: Erectus may not have had as much leisure time as Cro-Magnon due to limited resources.

And you know this because...?

See my post to lpetrich above.

[Ed]

Originally posted by lpetrich

Originally posted by Ed
No, the smallest erectus is 700 cc and the range for sapiens is 700 cc to 2200 cc. BTW I am not the only one that says they are sapiens, ever hear of Milford Wolpoff and Dr. William S. Laughlin? And they are not creationists.

lp: They only claim that because they cannot draw a clear line between erectus and sapiens. But the existence of gray does not mean that black and white do not exist.

Huh? You are contradicting yourself here.

lp: Furthemore, erectus and sapiens are different enough to require a fair amount of evolution to get from one to the other -- yet another example of how much evolution creationists are willing to accept.


As I stated above, "a fair amount of similar evolution" has occurred among dogs in less than 500 years.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ergaster
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed
No, the smallest erectus is 700 cc and the range for sapiens is 700 cc to 2200 cc. BTW I am not the only one that says they are sapiens, ever hear of Milford Wolpoff and Dr. William S. Laughlin? And they are not creationists. See above about ergaster.


erg: Dr. Laughlin appears to be a minor physical anthropologist who specializes in modern Inuit peoples; he's not a paleoanthropologist so it is unclear why you should choose him rather than one of the many professional paleoanthropologists currently working in the feild.

So what? Some of the minor unknown scientists have made some of our greatest discoveries. Snobbery is not a refutation.

erg: As for what Wolpoff thinks--I suspect you have badly misunderstood what Wolpoff means by calling Homo erectus H. sapiens, and I suspect that this is because you are completely unfamiliar with his work. He does NOT believe that H. erectus is physically, anatomically, or behaviourally the same as us; the reason he calls H. erectus sapiens is a purely taxonomic matter. He believes that erectus evolved *into* sapiens and that there was no branching off of separate species, and if someone tries to draw a line, as it were, at some point along the evolutionary contiuuum it has to be an arbitrary line. Therefore, because he thinks that sapiens evolved anagenetically from erectus (i.e. in a linear fashion), it is taxonomically proper to refer to erectus as H. sapiens because H. sapiens has historical priority as a nomen according to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.

Once again--this does NOT mean that erectus is the same as sapiens, and he would assuredly find the notion absurd in the extreme.

I think Wolpoff would find your statement absurd. Taxonomy is BASED physical and anatomical similarity. So your "refutation" is self contradictory and fails miserably. Also, just because an organism "evolved in a linear fashion" from another organism does not mean that it should be classified as the same species! I think you are distorting his beliefs to fit yours and your attempted refutation of my position.

[lpetrich]

Ed:
No, humans may have been so variable because of intense natural selection at the time.

In other words, something more usually described by a certain 9-letter word that starts with an "e", what Charles Darwin also called "descent with modification".

... Here it is and it deals with Dr. Brown's comments:

http://twmi.rr.com/canovan/kowswamp/kowswamp.htm

I could not access that link.

[lpetrich]

Ed:
... Some of the minor unknown scientists have made some of our greatest discoveries.

Like who?

And as Bertrand Russell had noted,
There are infinite possibilities of error, and more cranks take up unfashionable errors than unfashionable truthsFrom An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish (http://www.luminary.us/russell/intellectual_rubbish.html).

[Jack the Bodiless]

Ed, I created the thread "Modern birds" coexisting with Archaeopteryx? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57251) specifically to address your fixation with these fictional "birds". I note that you have not yet posted on it.

[Ergaster]

Originally posted by Ed
No, humans may have been so variable because of intense natural selection at the time.

Sounds like sheer speculation to me. In other words, you have no facts so you are just making stuff up.


No, it comes from Oolon Colluphid. Here it is and it deals with Dr. Brown's comments:

http://twmi.rr.com/canovan/kowswamp/kowswamp.htm

That link is broken. At any rate, I doubt that Oolon has claimed that Kow Swamp is Homo erectus, and it's easy enough to find out: Oolon, what's he talking about?

See my post to lpetrich above.

Which post would that be? There is no post to lpetrich which supports your assertion. All I've seen you post is unfounded fantasy.

[Ergaster]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed
So what? Some of the minor unknown scientists have made some of our greatest discoveries. Snobbery is not a refutation.

It's not snobbery. It's the fact that this person you cite does not contribute to the paleoanthroplogical literature. That means that when it comes to paleoanthropology, he is inconsequential, and the fact that you must rely upon someone who does not contribute to the discipline strongly suggests that you actually have no support from professionals in the discipline. He has made no "great discoveries" in the field, because his field is (or was--his stuff seems to date from the 50s and 60s) is elsewhere.

I think Wolpoff would find your statement absurd. Taxonomy is BASED physical and anatomical similarity. So your "refutation" is self contradictory and fails miserably.

You think wrong. Taxonomy and systematics is based on a whole lot more than that. Besides, I at least have based my conclusions on actually reading Wolpoff's work. Yours are based on _____?

Also, just because an organism "evolved in a linear fashion" from another organism does not mean that it should be classified as the same species! I think you are distorting his beliefs to fit yours and your attempted refutation of my position.

It is obvious you do not know what he's talking about. Perhaps you should read something (anything) by him on Multiregional Evolution and then get back to us.

For a brief review, you could try:

Wolpoff et al. 2000. Multiregional, not multiple origins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 112:129-136.

Anyway, the best refutation to your claims is you; all I have to do is keep you talking. You demonstrate quite nicely that you have no idea at all about human evolution.

[Ergaster]

Some further information for ED.

This is an excerpt from a letter written by Wolpoff, from Science (1999) 284:1773. It is a response to an article by Bernard Wood and Mark Collard some months earlier. Please note the bolded text (emphasis mine):

The Systematics of Homo
(...)Many paleoanthropologists continue to accept the traditional view of a geographically dispersed polytypic species, Homo erectus, evolving into a geographically dispersed polytypic species, Homo sapiens. Others take a phylogenetic approach, defining the unbroken human lineage as a single evolutionary species. Taxonomically, this means that there is but one species of Homo, Homo sapiens (4), which is the only interpretation that accounts for both species-wide evolutionary trends and the persistence of different regional features in what would otherwise have to be arbitrarily defined successive species. (...)

I do not agree with Wolpoff, but at least I know what he's saying. You seem not to.







Originally posted by Ed
I think Wolpoff would find your statement absurd. Taxonomy is BASED physical and anatomical similarity. So your "refutation" is self contradictory and fails miserably. Also, just because an organism "evolved in a linear fashion" from another organism does not mean that it should be classified as the same species! I think you are distorting his beliefs to fit yours and your attempted refutation of my position. [/QUOTE]

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ergaster
I have reviewed the thread--you wrote nothing of substance on those dates, so there was nothing to address. You have written nothing of substance on the topic subsequent to those dates, and everything you posted prior has been thoroughly refuted.

Are there some points that you think have not been addressed? Perhaps you could review them here.

PS: I haven't seen any evidence of anyone "censoring" your posts, either. Can you back up that accusation?

My point about my measurement from the front of the jaws taking into account the weight distribution of the skull refuted Jack's comments about his measurements. And noone else has attempted to refute them. Jack has at least twice tried to have my threads closed for alledgedly moving off topic.

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by Ed
My point about my measurement from the front of the jaws taking into account the weight distribution of the skull refuted Jack's comments about his measurements. And noone else has attempted to refute them. Jack has at least twice tried to have my threads closed for alledgedly moving off topic.

Don't stress. We moderators will post 'off-topic' warnings before we close shop. This thread will be fine as long as we're still talking about homonid craniums.

[Ed]

Originally posted by GunnerJ
He has made no attempts to censor you. What he has done is refered to the new moderational policy designed to keep you on topic: if you stop addressing the main point of a thread and digress onto some unrelated tangent, then this will be taken as a concession of defeat on the main topic, and the thread will be closed, and a new one opened to debate the topic of digression. Just letting you know about this explicitly, in the hopes that it will encourage you to stay on topic.

Most of you all are very intelligent individuals, why can you not cover 2 or 3 different topics in the same thread? It is not that hard to follow.:confused:

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by Ed
Most of you all are very intelligent individuals, why can you not cover 2 or 3 different topics in the same thread? It is not that hard to follow.:confused:

Well, look. No-one is saying they can't follow more than one topic at a time, and no-one is saying that you aren't allowed to discuss multiple topics here in this forum, either. It's just better for everyone if each thread has at least a general direction and topic. These discussions are not just for you and your opponents, they must also be read and supervised by the moderators, and should ideally be of interest to uninvolved onlookers and lurkers to boot. If a hundred things are being discussed at once, and each post is yet another round of endless 'he said, I said, he responded, I now respond', then the thread loses it's worth as a readable exchange. Please, by all means start a new thread for any topic you would like to discuss. You can even be active in both at once if you like.

[Ed]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Ed:
I didn't say that ergaster has features of the two, I said that ergaster does not exist. The collection of material appears to be two separate species.

lp: How so?

See my post to ergaster above.

jtb:
... but this doesn't change the fact that NO artwork or other advanced artifacts come from the period before Sapiens.
Ed:
At what time? Not finding any yet does not prove that they did not produce artwork.

lp: I've started a new thread on Homo erectus artwork, for anyone who's interested. But why be careful to create artwork only with perishable materials -- especially when one can make stone tools? Where are the statuettes, the rock carvings, the cave paintings?

We may find some in the future.

Ed: Besides the possible reason above, they also may not have had any leisure time due to living in harsh environments. Down thru history only societies that have large amounts of resources and therefore more leisure time have produced the most artwork.

lp: A thorougly ad hoc "explanation", like so many of Ed's other maybes.

But a rational assumption given what we know nevertheless.

[lpetrich]

Ed:
(on Homo ergaster fossils being a mixture of fossils of more than one species...)
See my post to ergaster above.

You still have not given your reassignments of the various H. ergaster fossils.

(H. erectus artwork)
We may find some in the future.

But given the track record, that would be a remarkable discovery. In the meantime, you may want to join me in this thread on H. erectus artwork (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57674). I plan to be posting something there on early stone tools before very long.

(H. erectus not having much opportunity to create much art...)
But a rational assumption given what we know nevertheless.

For what reasons(s)? Is there any independent evidence for your contentions about how much opportunity H. erectus had had to create art?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Ed, I am STILL waiting to discuss "modern birds coexisting with archaeopteryx" on the thread that I specifically created for this purpose.

Why do you persist with blatantly false accusations of "attempted censorship" when YOU will not discuss the topic YOU raised?

[Ergaster]

Originally posted by Ed
See my post to ergaster above.

Which post would that be? You have not yet told us which *TWO* species the fossils in the H. ergaster hypodigm actually belong to. It's beginning to look suspiciously like you cannot support your own assertions.



We may find some in the future.

Sure. We may find the Lost Continent of Atlantis, too. But there is a big difference between "It's remotely possible we may find 'art'" and "they created 'art'", or is that distinction too subtle for you?

[Ed]

Originally posted by l-bow
Ed,


Didn't you previously say that H. Ergaster remains were actually from two separate species. You new statement implies that H.Ergaster should be classified as H. Erectus.

No, I was just referring to those particular fossils not all the ergaster fossils.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ergaster
Yes, see the "Homo erectus artwork" thread about this: there are some professionals who prefer to regard the African form of these early Pleistocene fossils as erectus, and H. ergaster as a junior taxonomic synonym, and even lpetrich is using the term in the broad sense. However, they all agree that these fossils *are* morphologically distinct from traditional (i.e. Asian) erectus forms, and certainly they are temporally and geographically distinct.

The issue is this: your claim that the ergaster hypodigm is a mix of two different species is different from the professional claim that the ergaster hypodigm is simply a geographical variant of erectus. The