Missing Link Skull Pics

[tumnus]

Hey folks,

Sorry to post a new thread about this, but I'm indulging in a bit of creationist debate on, of all things, the forum of my football team, West Ham (soccer to you american friends).

Its going okay, the creationist guy is just going round in circles, and I'm pleased with the comments and arguments already given by my East End brothers and sisters, but I remember a while back some guy asked about the missing link on here, and one guy replied "There is no missing link" and posted a pic containing a long line of skulls from common primate ancestor to human. I was impressed by this and I'd like to reprint it there. Y'know, cos its getting to the "millions of fossils have been found, but none show any transitional stages", which is just pretty ignorant. I know its a long shot, but does the description of this pic ring any bells at all?

Thanks for any help.

Tobias van de Peer

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This one? http://www.plyojump.com/courses/biology/images/hominid_family.jpg

[tumnus]

Thanks, but it wasnt that one.

I remember about 10 or 12, all in a line, with captions.

Basically to show the transitional forms. The point being that its a continous process. Of course, when a new fossil is found that bridges the gap they all leap into the two new gaps that brings up going "hey, how did they get from here to here?" Ovey ;)

I can't remember the poster, but it was a regular.

[Elizabeth I]

I don't know the photo you're referring to, but what about archaeopteryx? If there was ever a transitional fossil, that's it.

Or is this person one of the, "well, maybe animals evolved, but not PEOPLE" types?

[Kopji]

Hi Tumnus,
Welcome to the forum!

This site is usually helpful for the kind of discussions you are having:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

The google "image" search tool turned up several charts of skulls that might be what you remember. There is one from Time magazine that seems likely.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=evolution+skulls&gbv=2

[Dr Adequate]

I think that this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html) is probably what you're looking for.

[Dr Adequate]

I don't know the photo you're referring to, but what about archaeopteryx? If there was ever a transitional fossil, that's it. http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/images/thumb/2/2d/Dinosaur-to-Bird.jpg/800px-Dinosaur-to-Bird.jpg

Compsognathus, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, and a chicken. There are more elements in this family tree, obviously, but I didn't have the room or the patience.

From Intermediate Forms Between Classes

[TragicMonkey]

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/images/thumb/2/2d/Dinosaur-to-Bird.jpg/800px-Dinosaur-to-Bird.jpg

Compsognathus, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, and a chicken. There are more elements in this family tree, obviously, but I didn't have the room or the patience.


Your realize the full implications of evolution, don't you?

General Tso Compsognathus.

It would be delicious!

[Kopji]

Throg: -grunt- taste like chicken :)

[Tricky]

Throg: -grunt- taste like chicken :)
I always preferred the very well-connected string of equine fossils. But I understand they tast more like beef.
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/equid2t.gif

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think that this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html) is probably what you're looking for.

I'm assuming that's the one he's looking for. The 29+ Evidences essay also lists the species and time frame to go with the skulls/letters.

Tumnus, if you want to see more information on the skulls those images were taken from you can check out this Smithsonian exhibit page (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html).

A fun game is to ask Creationists to draw a line between what they consider "fully ape" and "fully human." Doug Theobald himself used that back in 2001 on a Newsmax BBS we were both participating in.

[Dr Adequate]

A fun game is to ask Creationists to draw a line between what they consider "fully ape" and "fully human." And then find another creationist who disagrees with him.

See this useful table (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html) also courtesy of talkorigins.

[Foster Zygote]

A fun game is to ask Creationists to draw a line between what they consider "fully ape" and "fully human.".

It's a bit like asking them to draw a line between "fully canine" and "fully timber wolf".

[Dr Adequate]

I always preferred the very well-connected string of equine fossils. Dinosaurs to birds is more dramatic:

http://rainbow.ldgo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/dinobirdhand2.gif

Key: (A) A primitive dinosaur or advanced archaeosaur; (B) A dinosaur; (C) A dromaeosaur; (D) Archaeopteryx (E) A modern bird embryo; (F) A modern bird.

Not to scale.

Note the semi-lunate form of the carpal (red) in (C) and (D); only dromaeosaurs and Archaeopteryx have this feature.

[UnrepentantSinner]

It's a bit like asking them to draw a line between "fully canine" and "fully timber wolf".

Remember these are Creationists we're dealing with so "ape" and "human" are used in the colloquial sense.

I've been debating a Creationist for a while now who insists Turkana Boy is a Homo sapiens despite being a tween yet having the brain capacity of a toddler and the largest jaw I have ever seen on any human (though Ron Perlman comes close) while also insisting that Homo Habilis skulls are chimps, despite the fact that their foramen magnum is located posteriorly.

[Foster Zygote]

...while also insisting that Homo Habilis skulls are chimps, despite the fact that their foramen magnum is located posteriorly.

They were just chimps with very good posture.

[UnrepentantSinner]

They were just chimps with very good posture.

:D Good one.

[jesus_freak]

One question for you "evolutionist"...If I were to need a skin graft would they take the skin of an ape since it is my closest relative?

[mummymonkey]

One question for you "evolutionist"...If I were to need a skin graft would they take the skin of an ape since it is my closest relative?For you, maybe.

[Dr Adequate]

One question for you "evolutionist"...If I were to need a skin graft would they take the skin of an ape since it is my closest relative? Actually, other human beings are more closely related to you than chimpanzees are.

[KingMerv00]

One question for you "evolutionist"...If I were to need a skin graft would they take the skin of an ape since it is my closest relative?

Your Steven Colbert impression is brilliant! Bravo!

[Jon.]

One question for you "evolutionist"...If I were to need a skin graft would they take the skin of an ape since it is my closest relative?

If an ape is indeed your nearest relative, then yes, it might be considered. However, most skin grafts are autologous. Some xenografts are performed, though they are usually rejected after a few weeks and are to be considered temporary.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_graft)

[ChristineR]

Hey, jesus_freak, we've missed you on the Bible literalism thread. We have all just assumed that you gave up and realized your position was unsupportable.

[jesus_freak]

Oh Christine I think you only wish that were true!:)

[Zep]

One question for you "evolutionist"...If I were to need a skin graft would they take the skin of an ape since it is my closest relative?Would you please give us a rundown on your understanding of DNA and speciation.

Thanks you.

[jesus_freak]

my very lose definitions
speciation a change of species over time
dna an acid the contains all the information for development in living things.
now will you answer this question? how did life begin?

[CFLarsen]

Hey folks,

Sorry to post a new thread about this, but I'm indulging in a bit of creationist debate on, of all things, the forum of my football team, West Ham (soccer to you american friends).

Its going okay, the creationist guy is just going round in circles, and I'm pleased with the comments and arguments already given by my East End brothers and sisters, but I remember a while back some guy asked about the missing link on here, and one guy replied "There is no missing link" and posted a pic containing a long line of skulls from common primate ancestor to human. I was impressed by this and I'd like to reprint it there. Y'know, cos its getting to the "millions of fossils have been found, but none show any transitional stages", which is just pretty ignorant. I know its a long shot, but does the description of this pic ring any bells at all?

Thanks for any help.

Tobias van de Peer
Just be aware that your friend might try this ruse, that Shermer writes about in "Why People Believe in Weird Things".

When a Creationist demands that you show him that there are no missing links, you can show him something like this timeline:

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/skulls00.jpg

But, he will say, there are plenty of "missing links":

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/skulls01.jpg

Now, once in a while, the paleontologists dig up yet another link in the chain, thereby eliminating one of these "missing links":

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/skulls02.jpg

But, your friend will say, there are now more "missing links":

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/skulls03.jpg

So, the more evidence you show him, the weaker he will claim it is! He is, in fact, demanding that you show him an unbroken chain of relatives, millions of years back.

To counter that, you can ask him if he believes that he came from Adam and Eve. He will, of course, say yes. Then, ask him to show you an unbroken chain of relatives, all the way back to Adam and Eve.

If he can't do that - go back a mere 6,000 years - how can he demand that you go back millions of years?

[Paulhoff]

how did life begin?
Two can play that game, How did so-called god begin?

Paul

:) :) :)

[ChristineR]

Oh Christine I think you only wish that were true!:)

No, I wish that God existed and gave a damn about us, but I think that he doesn't and that we all evolved from ape-like creatures but are pretty wonderful anyhow. :)

[Paulhoff]

No, I wish that God existed and gave a damn about us, but I think that he doesn't and that we all evolved from ape-like creatures but are pretty wonderful anyhow. :)
And we got the biggest pricks too, and not just the ones walking around.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jesus_freak]

Two can play that game, How did so-called god begin?
How are two playing this game when no one answered my question?
I am still waiting it can be Christine or anyone..How did life begin?
How did God begin? He has no begining and will have no end. I know its hard for you to grasp, but there must be an eternal. Space has no end or begining, but I am sure you can understand that.

[jesus_freak]

No, I wish that God existed and gave a damn about us, but I think that he doesn't
You either have never read the New Testament or you just like to use the same arguments over and over knowing the answer. Which one is it?

[Tricky]

I am still waiting it can be Christine or anyone..How did life begin?
Abiogenesis.

[jesus_freak]

Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis.
From wikipedia.
My hypothesis is that life began with God and untill its proven false then another line of thought will be used to modify or replace creation.

[Paulhoff]

You have not proven a god, it is simple as that. Because all the records from that time are gone does not mean we have to make something much more complex to answer the question of how life started. Your so-called book of a so-called god just makes up a so-called god and and answers nothing. I can do that to, the sky is blue because it is blue. That is how much believing in a so-called god answers any question thrown at it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ChristineR]

Well jesus_freak, the theory of abiogenesis is much less solid than the theory of evolution, and plenty of work remains to be done. It's annoying when creationists talk about abiogenesis, evolution, and cosmology as if they were all the same thing, but I will be happy to give you my thoughts on them.

Abiogenesis is a solid theory in that even though we don't know what happened we have a good idea of how it might of happened. (With evolution we have a very good idea of how it did happen.) That theory is completely plausible, supported by the evidence, and does not require God to intervene, at least not by any supernatural means.

The existence of the universe at all is the most difficult question. A common claim is "creation exists, therefore, a creator exists." Except that then we have the question of who created the creator.

What is comes down to is this: you find the idea of an eternal being with super powers and without any creator to be completely acceptable, so acceptable that you believe in him without any real evidence at all. You do not find the idea of an eternal universe without any creator to be acceptable.

I don't understand this attitude. I don't pretend to fully comprehend the eternal universe, but I don't automatically assume that my lack of comprehension means that the universe is controlled by what comes down to a bad tempered human with super powers.

[Tricky]

Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis.
From wikipedia.
My hypothesis is that life began with God and untill its proven false then another line of thought will be used to modify or replace creation.
What ChristineR said.

I'll just add.

Yes, they are both hypotheses. There is evidence for abiogenesis. There is none for "goddidit".

[Glen.Nogami]

<snip>there must be an eternal. <snip>


That so, Plato?

[fishbob]

I am still waiting it can be Christine or anyone..How did life begin?

Beats me, but I lean towards explanations supported by evidence.
You seem to be absolutely certain with no basis at all.

[UnrepentantSinner]

What does abiogenesis have to do with all those hominid skulls we have? I love how Creationists try and move the goalposts by asking "where did the first life come from" as if that somehow makes the 3.5 billion years of evidence for evolution go away.

JF, can you identify which of the skulls are "fully human" and which aren't?

[jesus_freak]

JF, can you identify which of the skulls are "fully human" and which aren't?
sounds like a loaded question...kinda like are humans still evolving

[jesus_freak]

There is evidence for abiogenesis. There is none for "goddidit".
wow what kind of "evidence"is there for non life creating life... I am very courious.
As far as the creation = creator or watch=watch maker or painting = painter argument I think that is a way better argument than well life just appeared don't know how but if you give it enough time like a few billion years it just happens.

[UnrepentantSinner]

sounds like a loaded question...kinda like are humans still evolving

Nope, it's completely up to you. You know that A is a chimpanzee, and N is a modern human. Where do you draw the line between "fully ape" and "fully human"? You can justify your reasoning or just make the call. Like I said, it's up to you.

[jesus_freak]

Nope, it's completely up to you. You know that A is a chimpanzee, and N is a modern human. Where do you draw the line between "fully ape" and "fully human"? You can justify your reasoning or just make the call. Like I said, it's up to you.
sorry but I dont think could even tell you a horse skull and a cow skull...obviously I am not even close to being qualified to answer this.

[UnrepentantSinner]

sorry but I dont think could even tell you a horse skull and a cow skull...obviously I am not even close to being qualified to answer this.

O.k. I can accept that.

[Tricky]

wow what kind of "evidence"is there for non life creating life... I am very courious.
Not "creating", but "arising from". Creation implies a conscious action.

I assure there is quite a bit of evidence for abiogenesis, most of it inductive. I might discuss it with you if you first give us some evidence for a creator.

[Paulhoff]

It is funny how creationists have a hard time understanding life coming into beings in millions, if not more, small steps. But they have no problem with believing in a so-called all-powerful all-knowing super being jumping into existence all at once.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jesus_freak]

I assure there is quite a bit of evidence for abiogenesis, most of it inductive. I might discuss it with you if you first give us some evidence for a creator.
Read Genesis...I know its not evience right?

[Paulhoff]

Read Genesis...I know its not evience right?
Right..................

Paul

:) :) :)

And which one in the bible........................

[jesus_freak]

Im pretty sure there is only 1 Genesis in the Bible.
How about Christ rising from the dead does that count as evidence?

[ChristineR]

Im pretty sure there is only 1 Genesis in the Bible.
How about Christ rising from the dead does that count as evidence?

Most scholars believe that Genesis was originally several texts which were put together, and Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:1-2 were from a different text as the rest of Genesis 2. They are clearly two different stories of the creation of the world. Some literalists argue that the author felt the need to repeat the story with different details and that the second story is not to be read as a literal, chronological account but just some extra information.

I think this is a corruption of the original meaning of the text, and shows disrespect for the Bible. But that's just me.

As far as Christ rising from the dead, we don't have one single account of someone who was there. Mark should have been able to talk to people who were there, but we don't know if he did and Mark doesn't say. Matthew and Luke simply copied their info from Mark. John was written after everyone was dead, and we don't know where he got his information from. Paul says he talked to people who were there, but he doesn't give any real help. Paul for example says Jesus talked to 500 people after the resurrection, but no other record of all these people exists.

Not one of the various Romans and Jews who write about the early Christians says anything about Jesus other than he died.

Further, there are many, many old stories about people coming back to life after an unjust or unfair death. Little Red Riding Hood did it! More importantly, there are many stories about real people who supposedly came back to life after dying. It's not always possible to tell if it was a hoax, or the story is fiction, or if a coma was mistaken for death. The only thing really unique about Jesus is that so many people still take the story seriously.

So in order to convince people that Jesus really did come back to life, you have to first convince people that Jesus' friends thought he came back to life! I'd say that even that modest claim is only about half likely to be true.

[Paulhoff]

Not that I back this site as true, but ......................

http://www.evilbible.com/

Paul

:) :) :)

[jesus_freak]

Not that I back this site as true, but ......................

http://www.evilbible.com/ (http://www.evilbible.com/)

whats your point?

[Paulhoff]

whats your point?
Oh, I hit a nerve, now the christian love comes out………….

Paul

:) :) :)

[jesus_freak]

Oh, I hit a nerve, now the christian love comes out………….

Paul

Actually no, no nerves were hit I just don't get your point

[Paulhoff]

Actually no, no nerves were hit I just don't get your point
There is no point, it is a website.................

For people who see the light

Paul

:) :) :)

[jesus_freak]

There is no point, it is a website.................

For people who see the light

I see the light...I read some of it and what I read all seemed true...and?

[Paulhoff]

Do you always need the hear the other shoe hit...............

Paul

:) :) :)

very controlling

[UnrepentantSinner]

This thread is about Creation and Evolution. Can we keep the evangelism (jf) and the God-Hating (paul) somewhere else. I this is R&P, but let's stay on the topic of the OP.

[Tricky]

This thread is about Creation and Evolution. Can we keep the evangelism (jf) and the God-Hating (paul) somewhere else. I this is R&P, but let's stay on the topic of the OP.
You crazy dreamer.

[Paulhoff]

Where have I ever said I hated a non-god.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

Say what you want, because in the end the very religious will always lie about evolution because for them the ends always, always justify the means.

Bye

Paul

:) :) :)

[Tricky]

Say what you want, because in the end the very religious will always lie about evolution because for them the ends always, always justify the means.
More often than not, the very religious simply do not understand evolution. Being ignorant is different from lying, even if you are being willfully ignorant. It is not exactly admirable, but it's not lying.

[Foster Zygote]

Read Genesis...I know its not evience right?

Read the Bhagavad Gita. It's just as much evidence as the Bible is.

[tumnus]

Cool, some great info there.

Dr Adequate has it on the money with the exact pic I was thinking of, thanks for digging it out of the back of my mind!

However, there's a lot more great links that I can use that you folks have kindly provided.

Cheers!

Toby vdp

[pandamonk]

Sorry I'm a bit late, but here(www youtube.com/watch?v=1dvqq7y_SCw) is a video I made on the subject last night.

Sorry i can't link, not over the 15 limit yet.

[Paulhoff]

More often than not, the very religious simply do not understand evolution. Being ignorant is different from lying, even if you are being willfully ignorant. It is not exactly admirable, but it's not lying.
I will give you that there are many that are willfully ignorant, but not at the top levels, not the ones that have TV shows. Not the ones making money off of other people's ignorance. If you want to lie about something, the more you know about it the better you are at lying about it.

Paul

:) :) :)