[noguru]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

I can, but I won't. I refuse to entertain this sort of stupidity.

Right.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

I think you meant gait, and I believe this point was made about A. Sediba as well.

Thanks for correcting my spelling.

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

Whoever wrote that obviously doesn't think they walked like we do, nor that their foot was like ours. Barbarian is simply trying to make it appear that this is the case.

Can you describe how a unique form of bipedalism where arboreal life is recolonized to a degree means that this transition is not clear? Can you explain your logic in more detail?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by noguru

Thanks for correcting my spelling.

No problem. I had English teachers who would take off ten points for a single misspelled word.

Can you describe how a unique form of bipedalism where arboreal life is recolonized to a degree means that this transition is not clear? Can you explain your logic in more detail?

I'm not arguing about a supposed transition. Give it up.

[alwight]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

We've found the 'thumb' from the foot of A. Sediba. I showed a picture of it.

I'm not sure it was at all clear from your post that the "thumb" was opposable even if it looked somewhat "ape" like, but then it probably would since they seem to have spent some of the time in trees.
It seems clear enough to me at least from fossils and footprints that the Australopithecus genus as a whole would have had a much more human-like bipedal gait and non-opposeable "feet" (big toe/thumb) while Australopithecus sediba seems to have a good example of a pelvis to support this while the ankle and foot arch too is human-like apparently according to a BBC website.

Are you really calling Barbarian a liar based on what you like to think it looks like from that picture alone while he sees a variety of evidence as I do to suggest a human-like pelvis and feet in all Australopithecus. At worst this is a difference of opinion, nobody seems to be lying here.

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

Want another one?

I'll post up to here for now and look at your next example later.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

I'm not arguing about a supposed transition. Give it up.

Then what exactly are you arguing about? I guess I am missing the entire point of your objection to the presentation framed in Barbarians posts.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by alwight

I'm not sure it was at all clear from your post that the "thumb" was opposable even if it looked somewhat "ape" like, but then it probably wood since they seem to have spent some of the time in trees.
It seems clear enough to me at least from fossils and footprints that the Australopithecus genus as a whole would have had a much more human-like bipedal gait and non-opposeable "feet" (big toe/thumb) while Australopithecus sediba seems to have a good example of a pelvis to support this while the ankle and foot arch too is human-like apparently according to a BBC website.

Are you really calling Barbarian a liar based on what you like to think it looks like from that picture alone while he sees a variety of evidence as I do to suggest a human-like pelvis and feet in all Australopithecus. At worst this is a difference of opinion, nobody seems to be lying here.

He presented A. Sediba in response to my assertion that no other creature had feet like ours. And they don't. There might be a few minor similarities, but I'm not arguing against that, even though you guys keep trying to make that seem to be the case.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

He presented A. Sediba in response to my assertion that no other creature had feet like ours. And they don't. There might be a few similarities, but I'm not arguing against that, even though you guys keep trying to make that seem to be the case.

Oh now I see the confusion. When barbarian said "like" you thought he meant "exacty like". I'm glad we cleared that up.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by noguru

Then what exactly are you arguing about?

I'm arguing that no other creature has feet like a human being's. It's a really simple argument. You're trying to make it more complicated than it is. Just show me a non-human with feet like ours, or admit there are none that we know of.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by noguru

Oh now I see the confusion. When barbarian said "like" you thought he meant "exacty like". I'm glad we cleared that up.

No. When I said "like," he thought he could pass off "with some minor similarities to (along with some major differences)" as like. This sort of sleazy argumentation is his forte.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

I'm arguing that no other creature has feet like a human being's. It's a really simple argument. You're trying to make it more complicated that it is. Just show me a non-human with feet like ours, or admit there are none that we know of.

Right, because being human means they have totally bipedal gate (exactly or very close) to ours. Barbarian was trying to show the incremental transition prior to h. antecessor. And you want to make it a black and white issue, because to acknowledge the incremental transition would mean there was evidence for what you so vehemently oppose.

[The Barbarian]

It's natural to be frustrated when things you assume aren't supported in evidence. But it's not a smart idea to lash out as a response.

Fact is, no one has found an opposed big toe in any remains of this species, and the few bones we have for the feet are largely human-like, with a few primitive features, as the abstract I posted indicates. The abstract also notes that it is transitional between more primitive hominin feet, and modern humans. The toe bone I cited is a case in point, being largely human-like.

The ankle bone is quite human-like, and although the talus is more ape-like, there is evidence that the Achilles tendon was human-like, and there is evidence for an arch previously not found outside of the genus Homo.

I will, however, concede the point if anyone can show me anything in the literature that says this species had an opposable big toe, or that the human arch wasn't there, or even if someone can show some evidence that strongly suggests such things. Again, I'm willing to let this one go, particularly as it is out of character for Jack to act like that.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

No. When I said "like," he thought he could pass off "with some minor similarities to (along with some major differences)" as like. This sort of sleazy argumentation is his forte.

Is that my cue to agree with you? Labeling it "sleazy"?

[alwight]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

No they haven't. Like I said before -- this is just a story concocted to reconcile the discovery of human footprints in strata where they shouldn't be. There is no skeletal evidence of such a thing, and despite The Barbarian's assertions, he hasn't presented any. He seems intent on talking about the structure of the pelvis, which I've already shown to be irrelevant.

Again nobody is lying, you just seem to be overreacting a bit. As I've already suggested in this thread that I tend to think of Homo Sapiens as "humans" rather than say Homo neanderthalensis, I learn that there is a term "Archaic Homo sapiens" which is a looser term that some people might use which would cover these other extinct "humans" but generally science is more specific than this imo.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally Posted by noguru

Right, because being human means they have totally bipedal gate (exactly or very close) to ours. Barbarian was trying to show the incremental transition prior to h. antecessor. And you want to make it a black and white issue, because to acknowledge the incremental transition would mean there was evidence for what you so vehemently oppose.

I'm prepared to concede the minor similarities given in the scientific presentation originally offered. That has nothing to do with my point.

[alwight]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

He presented A. Sediba in response to my assertion that no other creature had feet like ours. And they don't. There might be a few minor similarities, but I'm not arguing against that, even though you guys keep trying to make that seem to be the case.

I noticed my spelling mistake here "wood" for "would" since they were partly living in trees it seems rather apt.