Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've also been reading your all's answers, and so far, no proof, ...

And you're here to expose us and fix the problem. We are so very fortunate.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing in the article reflects what you claim.

The article does confirm as referenced that the Australopithecus Group is separate evolutionary group in the hominin evolutionary tree. No it says noting about the skull being an immature cimp nor gorilla.

Please read post #16 which highlights the fact that the theory about the "Taung child" is up to scientific question once again.

 

[YoursTrue]

OMG!

"controversy among... scientists"? ​

Please - tell me it isn't so.​

Either it's true or it isn't true. Lol...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Either it's true or it isn't true.

How would you know?

 

[YoursTrue]

And you're here to expose us and fix the problem. We are so very fortunate.

Nope, I entered the discussion because of two things: the first is to see why a person really believes that life came about by magic, I mean evolution. And the second is to see what the reasons are that a person cites upholding the theory. I actually have learned a lot.

 

[YoursTrue]

How would you know?

Lol here's what I do know.... you're kidding about that. And I thank you for your answers. Just to say why I said that, you do know that what's true today in science may not be true to tomorrow. You should know that. Lol...

 

[shunyadragon]

Please read post #16 which highlights the fact that the theory about the "Taung child" is up to scientific question once again.

I read post #16, and it only represents a contorted contrived effort form the Creationist perspective with very little context of the whole of the scientific knowledge hominin evolution as usual. Still looking for rabbits in th Cambrian rocks.

The controversies in the science of evolution involve academic disagreements in the constant advancements in evolutionary sciences, and NOT questioning the foundation of evolution itself, or the basic evolutionary tree referenced, and the place of the australopithincus Group. of species

 

[YoursTrue]

I read post #16, and it only represents a contorted contrived effort form the Creationist perspective with very little context of the whole of the scientific knowledge hominin evolution as usual. Still looking for rabbits in th Cambrian rocks.

The controversies in the science of evolution involve academic disagreements in the constant advancements in evolutionary sciences, and NOT questioning the foundation of evolution itself, or the basic evolutionary tree referenced, and the place of the australopithincus Group. of species

Are you saying that phys.org and the scientists that did the physiological readings are the awfull what-you-call creationists?
Please explain the following, if you can:
"By subjecting the skull of the first australopith discovered to the latest technologies in the Wits University Microfocus X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) facility, researchers are now casting doubt on theories that Australopithecus africanus shows the same cranial adaptations found in modern human infants and toddlers – in effect disproving current support for the idea that this early hominin shows infant brain development in the prefrontal region similar to that of modern humans.
The results have been published online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on Monday, 25 August 2014."

Are you saying that the journal (PNAS) is a (heavens-forbid) CREATIONIST JOURNAL??? heavens to betsy!!

 

[nPeace]

Are you saying that phys.org and the scientists that did the physiological readings are the awfull what-you-call creationists?
Please explain the following, if you can:
"By subjecting the skull of the first australopith discovered to the latest technologies in the Wits University Microfocus X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) facility, researchers are now casting doubt on theories that Australopithecus africanus shows the same cranial adaptations found in modern human infants and toddlers – in effect disproving current support for the idea that this early hominin shows infant brain development in the prefrontal region similar to that of modern humans.
The results have been published online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on Monday, 25 August 2014."

Are you saying that the journal (PNAS) is a (heavens-forbid) CREATIONIST JOURNAL??? heavens to betsy!!

I don't understand that to be what he is saying.
They are saying that evolution theory is not questioned, even if the mechanisms, as well as the classifications are... I think.

The phylogenetic tree hypothesis can fix those issues... in time, anyway.

 

[sun rise]

Please explain if you will, when you say "there's nothing of the sort?"

You stated "I've been reading...problems...". I don't know what you've been reading but my reply is that there's no problems "nothing of that sort" because that skull has cleanly been placed on the tree of human development.

 

[sayak83]

Perhaps someone could explain the strange tendency of the evolution crowd to deny there's any controversy among scientists about these types of findings?

Because there is none?

 

[sayak83]

There's more about recent developments of the Taung fossil, "By subjecting the skull of the first australopith discovered to the latest technologies... researchers are now casting doubt on theories that Australopithecus africanus shows the same cranial adaptations found in modern human infants and toddlers – in effect disproving current support for the idea that this early hominin shows infant brain development in the prefrontal region similar to that of modern humans." Right. Ok. https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-08-taung-child-skull-brain-human-like.amp

The 2014 paper refuted a tentative hypothesis put forward by a group of researchers in 2012 that Taung child showed human like early skull bone development. In general there was never any established belief among the research community that Australopith child brain development was human like. The popular article goofed up...as usual.
New high-resolution computed tomography data of the Taung partial cranium and endocast and their bearing on metopism and hominin brain evolution
Abstract
Falk and colleagues [Falk D, Zollikofer CP, Morimoto N, Ponce de León MS (2012) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109(22):8467–8470] hypothesized that selective pressures favored late persistence of a metopic suture and open anterior fontanelle early in hominin evolution, and they put an emphasis on the Taung Child (Australopithecus africanus) as evidence for the antiquity of these adaptive features. They suggested three mutually nonexclusive pressures: an “obstetric dilemma,” high early postnatal brain growth rates, and neural reorganization in the frontal cortex. To test this hypothesis, we obtained the first high-resolution computed tomography (CT) data from the Taung hominin. These high-resolution image data and an examination of the hominin fossil record do not support the metopic and fontanelle features proposed by Falk and colleagues. Although a possible remnant of the metopic suture is observed in the nasion–glabella region of the Taung partial cranium (but not along the frontal crest), this character state is incongruent with the zipper model of metopic closure described by Falk and colleagues. Nor do chimpanzee and bonobo endocast data support the assertion that delayed metopic closure in Taung is necessary because of widening (reorganization) of the prefrontal or frontal cortex. These results call into question the adaptive value of delaying metopic closure, and particularly its antiquity in hominin evolution. Further data from hominoids and hominins are required to support the proposed adaptive arguments, particularly an obstetric dilemma placing constraints on neural and cranial development in Australopithecus.

So a new hypothesis was proposed in 2012. Evidence was gathered and the hypothesis was falsified in 2014. Classic science in action.

Your claim about a controversy is refuted.

 

[nPeace]

You stated "I've been reading...problems...". I don't know what you've been reading but my reply is that there's no problems "nothing of that sort" because that skull has cleanly been placed on the tree of human development.

That's right. The hypothesis keeps growing and growing, and new branches keep sprouting. Nothing makes for more fun than one big idea.

@YoursTrue when one is happy with a chain that's linked by...

....they are free to wear it.
Doesn't matter that you see it. They never will.
However, trying to figure out why they don't, isn't necessarily a bad thing. So I see your angle of approach.
You go girl.

 

[Justanatheist]

Look I want certainty,
I want knowledge now that in 1000 years time will still be the same.
I do not want to waste my time on trying to keep educating myself with all these new ideas that may change next year.
That is why when I want knowledge I go to a two thousand year old book written by anonymous authors who knew very little about physics, biology or any of that "changeable" stuff.
The bible as knowledgeable now as its always been

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm reading that there were problems associated with categorizing the "Taung child" fossil in terms of its evolutionary place.

Problems arise with classifying the relationships of living things all the time.
What problems are you referring to?

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you saying that phys.org and the scientists that did the physiological readings are the awfull what-you-call creationists?

NO, you are unethically selectively interpreting the article from a dishonest Creationist perspective.


Please explain the following, if you can:
"By subjecting the skull of the first australopith discovered to the latest technologies in the Wits University Microfocus X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) facility, researchers are now casting doubt on theories that Australopithecus africanus shows the same cranial adaptations found in modern human infants and toddlers – in effect disproving current support for the idea that this early hominin shows infant brain development in the prefrontal region similar to that of modern humans.
The results have been published online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on Monday, 25 August 2014."

Are you saying that the journal (PNAS) is a (heavens-forbid) CREATIONIST JOURNAL??? heavens to betsy!! [/QUOTE]

NO, you are unethically selectively interpreting the article from a dishonest Creationist perspective.

The controversies in the science of evolution involve academic disagreements in the constant advancements in evolutionary sciences, and NOT questioning the foundation of evolution itself, or the basic evolutionary tree referenced, and the place of the australopithincus Group. of species.

Nowhere in this article was the foundation of human evolution remotely questioned.

 

[shunyadragon]

Problems arise with classifying the relationships of living things all the time.
What problems are you referring to?

Yes problems arise, which is the nature of the changing and advancing of knowledge in ALL the sciences. SO WHAT?!?!!?

The controversies in the science of evolution involve academic disagreements in the constant advancements in evolutionary sciences, and NOT questioning the foundation of evolution itself, or the basic evolutionary tree referenced, and the place of the australopithincus Group. of species.

Nowhere in this article was the foundation of human evolution remotely questioned.

 

[ecco]

Yes, I've been reading and from the article, there was much controversy among... scientists.

Regarding when Adam & Eve were created: I've been reading the RF posts, there was is much controversy among... creationists.


Do you have a point to make?

 

[ecco]

I've also been reading your all's answers, and so far, no proof, no nothing other than conjecture. Viruses remain viruses, chimps remain chimps and finches remain finches.

Scientists claim heliocentricity is fact.
Scientists claim Evolution is fact.
You believe one but not the other. Why?


Note: I am making the assumption that you believe heliocentricity is fact. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[ecco]

Perhaps someone could explain the strange tendency of the evolution crowd to deny there's any controversy among scientists about these types of findings?

Regarding when the universe was created: Perhaps someone could explain the strange tendency of the creationist crowd to downplay any controversy among creationists about how long ago this occurred.