The styloid process allows the hand to lock into the wrist bones, giving humans the ability to apply greater amounts of pressure to the hand. This allows humans to make and use tools. Courtesy of University of Missouri
Posted on 12/18/2013 10:11:55 AM PST by null and void
The styloid process allows the hand to lock into the wrist bones, giving humans the ability to apply greater amounts of pressure to the hand. This allows humans to make and use tools. Courtesy of University of Missouri
COLUMBIA, MO – Humans have a distinctive hand anatomy that allows them to make and use tools. Apes and other nonhuman primates do not have these distinctive anatomical features in their hands, and the point in time at which these features first appeared in human evolution is unknown. Now, a University of Missouri researcher and her international team of colleagues have found a new hand bone from a human ancestor who roamed the earth in East Africa approximately 1.42 million years ago. They suspect the bone belonged to the early human species, Homo erectus. The discovery of this bone is the earliest evidence of a modern human-like hand, indicating that this anatomical feature existed more than half a million years earlier than previously known.
"This bone is the third metacarpal in the hand, which connects to the middle finger. It was discovered at the 'Kaitio' site in West Turkana, Kenya," said Carol Ward, professor of pathology and anatomical sciences at MU. The discovery was made by a West Turkana Paleo Project team, led by Ward's colleague and co-author Fredrick Manthi of the National Museums of Kenya. "What makes this bone so distinct is that the presence of a styloid process, or projection of bone, at the end that connects to the wrist. Until now, this styloid process has been found only in us, Neandertals and other archaic humans."
The styloid process helps the hand bone lock into the wrist bones, allowing for greater amounts of pressure to be applied to the wrist and hand from a grasping thumb and fingers. Ward and her colleagues note that a lack of the styloid process created challenges for apes and earlier humans when they attempted to make and use tools. This lack of a styloid process may have increased the chances of having arthritis earlier, Ward said.
The bone was found near sites where the earliest Acheulian tools have appeared. Acheulian tools are ancient, shaped stone tools that include stone hand axes more than 1.6 million years old. Being able to make such precise tools indicates that these early humans were almost certainly using their hands for many other complex tasks as well, Ward said.
"The styloid process reflects an increased dexterity that allowed early human species to use powerful yet precise grips when manipulating objects. This was something that their predecessors couldn't do as well due to the lack of this styloid process and its associated anatomy," Ward said. "With this discovery, we are closing the gap on the evolutionary history of the human hand. This may not be the first appearance of the modern human hand, but we believe that it is close to the origin, given that we do not see this anatomy in any human fossils older than 1.8 million years. Our specialized, dexterous hands have been with us for most of the evolutionary history of our genus, Homo. They are – and have been for almost 1.5 million years – fundamental to our survival."
Who's "they"? Scientists challenged Piltdown man from the beginning.
As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull.[6] Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.[7]
I’m going to need that translated a bit.
Suffering exists, therefore there is no intelligent designer? Really? That's pretty shallow stuff.
The most arrogant and boring people in the world are those that have suffered little.
Obviously unaware of Michael Behe, who has in fact posited specific examples.
I am a little slow on the uptake. May I ask you a few questions? I do not mean to be rude and interpose myself into your conversations with others.
Which of his examples do you think would prove irreducible complexity the best, for novices like me.
As long as you aren’t too picky about the answer, sure.
Do you have any issue with professor Behe’s admission under oath that ID is equivalent to astrology? (The “A’s” are Behe under oath.)
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that’s correct.
Thank you. Is your view that of the Darwinist, materialist which accounts for the universe?
No, I won't regurgitate what I've already repeated on this thread. Go back and look and see what I've said about ID evidence. You don't need me to tell you what the evidence is. Just an objective look at your own body and how amazingly it works should be enough.
Well, one, I don’t know what you mean by Darwinist, as it often used as a pejorative and I certainly am not a ‘follower’ of Darwin. He was a man with what turned out to be some incredible observations that turned the world of science on its head.
As far as materialism is concerned, if you are interested in a philosophical discussion of the mind, I’m really not interested, nor qualified, mostly because I’ve never been interested.
Regarding materialism I simply mean it means the universe is comprised of matter and energy. That is what the Big Bang produced. I am simply trying to understand your point of view. I will not ask any trick questions. I am a very simple person. I am simply looking for clarity on the subject.
My question regarding materialism simply references the question of how does one arrive at your conclusions regarding the theory of evolution. How to approach a resolution of those conclusions…how, then, will we arrive at agreement….'this is what your Dad believed, and he is always right', or 'that is what my Dad believed, and he is always right', or sociologically it is the representative majority consensus,…. or 'it is the most psychologically comforting',…. or, 'we will deliberately, thoughtfully consider the facts and use the laws of logic and reason and rational thought to examine my questions and your explications of such questions'.
You chose the method which you believe is most applicable to scientific investigation and methodologies applied to nature to arrive at your conclusion.
I await your answer.
Ok, then if you could, please don’t refer to me as a Darwinist because of the implications of the word.
One more thing I’d like to make clear is I am by no means an expert on any of this, I wouldn’t be so arrogant to even claim it. You will get no great answers from me about anything.
As far as I know, there are no supernatural forces, so yeah, in that respect I am a materialist.
But frankly, my point of view on any of it is meaningless on these matters, only what is true matters. I do think that knowledge is expanded most thoroughly through rigid scientific scholarship though and not ‘common sense’ or comforting thoughts. Where that process will eventually lead will more than likely prove untrue most of what we think is true at some point. Half life of truth kind of thing.
someone is trying to job you, don’t buy it.
Do you know it is true that Darwinian evolution accounts for the diversity of biological life on earth?
I know as well as I can at this point, not as thoroughly as those who are experts. That’s not to say I would continue to believe it to be true should it be proven otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.