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."
The basic premise of ID is that something with complex components that function with a discernible purpose in the overall function of that something, has been designed by something else with intelligence. So a watch, with many moving parts all of which work other to the overall functioning of the watch, does not exist because of a random series of events but is the result of a purposeful design by an intelligent designer. In the same way the human body and millions of other complex living things and components of living things that function with discernible purpose, are evidence of being created by an Intelligent Designer.
Consider reading up on any of the many rebuttals to the watchmaker analogy and keep in mind please the conditions required in order for something to be considered scientifically accurate.
Logical conundrums, even well formulated ones (hint, the watchmaker analogy is not one of them), are proof of nothing other than our ability to conceive of abstract concepts, a function of what we perceive as consciousness.
Thanks. Where’s this bone in the human hand and how does that compare to other primate’s hands?
Basically the center of the palm:
> You appear to be quite unfamiliar with how things actually work.
-— snip -—
> Incredulity for those conclusions is by itself evidence of
> nothing other than contempt for scientific methodology.
That’s exactly what the Global Warmists say. Evolutionists and Global Warmists almost always resort to ad hominem. It’s the closest thing to “science” they’ve got.
This compared to the lack of essential evidence for Darwinism of transference between major animal groups.
The evidence for ID goes way beyond a preponderance and is beyond a reasonable doubt. ID evidence overwhelms the opposing Darwinism. There is no evidence of transference between major animal groups, essential to prove Darwinism. Verdict and judgement in favor of ID.
“The point is that complex construction with order and purpose is strong evidence of ID.”
It is neither strong, nor evidence. It’s an analogy and a flawed one at that.
“A reasonable person would conclude that a watch or a car was made by someone. It would not be reasonable to conclude that a car was the result of random events. The same is true with living things.”
But it isn’t the same, at all. Again, please consider familiarizing yourself with the simple rebuttals of the analogy and why it is not evidence for anything other than our ability to think abstractly.
“This compared to the lack of essential evidence for Darwinism of transference between major animal groups. The evidence for ID goes way beyond a preponderance and is beyond a reasonable doubt. ID evidence overwhelms the opposing Darwinism. There is no evidence of transference between major animal groups, essential to prove Darwinism. Verdict and judgement in favor of ID.”
You say that as if it were true, and it is not. Great thing is there’s so much available research for any of us to investigate, in the open, with reasoned scientific principles that can be observed and tested and are falsifiable, should one be willing to do so.
That doesn’t answer the question of who designed the designer. And if the designer could spontaneously exist on his own without needing to be created, why can’t the same be said for human life or earth?
It's also exactly what doctors would say to someone who insisted that disease was caused by bad humors instead of germs, or that tornadoes are caused by differences in air temperature rather than by the anger of the wind gods. You need a better argument.
What about extremely flawed "complex construction with order and purpose"? What's that evidence of? It seems to me that if you're going to point to things that work well as evidence of ID, you also have to explain the things that don't work so well--like my knees, for example.
> You need a better argument.
Precisely the same could be said for you.
The arguments for Evolution and Global Warming are remarkably congruent. Neither is science.
That is an entirely different issue. Questions about the origins of the Intelligent Designer doesn't negate the ID premise that the complexity and purpose of living things necessitates an Intelligent Designer.
Nevertheless, your question is an interesting one. One might ask, can the thing designed necessarily know the origins of its Designer? The Designer may have attributes the designee knows nothing about. The designee is limited by its design and may not be capable of understanding certain things about its Designer. The dimensions, for instance, in and of the Designer may far exceed that of the limited dimensions of the designee. However, the attributes attributed to the designee reflects something (but not necessarily all) of the characteristics of the Designer.
“Questions about the origins of the Intelligent Designer doesn’t negate the ID premise that the complexity and purpose of living things necessitates an Intelligent Designer.”
It is when the premise of the argument is that something complex had to have been created by something more complex.
Deterioration is another issue and does not negate the premise of ID. One might question why the Creator allowed deterioration but that’s questioning the Creator’s thinking, not His existence.
So what? The arguments for evolution are the same kinds of arguments made for any scientific theory. The fact that global warmists use them too doesn't prove anything about any of the other theories. It's like claiming that Elmore Leonard wasn't a great writer because his fans say the same things that Dan Brown fans do.
So the things that do work well prove the existence of the Creator, but the things that don't work well are to be ignored, is that it? Do you not see how circular your argument is?
No. You simply go outside the premise of ID by questioning the origins of the Designer. The issue here is whether living things that are seen are designed by an Intelligent Designer. The Intelligent Designer is invisible but his existence is inferred by that which is seen. The premise of ID is based on the visible not the invisible. The origins of the Invisible Designer is a separate issue.
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.