Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ragnarok · 03-21-2002, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
"Yes. The French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, in a series of studies from 1911-1913, argued that H. neanderthal were apelike in posture. His reconstruction was nearly entirely based on on one skeleton out of many; the "old man " from La Chapelle. Later analysis showed that many of the "ape like" post cranial features ascribed to H. n.s were due to misdiagnosed pathology."

Thank you, DRGH. I have continually been called a liar for posting facts here.
The thing is by the 1970s, textbooks should not have contained depictions based on this faulty analysis, but they did, and I wouldn't be surprised if they still do.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you have conclusively shown that certain evolutionists and scientists have made serious errors or have been frauds. Guess what randy? We already fucking knew that. And that's what everyone here is trying to get through to you. Any field contains charlatans and errors. We admit it, you cretinists do not.

And how does a few bogus fossils exactly prove your particular mythology eh?

Ragnarok · 03-21-2002, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

He also increduously states "creationists beleive no species evolved from one another."
This guy is a professor at one of the most prestigious universties in the world. Are we to really beleive he is unaware of the fact creationists predict rapid speciation?

Or maybe he just can't believe there are people who believe that the current diversity of life "speciated" from a few "kinds" in roughly 4000 years. He may just not be able to fit his head that far up his rectum.

Footnote: "Kinds, Speciation, the ARK" - ROTFLMAO - leave it to cretinists to simultaneuosly deny evolution and propose the most incredibly rapid evolution imaginable. Gotta hand it to these guys. They've got less shame than a porn star.

Dr.GH · 03-21-2002, 06:13 PM

Randman:"Thank you, DRGH. I have continually been called a liar for posting facts here.
The thing is by the 1970s, textbooks should not have contained depictions based on this faulty analysis, but they did, and I wouldn't be surprised if they still do. "

Well, now that I have read the rather bizarre interpretations you have about so many features of hominid evolution, no doubt you will add me to your list of enemies for correcting them.

It is too late to start tonight, so perhaps Friday. One point though, I started teaching in the early 1970s and I do not recall any textbooks with hunched over neanderthals, and I certainly do not know of any today. I doubt that you know of any either, and are merely repeating something you have heard. If I am wrong please provide the publication data, and we will start a campaign to have them eliminated.

notto · 03-21-2002, 06:18 PM

Don't worry randman, World book has corrected all of your concerns in the most recent edition.

<a href="http://worldbook.bigchalk.com/384080.htm" target="_blank">http://worldbook.bigchalk.com/384080.htm</a>

MrDarwin · 03-21-2002, 06:20 PM

Actually, he's just a little out of date. Creationist claims have changed quite a bit in the last couple of decades. Randman thinks creationists "predict" rapid speciation but their "prediction" has only been made recently to try to reconcile a young earth with irrefutable evidence for recent common ancestry in many plant and animal groups, and more importantly, the number of animals species turning out to be in the several millions, posing a serious problem for Noah.

RufusAtticus · 03-21-2002, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Let me give you an example of how evolution is falsely taught. I just went and opened up my 1995 Worldbook Encyclopedia and looked up "evolution."

I urge everyone to grap a free 30-day trial from <a href="http://www.worldbookonline.com" target="_blank">Worldbook Online</a> and see the article for themselves. It takes less than a minute.

Quote:

The article is written by Jerry A. Coyne, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. He still states "recapitulation" which I think most scientists now agree is bunk is a major evidence for evolution.

As a member of the scientific community, I can safely say that you are wrong. Scientists have discredited Haeckel's Law of Recapitulation since the early twentith century. He believed that in development, organisms passed fully through previous evolutionary stages. Although strict recapitulation does not occur, modern embryology recognizes that embryos do have some features that are evolutionary remnients. This is the modern concept of recapitulation. The current worldbook article cites mammalian kidney development as an example of this.

Quote:

He still states vestigal organs are a major evidence of evolution despite the fact that in the past this has led to outright false conclusions. The idea of vestigal organs is at best speculative, and most likely nothing but our own ignorance. He also states the fact that some crayfish have no eyes but eyestalks as evidence of evolution. No dounbt he is aware this is not evidence for evolution as postulated, namely common descent.

Vestigal organs are evidence for evolution as the article explains. You haven't demonstrated otherwise. Do you have another explaination of why blind crayfish have eyestalks?

Quote:

He also increduously states "creationists beleive no species evolved from one another."
This guy is a professor at one of the most prestigious universties in the world. Are we to really beleive he is unaware of the fact creationists predict rapid speciation?

Well, what do you expect when every single creationist says "macroevolution does not occur?" Is not his fault that creationists have no clue what the words they use actually mean.

Quote:

I don't buy that this "professor of evolution" is being honest. I think he deliberately mistates facts in order to bolster his argument. If it is an honest mistake, then I certainly don't think he is qualified to teach at the University of Chicago, nor write for an encyclopedia.

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />
Remind me not to make your president of an university.

-RvFvS

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

Pomp · 03-21-2002, 07:10 PM

Dr.GH,

Yes. The French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, in a series of studies from 1911-1913, argued that H. neanderthal were apelike in posture. His reconstruction was nearly entirely based on on one skeleton out of many; the "old man " from La Chapelle.

Thank you.

Later analysis showed that many of the "ape like" post cranial features ascribed to H. n.s were due to misdiagnosed pathology.

So, science's self-correcting mechanism (peer review) kicked in and corrected the misconception about H. n.s.?

randman · 03-21-2002, 07:27 PM

1. 1994-1995 were years that were later than some of the AIG articles I posted that showed creationists do in fact predict speciation.

2. Vestigal organs: This is pure speculation. Tonsils were once considered useless organs. Heck, doctors used to think toxins could not be absorbed through the skin back in the 50s. Fact is the professor presents vetigal organs as fact when it is pure speculation, and speculation that in the past has been shown to be harmful as organs were mislabelled as vestigal organs. The intellectually honest thing for evolutionists to do is to abandon this type of speculation and stick to real facts, but they want to maintain the influence of false ideas, it seems to me.

3. Recapitulation: More speculation, and moreover, it was shown to be a hoax, but rather than abandon the idea AS A CENTRAL PROOF of evolution as ought to be done, it is still passed down as much as possible. To me, it seems evolutionists use hoaxes as long as possible, and then pass off half-hoaxes as long as possible after that.

4. Neanderthal: I gave my personal testimony of the textbooks I was taught displayed. Sorry some here are too ignorant, or unwilling to face facts, and must call me a liar for not having kept such books until now. I don't doubt though that if I found it, and showed it to many of you, it still wouldn't affect you one bit. Indoctrination and propaganda has taken hold.
By the way, I would not be surprised to see what the lay-man might call ape-like features still emphasized by evolutionists if they stay true to form. Despite the hunchback idea of Neanderthal being debunked, it was so effective I suspect some elements are still in use.

pseudobug · 03-21-2002, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

PB, every time I have tried that the mods locked my threads.

rantman, three months ago, when you and I started "debating" the topic of evolution, I simply thought that you were misinformed about science and did not understand how it works or what methodolgical naturalism was.

I soon learned otherwise--as these folks here have.

However, the quote above from you clearly illustrates either: a.) your dishonesty or, b.) your outright stupidity.

You have been told multiple times what happened to your threads. You were told over a week ago when they were moved to another forum in your previous visit.

As a matter of fact, here are each of those still active threads you claim were locked:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000189" target="_blank">Noone could explain Pakicetus inachus </a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000187" target="_blank">some parting words, ya'll won't answer the quotes</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000190" target="_blank">Can someone explain the meaning of these statements?</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000185" target="_blank">interesting article bashing National Geographic's dino-bird articles </a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000186" target="_blank">Pakicetus inachus</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000184" target="_blank">What's the context and meaning os these statements?</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000228" target="_blank">Wholphins and Ligers, YEC article on kinds</a>

Your threads were moved--not locked. They were moved because you tap danced around every response made to you. You have been told that on numerous occasions. You have been told on several occasions why the were moved and it is even at the top of the threads in BIG RED PRINT for a time.

Yet, you still claim they were locked.

Then. you go to another board, brag about how you "soundly thrashed" the narrow-minded evolutionists and complained that your threads were locked.

They never were--not once.

Now, a week later, you repeat the same thing.

So what is it rantman? Are you lying or just plain stupid

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]

notto · 03-21-2002, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
2. Vestigal organs: This is pure speculation. Tonsils were once considered useless organs. Heck, doctors used to think toxins could not be absorbed through the skin back in the 50s. Fact is the professor presents vetigal organs as fact when it is pure speculation, and speculation that in the past has been shown to be harmful as organs were mislabelled as vestigal organs. The intellectually honest thing for evolutionists to do is to abandon this type of speculation and stick to real facts, but they want to maintain the influence of false ideas, it seems to me.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about what "vestigal" means. Vestigal organs are very real (and vestigal does not equal useless).

Please read up:
<a href="http://atheism.miningco.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_evolution_evidence08.htm" target="_blank">http://atheism.miningco.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_evolution_evidence08.htm</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-21-2002, 06:13 PM	#53
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Randman:"Thank you, DRGH. I have continually been called a liar for posting facts here. The thing is by the 1970s, textbooks should not have contained depictions based on this faulty analysis, but they did, and I wouldn't be surprised if they still do. " Well, now that I have read the rather bizarre interpretations you have about so many features of hominid evolution, no doubt you will add me to your list of enemies for correcting them. It is too late to start tonight, so perhaps Friday. One point though, I started teaching in the early 1970s and I do not recall any textbooks with hunched over neanderthals, and I certainly do not know of any today. I doubt that you know of any either, and are merely repeating something you have heard. If I am wrong please provide the publication data, and we will start a campaign to have them eliminated.

03-21-2002, 06:18 PM	#54
notto Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Minneapolis, MN US Posts: 133	Don't worry randman, World book has corrected all of your concerns in the most recent edition. <a href="http://worldbook.bigchalk.com/384080.htm" target="_blank">http://worldbook.bigchalk.com/384080.htm</a>

03-21-2002, 06:20 PM	#55
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Actually, he's just a little out of date. Creationist claims have changed quite a bit in the last couple of decades. Randman thinks creationists "predict" rapid speciation but their "prediction" has only been made recently to try to reconcile a young earth with irrefutable evidence for recent common ancestry in many plant and animal groups, and more importantly, the number of animals species turning out to be in the several millions, posing a serious problem for Noah.

03-21-2002, 07:10 PM	#57
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Dr.GH, Yes. The French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, in a series of studies from 1911-1913, argued that H. neanderthal were apelike in posture. His reconstruction was nearly entirely based on on one skeleton out of many; the "old man " from La Chapelle. Thank you. Later analysis showed that many of the "ape like" post cranial features ascribed to H. n.s were due to misdiagnosed pathology. So, science's self-correcting mechanism (peer review) kicked in and corrected the misconception about H. n.s.?

03-21-2002, 07:27 PM	#58
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	1. 1994-1995 were years that were later than some of the AIG articles I posted that showed creationists do in fact predict speciation. 2. Vestigal organs: This is pure speculation. Tonsils were once considered useless organs. Heck, doctors used to think toxins could not be absorbed through the skin back in the 50s. Fact is the professor presents vetigal organs as fact when it is pure speculation, and speculation that in the past has been shown to be harmful as organs were mislabelled as vestigal organs. The intellectually honest thing for evolutionists to do is to abandon this type of speculation and stick to real facts, but they want to maintain the influence of false ideas, it seems to me. 3. Recapitulation: More speculation, and moreover, it was shown to be a hoax, but rather than abandon the idea AS A CENTRAL PROOF of evolution as ought to be done, it is still passed down as much as possible. To me, it seems evolutionists use hoaxes as long as possible, and then pass off half-hoaxes as long as possible after that. 4. Neanderthal: I gave my personal testimony of the textbooks I was taught displayed. Sorry some here are too ignorant, or unwilling to face facts, and must call me a liar for not having kept such books until now. I don't doubt though that if I found it, and showed it to many of you, it still wouldn't affect you one bit. Indoctrination and propaganda has taken hold. By the way, I would not be surprised to see what the lay-man might call ape-like features still emphasized by evolutionists if they stay true to form. Despite the hunchback idea of Neanderthal being debunked, it was so effective I suspect some elements are still in use.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.