Jack the Bodiless

...So the hominid family tree is continually being updated as new fossils come to light.

Again, Randman, you seem to be implying that this is a BAD thing. After droning on about outdated information still being present, you attack scientists for trying to keep up-to-date!

This remark from you speaks volumes:
What's the deal with Ramapithecus? I'll tell you. Genetic evidence has revealed that the human/chimpanzee split was more recent than had been previously thought, and Ramapithecus is too old, predating that split.

In other words, we are more closely related to other apes than was previously thought.

Haroun Yahya is a Muslim who believes that the World Trade Center was attacked by atheists. This is the sort of mentality required to reason that humans didn't evolve from apes because humans and apes are closely related.

randman

Go back and read the initial article and then the quotes. What is being alleged is the totality of the homonid fossils disprove all of the evolutionary models of human development.
I am trying to wade through and see what is still current and not current, and it looks to me like the evolutionists have a house of cards here in this area.

theyeti

What article!? The whole thing is nothing but quotes!!!!! Do they not have an actual argument? Could they not present some actual evidence? Is this how bad it really is?

There is this disclaimer, which I shall happily parse for the entertainment of the peanut gallery:

But they are.

For quote mining.

Or in other words, without your misrepresentation.

No joke! Add me to those two. And were those two some of the ones who wrote the text here quoted? I would venture to guess yes, and I would be willing to further guess that they're not the only ones.

In the context of your lecture maybe, not the context of the literature from which the quotes came!

In other words, you are completely misrepresenting them. On the one hand, these quotes are "authoritative" because they supposedly speak against evolution. But on the other hand, when these "authorities" say that evolution is real, they can't be trusted. Wait a minute...

If your lecture is worth a damn, why do you need quotes? Surely you could just present the evidence without bias and let people make up their own minds?

When the purpose of your communication is to deceive, too much detail would let people know that you're full of it. Better to put in lots of elipses to cover up your hatchet job rather than to let people know what's really in those texts...

Ineffective because it would let people know what the authors of those quotes are really trying to say.

Except you know good and well that the faithful will never check the references. Many of them don't even have a date on them! Why the handout? Is it for propaganda purposes? Surely a scholarly work could have included the full context.

Will be doing shortly. Anyone want to help track down these refs? Of course, most of them are ridicuously old.

In that regard, this one was my favorite:

Man, that convinces me....

theyeti

theyeti

Current? The first two quotes on that page are from one Earnst R. Hooten. The page didn't bother providing little details like, you know, a publisher, date of publication, edition number, etc. You know, little things that might let you actually check the reference. However, a little searching showed that the book in question was written in 1931. Did you say something about wading through what is current and not current? This predates almost all of the important hominid fossils finds, and even the modern synthesis itself!

That's strike one...

theyeti

theyeti

Let see what the authors really say.

How totally strange! Related species existing at the same time? Lord knows we don't see that with anything else, like dogs or cats...right?

Then again, maybe not:

Science 1997 Jun 6;276(5318):1575-6.

Strike two...

theyeti

Oolon Colluphid

Well silly me. I thought I had provided evidence of a major macroevolutionary transition, just as requested.

But it's been ignored, so I guess it was just my imagination.

Oolon

Kevin Dorner

I saw it, and it was an excellent post... one worth saving for future reference. Then again, I tend to see a lot of things, not having the King James Version glued to my face.

MrDarwin

Just a little reminder about what randman himself said about Nebraska Man and the Scopes trial in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000228&p=3" target="_blank">this thread:
</a>

and:

Keep on saying it, randman, and maybe sooner or later it will sound true.

Edited to add that I should have read just a bit more, and was quite surprised to find this:

So my apologies to randman, and a thank-you for finally coming clean and admitting error (if rather belatedly). But I would recommend that randman look at the rest of his sources of information with a critical eye, because this is far from the only mistake that has been made by the creationist side.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

MrDarwin

Randman, are you really, really sure you want to continue using Harun Yahya as a source of information, given his track record on whale evolution?

hezekiah jones

This is a gross understatement. Scopes-style laws were invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. Their offsprings, the so-called Balanced Treatment Acts, were slapped down by the same institution in 1987.

"Intelligent Design Theory" is on deck.