Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Valentine Pontifex · 08-01-2002, 05:18 PM

Everyone has been watching AiG that the classic nonsense of the ICR has been neglected...

A NEW APE IN THE TREE?
Bill Hoesch, M.S. Geology - July 16, 2002
<a href="http://www.icr.org/headlines/chadskull.html" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/headlines/chadskull.html</a>

The usual nonsense, but this article has some things that might be useful in the hands of a talented writer.

If Toumai passes scientific scrutiny over the next few years then he has really made a damning admission. He has admitted the australopithecine affinities of this new fossil. Of course he dismisses the australopithecines as apes.

Quote:

But how rock-solid is the case that australopithecines walked upright? Of the dozens of australopithecines recovered so far, only one has ever been claimed to offer confirming evidence for this (Lucy, the A. afarensis). Furthermore, a great number of experts are convinced that Lucy's skeleton did not lend itself to habitual upright walking but was far better equipped for swinging in trees. Among these doubters are leading anatomists. If there is any validity to their work, then the significance of Toumai as a human ancestor quickly fades to zero.

Of course he is wrong about Lucy being the only fossil to show australopithecine were bipedal. How about a couple of knee joints, Sts-14, the position of the foramen magnum in australopithecine fossils in general, etc., etc., etc. And there are no "leading anatomists" who doubt the australopithecines were bipedal.

============

A REPLY TO RENNIE
Bill Hoesch, M.S. Geology
<a href="http://www.icr.org/headlines/rennie.html" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/headlines/rennie.html</a>

This is ICR's reply to Scientific American's recent article on creationist nonsense.
Pretty light weight.

tgamble · 08-01-2002, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LordValentine:
A REPLY TO RENNIE
Bill Hoesch, M.S. Geology
<a href="http://www.icr.org/headlines/rennie.html" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/headlines/rennie.html</a>

This is ICR's reply to Scientific American's recent article on creationist nonsense.
Pretty light weight.

How about that. ICR linked to the article as well. Doesn't this violate some fundamental law of physics?

tgamble · 08-01-2002, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
His "fact of evolution" falls directly out of his faith in methodological naturalism. Can there be any observation that contradicts the fact of evolution? No, his faith forbids the thought.

hmmm, Who signs the statement of faith again? The one that sets out an absolute truth that can't be questioned?

Quote:

If Rennie is really unafraid of "indirect evidence" as he claims, then why object to the possibility of an "intelligence" behind biology?

Who does? But such possibilities aren't part of science. Besides, thestic evolution isn't an option for the ICR!

Quote:

You breed dogs and get different varieties of dog. When has this ever been an issue for creationists? But try to turn a fish into a human ("macroevolution") and you�ve got some real problems. Why not discuss them?

Um, because nobody has ever claimed that a fish turned into a human?

Quote:

Rennie claims a "succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern". When I look at the fossil record I see apes (including australopithocines) and I see humans (including all in the genus Homo, that are hardly more diverse than today�s tribes), side-by-side, in deposits that are embarrassingly "old" [3] for the evolutionist.

Yeah, and where you see humans, other cretinists see apes. Gee, I wonder why?

Quote:

The reason creation scientists don�t submit papers on Creation Science to most scientific journals is the same reason black-skinned people don�t attend KKK meetings. They are not welcome and they know it.

Here comes the whineing about the censorship and persecution!

Quote:

Rennie does Darwin an injustice. His book had more to say about competition and obsolescence than about "splinter groups". New creatures arise, in part because old ones die out due to obsolescence, according to his theory. So, if it is true that greater cleverness had something to do with Homo out-competing the apes for a given food supply, then the question of why there are still apes is not such a stupid one. (Note: Rennie uses "monkeys" to make his straw man easier to knock down).

Is Jonathan Sarfati aware that such stupidity exists at the ICR? Is he still gonna call the argument a strawman? Note, monkeys are used just as often as "chimps", "apes" or whatever else the creationist comes up. Wouldn't surprise me they thought they were all the same thing!

Quote:

Rennie makes a masterfully unsupported statement, "As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times". If he could produce one example of this, he could silence all creationists very easily.

If only! But creationists don't remain silent! They scream IS NOT!

Quote:

This involves no new information. Brute energy alone cannot produce a mousetrap, because, unlike a snowflake, a mousetrap contains purposeful information. So do all organisms. Rennie does not address how information can arise in a non-intelligent way. He could convince a lot of creationists if he could.

No he couldn't. Nothing will ever convince creationists. That pesky statement of faith forbids it. Actually, Rennie DOES address how information can arise in a nonintelligent way.

Quote:

However, a new population of creatures that has lost its will or ability to reproduce with its parent population (i.e., a new species), is no problem for the creationist. It would represent a loss of function, not a gain.

The "function" being lost being the ability to reproduce with the parent population. This could never be due to gain of new information that makes breeding impossible of course! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Quote:

Creationists are not afraid to discuss the evidence for speciation. So what if foxes, wolves and coyotes are species derived from a common genetic dog stock?

I see. So dogs, wolves and coyotes are merely 3 species are they? So they are similar enough to share a common ancestor. hmm, why aren't chimps and humans similar enough to share a common ancestor? Is there really less diversity within dogs and wolves and coyotes than chimps and humans? Not bloody likely!

Quote:

At the risk of being impudent, I would challenge Rennie with the following. Show me a single sedimentary rock outcrop with a succession of fossil creatures, in which an organism in the lower part can be traced through perhaps a half-dozen intermediates into a fundamentally different kind of creature in the upper part.

"fundamentally different kind"? What does that mean? Fish to amphibian? reptile to mammal? Or rocks to humans? (I'd put a bunch of links here but frankly, I don't feel like bothering. Most here know of them anyway.)

Quote:

Given the billions of fossils discovered, this should not be an overbearing request if macroevolution is really true. Archeopteryx and the other examples of intermediate forms cited by Rennie are convincing only to the already convinced, but not to a skeptic [7] .

Not to a skeptic that rejects such fossils on pure blind faith!

<a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-195.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-195.htm</a>
Archaeopteryx was a whole bird

<a href="http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/faq/archaeopteryx.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/faq/archaeopteryx.shtml</a>
Archaeopteryx was hoaxed using a dinosaur skeleton

Isn't it amazing that both groups can come to completely different conclusions and deny the features that the other group sees so clearly?

Nah, not really.

Quote:

William Paley may have actually stated, "the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine intervention". Paley was widely respected at the time, and he could have afforded to use the word "must". How refreshing it would be to hear so much as a "maybe" out of one of today�s PBS nature programs.

Not really. Creationists bitch about both cases. It's taught as fact! If they use such words cretinists insist that it's all speculation! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Quote:

It is my understanding that Behe is not opposed in principle to macroevolution, and so it is wrong for Rennie to portray him in militant terms.

What terms would those be?

Quote:

Rather, Behe seems to argue his case for "irreducible complexity" in the same way as Sherlock Holmes, who once said, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.".

Good ol sherlock holmes! Who cares if he's a fictional character? What this idiot doesn't realize is that Behe has not eliminated the impossible. He's just claimed that other explanations (evolution) are impossible. He's been shown to be wrong.

Overall, I find ICR to be only slighting more honest that Sarfati. At least they didn't make any bullshit claims like "Human lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than to that of any other mammal." <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Well, that was fun!

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

Bubba · 08-04-2002, 05:58 PM

I think that someone else here said it best. Debating YEC's is like shooing fish in a barrel.

Bubba

By the way, Nice post tgamble! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

GeoTheo · 08-05-2002, 02:14 PM

If Humans, australopithecines and the Great Apes share a common ancestor that doesn't mean Lucy was a human ancestor or that she walked upright. I think there is no way to prove that any
fossil hominid is a human ancestor. Richard Leakey doubts Australopithecines are human ancestors and that they walked upright. He is not a creationist, obviously. He thinks members of the genus homo and Australopithecines were contemporary. He points out the finding of renowned anatomists that doubt Lucy walked upright. Her ribcage was funnel shaped like a knuckle walker. She could not have swung her arms by her sides due to the shape of her trunk. Her body porportions were massive like a chimp. She had curved phalanges.
Evey Paleoanthropologist wants to find a human ancestor. I think the biochemical evidence makes a stronger case for humans evolving from ape like ancestors.
There is no way to know If in individual left descendants that lead to us by looking at its fossilized bones.

tgamble · 08-05-2002, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
If Humans, australopithecines and the Great Apes share a common ancestor that doesn't mean Lucy was a human ancestor or that she walked upright.

No, the physical chararteristics and location where she was found do that nicely.

Quote:

I think there is no way to prove that any
fossil hominid is a human ancestor.

The question is, are you right in thinking that?

Quote:

Richard Leakey doubts Australopithecines are human ancestors and that they walked upright.

Source?

Quote:

He is not a creationist, obviously. He thinks members of the genus homo and Australopithecines were contemporary.

ok so?

Quote:

He points out the finding of renowned anatomists that doubt Lucy walked upright. Her ribcage was funnel shaped like a knuckle walker. She could not have swung her arms by her sides due to the shape of her trunk. Her body porportions were massive like a chimp. She had curved phalanges.

I think I'll let someone who knows what there talking about respond to that one.

Quote:

Evey Paleoanthropologist wants to find a human ancestor. I think the biochemical evidence makes a stronger case for humans evolving from ape like ancestors.

[/QUOTE]There is no way to know If in individual left descendants that lead to us by looking at its fossilized bones.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure it's tracing the decendents of the species, not the individual, that counts.

ps418 · 08-05-2002, 03:07 PM

There is no serious dispute that 'Lucy' and the other australopithecines walked upright, at least facultatively. The only real question is how much their gait differed from that of modern humans.

Theo, can you find a paper or a book written by a paleoanthropologist in the last 3 decades or so that suggests that Australopithecines were quadrupedal knuckle-walkers? And please provide a reference to Leakey, where he says that Australos were not bipedal.

Patrick

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

GeoTheo · 08-05-2002, 03:07 PM

My Source is "Origins Reconsidered" by Richard Leakey.
I accept human evolution. I am also sceptical of a. afarensis as a human ancestor. I also think that scientists are human beings, subject to human foibles. They may be too quick to label fossil hominid remains as being that of human ancestors. They however are more cautious and slower to make determinations than the media, who is eager to translate the signifigance of these findings to the public.

The fossil records for all organisms is incomplete. I think there are astonishing transitionals between apes and humans like Homo.Ergaster but Apes and humans are so similar and their divergance so recent that It may be possible that a clear cut lineage based on fossils alone will never be found.

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: GeoTheo ]

ps418 · 08-05-2002, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
My Source is "Origins Reconsidered" by Richard Leakey.
[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: GeoTheo ]

What page? I want to look it up next time I go to the library, and see what Leakey says for myself.

GeoTheo · 08-05-2002, 03:12 PM

Define "bipedal". Are bears bipedal? They can stand upright and take a few steps. So can Chimps.
How do you think lucy walked and on what do you base this? Paintings?

08-05-2002, 03:07 PM	#7
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	There is no serious dispute that 'Lucy' and the other australopithecines walked upright, at least facultatively. The only real question is how much their gait differed from that of modern humans. Theo, can you find a paper or a book written by a paleoanthropologist in the last 3 decades or so that suggests that Australopithecines were quadrupedal knuckle-walkers? And please provide a reference to Leakey, where he says that Australos were not bipedal. Patrick [ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

08-05-2002, 03:07 PM	#8
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	My Source is "Origins Reconsidered" by Richard Leakey. I accept human evolution. I am also sceptical of a. afarensis as a human ancestor. I also think that scientists are human beings, subject to human foibles. They may be too quick to label fossil hominid remains as being that of human ancestors. They however are more cautious and slower to make determinations than the media, who is eager to translate the signifigance of these findings to the public. The fossil records for all organisms is incomplete. I think there are astonishing transitionals between apes and humans like Homo.Ergaster but Apes and humans are so similar and their divergance so recent that It may be possible that a clear cut lineage based on fossils alone will never be found. [ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: GeoTheo ]</p>

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

08-04-2002, 05:58 PM	#4
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	I think that someone else here said it best. Debating YEC's is like shooing fish in a barrel. Bubba By the way, Nice post tgamble! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

08-05-2002, 02:14 PM	#5
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	If Humans, australopithecines and the Great Apes share a common ancestor that doesn't mean Lucy was a human ancestor or that she walked upright. I think there is no way to prove that any fossil hominid is a human ancestor. Richard Leakey doubts Australopithecines are human ancestors and that they walked upright. He is not a creationist, obviously. He thinks members of the genus homo and Australopithecines were contemporary. He points out the finding of renowned anatomists that doubt Lucy walked upright. Her ribcage was funnel shaped like a knuckle walker. She could not have swung her arms by her sides due to the shape of her trunk. Her body porportions were massive like a chimp. She had curved phalanges. Evey Paleoanthropologist wants to find a human ancestor. I think the biochemical evidence makes a stronger case for humans evolving from ape like ancestors. There is no way to know If in individual left descendants that lead to us by looking at its fossilized bones.

08-05-2002, 03:12 PM	#10
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Define "bipedal". Are bears bipedal? They can stand upright and take a few steps. So can Chimps. How do you think lucy walked and on what do you base this? Paintings?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.