randman

The following backs up the author's point. Betcha the lock will come swiftly now.

"In 1965 Bryan Patterson of Harvard University found the lower end of a left upper arm bone in Kanapoi, southwest of Lake Rudolf in northern Kenya, Africa. It was well preserved and was dated at 4.5 million years.

Patterson and Howells compared the bone to modern humans, chimpanzees and Australopithecines. Their analysis revealed that it was "strikingly close" to modern humans but their conclusion was that is was an Australopithecine. Later, others such as Henry Mc Henry (University of California, Davis) stated "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens ...". (Science 190 (31 October 1975):428)(Lubenow 1992, 53)"

<a href="http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/em27.htm" target="_blank">http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/em27.htm</a>

Is "Science" one of those wacko creationist publications?

Pomp

randman,

Jesse, that's the way many of these folks get when you challenge their presumptions.

You know, randman, I usually steer clear of posting in the E/C forum, as I'm nothing more than an interested, semi-informed layperson when it comes to biology, geology, paleontology, etc., but even I can see the flaws in your position and, more importantly, your attitude.. Most of the regulars here (and I include myself, as I post heavily in the other forums) don't mind having their presumptions challenged. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many of us absolutely love to have our presumptions challenged. It gives us some mental exercise and helps us refine our beliefs. Once a challenge has been presented and refuted, however, the civil course of action for the challenger is either to admit that the challenge has been unsuccessful or to admit that (s)he does not understand the refutation. You, on the other hand, simply repeat the challenge, weaseling out of questions you can't answer and claiming that your challenge has not been addressed. It is completely unsurprising to me that you are no longer being taken seriously here.

They resort to name-calling and baseless accusations in order to silence any argument that might make sense, and show up some of their errors.

I, for one, would love to see you make a sensible argument. Here's a suggestion for you: ignore the hecklers and only address the serious response to your posts. There have been quite a few that you have not addressed.

I still can't beleive the manner in which some even denied that Nebraska man and Neandethals were not used to convince/hoodwink the public.

In what sense were either of your examples used to "hoodwink" the public? In the case of Nebraska Man, the scientific community was fooled by a hoax. The hoax was uncovered by scientists who made their discovery public. Nebraska Man is now remembered only by creationists. In the case of the Neanderthals, I assume you are referring to your continued statements that they were not "hunched over ape-men." You see, when scientists gain access to new data that invalidates their old models, they update their models to take the new data into account. Can you please explain how this intellectually honest practice of admitting and correcting error represents an attempt to "hoodwink" anyone?

This is just the opinion of an interested onlooker. If you want to have a civil debate, obey the rules of civil discourse. If you choose not to, please refrain from acting as though you have been wronged.

Edit: Question for those who know more than I: was homo neanderthalis (I think that's the right name) ever described in scientific literature, as opposed to popular literature as a "hunched over ape-man" or something similar?

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

hezekiah jones

randman elsewhere lied his ass off about "Nebraska Man" being a crucial component in the greatest evolution hoax ever perpetrated, the Scopes Trial, even though it was unequivocally demonstrated to randman that "Nebraska Man" was not once mentioned either in oral testimony or written affidavits at the Scopes Trial.

randman then backpedaled furiously and claimed, "Oh, but it was mentioned in the press at the time." randman is an habitual prevaricator who continually and tediously regurgitates decades-old creationist propaganda.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

notto

In context (remember how we've stressed the importance of this), Henry Mc Henry is simply saying that the sample, which consists of the lower end of a left upper arm bone, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens. No big suprise here. It is not a complete specimine and the lower end of a left upper arm bone may appear similar throughout the fossil record.

Your source seems to be implying that Henry Mc Henry is stating that if an entire specimin was found that this would still hold true. That is not what McHenry is saying as can be seen by looking at the entire quote. This is taking what McHenry says OUT OF CONTEXT.

"The hominoid distal humerus is ideal for multivariate analysis because there are such subtle shape differences between species, particularly between Homo and Pan, which are difficult to distinguish in a trait by trait (univariate) analysis (64). Multivariate analysis shows that although chimpanzees and human humeri overlap in almost all metrical characteristics taken one at a time, they differ when all traits are treated together in a single analysis where the bones are treated as integrated complexes. The study is still piecemeal, however, in that the distal humerus is not a separate unit but part of the larger complex of the forelimb and the total adaptation of the animal. Unfortunately, the fossil record is not complete enough to allow precise reconstructions of entire limbs and animals of all species of early hominids. With 16 measurements and over 300 comparative specimens, the multiple discriminant functions are able to separate all hominoid species very effectively (see Fig. 4b) (38). The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens, the Kromdraai A. robustus fossil is about equally distant between Pan and Homo, and the large specimen from East Rudolf (KNM-ER 739) is unique among all of the hominoids tested (62, 63). None of these fossils bear a special relationship to the combined sample of knuckle-walking apes (chimpanzee and gorilla). Nor do any of the fossils have a lateral ridge on the posterior surface of the trochlea and olecranon fossa, which is present in all of the 124 knuckle-walking apes sampled. "

-- Henry McHenry, ``Fossils and the Mosaic Nature of Human Evolution,'' Science, vol. 190, p. 428.

notto

Just an FYI, for someone who thrashes against students accepting on blind faith without looking at the original data, the author of the article Randman posted (Lubenow) should do his homework.

"Many of these items were discovered in the Neander valley of Germany where the very first Neandertal fossil was discovered in 1856. For instance a tuba, a musical instrument made from a mastodon tusk, what looks like a bagpipe made from a part of an animal bladder, a triangle, and a xylophone made from hollowed out bones."
- Marvin Lubenow (The 9th September 2000 episode of Science, Scripture and Salvation)

These claims obviously come from the April 1997 issue of science magazine Discover, which contained an article about the discoveries of paleontologist Oscar Todkopf in the Neander Valley in Germany. These were:

-A 6 foot length of mammoth tusk turned into a tuba
-A bagpipe-like instrument made from the bladder of a large animal
-A triangle, make out of thin bones
-A collection of hollowed out bones of different lengths, which Todkopf suggested might be part of a xylophone (he called it a 'xylobone')
-The first known Neandertal cave painting, showing marching musicians alongside some suspected musical notation
A- Neandertal skull

Quite an impressive assemblage!
Sadly, however, it was all an April Fools joke.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/aprilfool.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/aprilfool.html</a>
Got to love the folks at AIG!

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: notto ]</p>

randman

"Here's a suggestion for you: ignore the hecklers and only address the serious response to your posts. There have been quite a few that you have not addressed."

PB, every time I have tried that the mods locked my threads. By the way, if you are referring to the fossil quotes, the fact is the quotes were not taken out of context. It was admitted that the author's of the quotes were evolutionists, but the whole point was to get at what evolutionists call "transitional" and what others do. The fact is that the mods here and others insisted that both the fossil record was justifiably incomplete, and that my standards were too high for proof of evolution, and yet in the same breath insisted those standards had been met. They were the ones playing absurd semantic games rather than getting at the truth of what is shown, and not shown.
I beleive this was done because they could not admit to even one weakness in their argument, and I have seen this same attitude frequently displayed. There is no apology for instance for evolutionists teaching recapitulation for decades after it was known to be false, and even today, there is the attempt to revive some version of this argument, and why is that?
Is it because there is a valid argument?
No, it is because they do not want to admit to making a mistake, and that is what the quotes I posted show. They show that at least some prominent evolutionists beleived that a change in the theory of mode was necessitated by the facts of the fossil record, namely that Punctuated Equilibrium was a necessary modification.
What is so absurd is that the evidence given for the need of this modification is the same evidence critics of evolution had harped on for decades yet were called liars for doing so.
In fact, we are still called liars for merely daring to repeat the same data that evolutionists do.
That alone has convinced me that near to nothing that the evolutionist community publishes is reliable.

Ragnarok

Classic creationist bullshit. Show me the transitional forms!!! But when we do you just demand to see the transitional forms between the transitional forms. This process goes on forever or until the evolutionist gets tired, at which point the cretinist declares victory.

Also note that even if you successfully attack the fossil record you have gone not one nanometer closer to your goal of proving your particular creation story.

We (the US) lag behind other countries in science partly because our country is full of semi-literate fundies who think the universe is 6000 years old and perpetuate a very anti-science attitude in local school systems.

If anyone has any real objective evidence that homo sapiens fossils have been dated at 4.4 million years they should please present it. Doing so would get them an automatic Nobel prize. And science would go on as it has before. Neanderthal was once thought to be a human ancestor and is now generally thought not to be. This is an example of the self correcting nature of science. The frauds and mistakes get weeded out over time by the process of peer review and public scrutiny. You might even say that this is (GASP!!!!!) an evolutionary process. There is a (GASP!!!!!) selection pressure that causes bad ideas to die out and good ones to propagate. This self-correction and willingness to question is a major difference between science and cretinism by the way.

As I pointed out above it's exactly the reverse. It's not scientists who are afraid to admit mistakes, it's those who base their whole worldview on the idea that a particular religious book written thousands of years ago contains literal truth about scientific matters.

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

tgamble

The charts look pretty detailed to me.

Never mind that we (or rather you) lag behind nations that don't have cretinist stupidity infesting science education. Just how much time do you think is available in a high school course?!

and dishonest.

and ignorant.

Or simply move it. Rather than delete it.

At least you're allowed to post here. The ICR board censors anyone who isn't a YEC.

side by side with what? cretinist mythology?

Any evidence to the contrary?

randman

"In the case of Nebraska Man, the scientific community was fooled by a hoax. The hoax was uncovered by scientists who made their discovery public. Nebraska Man is now remembered only by creationists. In the case of the Neanderthals, I assume you are referring to your continued statements that they were not "hunched over ape-men." You see, when scientists gain access to new data that invalidates their old models, they update their models to take the new data into account. Can you please explain how this intellectually honest practice of admitting and correcting error represents an attempt to "hoodwink" anyone?"

It was completely intellectually dishonest and typical of evolutionist claims because there was a deliberate ploy to pass off speculative data as fact. This is just par for the course, and it is not honest appraisal of the facts, but passing off speculative data such as using one tooth to make drawings of a whole creature and such that is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The fact that the evolutionists here cannot admit to this is evidence as well that this is not science but propaganda.
The use of a single fossil remains to draw conclusions about a whole race of people is wrong, and most of all, evolutionists had plenty of critics telling them they were overstating their case. They knew and know what they are doing, and yet as evidenced here still act like it was an innocent mistake.
It is not innocent. It is deliberate.
I do applaud the honest evolutionists that admit to such fraud, but all too often, this is the pattern. Silence your critics with sarcastic character assination, and use pictures and such to implant speculative data as facts when all along it is known that it is mere speculation.
The horse evolution comes to mind as speculative data passed on as fact, and some of the evidence for the walking whale evolutionary paths are following the same deceptive paths.