Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EggplantTrent · 04-30-2003, 02:00 PM

I am currently in a debate with someone over macroevolution, and this person is telling me that there is no evidence of man evolving from a common ancestor. I need help with this. This is his post:

Quote:

Dr. Lee Spetner received a Ph.D. in Physics from MIT.

Is there evidence that humans decended from apes?

These are ones that everyone agrees are not pre-human intermediates between apes and humans.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).

Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.

Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.

Pithecanthropus (Java man) - Renamed to Homo erectus. (I'll cover this later)

Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.

Sinanthropus (Peking man) - was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus.

Currently fashionable ape-men
These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.

Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist.

Thanks in advance.

EggplantTrent

Writer@Large · 04-30-2003, 03:03 PM

I'm sure others with better responses will come by, but I can at least start you in the right direction.

A simple plan would be to simply point this person to the Talk.Origins Hominids section. Ask for a point-by-point rebuttal. Or, just head there yourself; it should provide comebacks for most of his overly generalized, highly misrepresented "examples." For example, on Piltdown Man:

Quote:

No creationist who discusses the human fossil record avoids mentioning Piltdown Man. Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) was discovered in England by an amateur, Charles Dawson, between 1908 and 1912. It consisted of parts of a surprisingly modern-looking skull associated with a surprisingly apelike lower jaw. Later fragments found in 1913 and 1915 also seemed to have a mixture of ape and human characteristics, and quelled suspicion that the original bones were from two unrelated creatures. In 1953 Piltdown was discovered to be a hoax, consisting of a modern human skull and an orang-utan jaw. Well before then, Piltdown had become a puzzling anomaly when compared to all other hominid fossils, and the scientific community was relieved to be able to forget about it.

Or on the "bone diseased" Neanderthal:

Quote:

Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise, most creationists still believe that Neandertals were merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. Some, but by no means all, Neandertals have been found with signs of health problems such as arthritis. But Neandertals have many distinctive features, and there is no reason why these diseases (or any others) would cause many, let alone all, of these features on even one, let alone many, individuals. Modern knowledge and experience also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of Neandertal features, because these diseases do not cause modern humans to look like Neandertals.

Hope this helps.

--W@L

Peez · 04-30-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Dr. Lee Spetner received a Ph.D. in Physics from MIT.

Who cares? Why would we expect a physicist to know more about biology than almost all biologists?

Quote:

Is there evidence that humans decended[sic] from apes?

Humans are apes. There is plenty of evidence that humans and other living apes share common ancestors.

Quote:

These are ones that everyone agrees are not pre-human intermediates between apes and humans.

"Everyone" in this usage apparently means "me and a couple of people I know."

Quote:

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Ask for references here. No credible anthropologist thinks that neanderthals are simply diseased Homo sapiens. Look here.

Quote:

Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).

When the first (incomplete) fossil of this species was found, it was suggested that it might be an ancestor of humans. As more fossils were found, it was shown that it was more likely an ancestor of orangutans. This simply shows that orangutans have also evolved, and that scientists are quite willing to change their minds when new data becomes available.

Quote:

Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.

Incorrect. See here.

Quote:

Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.

From here:

Quote:

Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor.

Quote:

Pithecanthropus (Java man) - Renamed to Homo erectus. (I'll cover this later)

Renamed? "Java man" was the name given to the fossil when it was discovered. As more was learned, it was identified as a member of the species H. erectus. No mystery here.

Quote:

Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.

It is also very human-like, and is quite bipedal. See here.

Quote:

Sinanthropus (Peking man) - was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus.

What a pathetic argument. See Java man above, and here.

Quote:

Currently fashionable ape-men
These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.

Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'.

It is apparent from the commentary that they think that Australopithecus afarensis is known only from a single fossil ("popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'"). This is false.

Quote:

However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human.

References, please. Anyone can make this stuff up.

Quote:

For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner.

They walked bipedally, and only one living ape does that (humans). Other living apes don't even come close.

Quote:

Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

LOL! How about a <chuckle> reference.

Quote:

Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

LOL! The fact that there is a slow transition from A. afarensis into H. habilis through to H. erectus is evidence for evolution, not against it. Anyhow, what about some evidence of this "growing consensus".

Quote:

Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size).

The cranial capacity of H. erectus is smaller than that of humans of the same size.

Quote:

However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us.

Reference? They were not "just like us," the simple fact that paleontologist can tell their skulls from ours demonstrates this nicely. However, they are very similar to us, as we would expect from our immediate ancestor. Amazingly, this creationist has built a strong argument for evolution: H. erectus is very similar to us, there is a blur from H. erectus through H. habilis into A. afarensis, and A. afarensis is very "ape-like."

Quote:

Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

There are fossils of H. erectus that are far older than any of H. sapiens, and there are fossils of H. sapiens far younger than any of H. erectus, exactly as we would expect with evolution. It is worth noting that the oldest H. sapiens are more similar to H. erectus than the most modern H. sapiens, evolution strikes again.

Quote:

There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist.

The "missing link" is a red herring. We will never find a fossil of every humanoid that ever lived, so one can always claim that there is a "missing link". Science works by trying to falsify a hypothesis. The hypothesis that humans evolved from non-human apes makes a number of predictions, and evidence against any of these predictions would falsify this hypothesis. We predict that there are fossils that are intermediate in form between humans and "ape-like" primates: there are. We predict that these intermediate forms will be found in the order from more "ape-like" to more "human-like": they are. We predict that there will be no fossils of humans from before they could have evolved from "ape-like" ancestors: there are none. The list goes on and on, but of course fossil evidence does not stand alone. The biochemical evidence is also overwhelming, and it agrees with the fossil evidence. Spend some time in TalkOrigins to get more specifics.

Peez

Azathoth · 04-30-2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist

And there's always the list of skulls at the Talk Origins archive,that you could show him.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=50450

It starts with a Chimpanzee,and ends with a Human.Ask him which of those are are human and which are apes.Where would he draw the line?

EggplantTrent · 04-30-2003, 06:08 PM

Thanks for all the replies and the links.

As far as the array of skulls go, I've shown it to someone, and he said that the skulls were obviously fabricated by some scientist in a lab desperate to prove evolution. He cited the fact that skull D has blue pigments in them. He also said that there were cat, chimp (duh, being that the first skull is a chimp skull), and other common animals in the array.

When I called him on it, and asked him to send me pics of cat skulls and the like, and his qualifications on how he is able to determine that these bones were fabricated, I got no reply.

Anyway, this is going off the topic. Thanks again for the help!

EggplantTrent

Spaz · 04-30-2003, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by EggplantTrent
Thanks for all the replies and the links.

As far as the array of skulls go, I've shown it to someone, and he said that the skulls were obviously fabricated by some scientist in a lab desperate to prove evolution. He cited the fact that skull D has blue pigments in them. He also said that there were cat, chimp (duh, being that the first skull is a chimp skull), and other common animals in the array.

When I called him on it, and asked him to send me pics of cat skulls and the like, and his qualifications on how he is able to determine that these bones were fabricated, I got no reply.

Anyway, this is going off the topic. Thanks again for the help!

EggplantTrent

cats? hahahahaha

People are so weird sometimes...

GunnerJ · 04-30-2003, 06:26 PM

It seems to me that any further "debate" on this subject will be fruitless. You opponent has a preformed bias, and will not listen to any evidence that contradicts his position.

Doubting Didymus · 04-30-2003, 06:43 PM

One day, I'm going to challenge a motor mechanic to a debate on what makes cars go, taking whatever position is the opposite of the mechanics own. I obviously know absolutely fuck all about car engines, but I'd like to know how it feels to fervently debate something that one is utterly ignorant of.

Kimpatsu · 04-30-2003, 06:48 PM

Be careful, DD, too much experimentation to recreate empathy could have you going over to the fundies...

lpetrich · 04-30-2003, 09:24 PM

Is that guy serious?

I did an Internet search for cat skeletons and skulls and I quickly found some pictures of them.

That guy who claimed that some of the hominid skulls were really cat skulls ought to be declared legally blind until he gets his vision tested.

04-30-2003, 09:24 PM	#10
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	CAT SKULLS? Is that guy serious? I did an Internet search for cat skeletons and skulls and I quickly found some pictures of them. That guy who claimed that some of the hominid skulls were really cat skulls ought to be declared legally blind until he gets his vision tested.

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

04-30-2003, 06:08 PM	#5
EggplantTrent Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: earth Posts: 150	Thanks for all the replies and the links. As far as the array of skulls go, I've shown it to someone, and he said that the skulls were obviously fabricated by some scientist in a lab desperate to prove evolution. He cited the fact that skull D has blue pigments in them. He also said that there were cat, chimp (duh, being that the first skull is a chimp skull), and other common animals in the array. When I called him on it, and asked him to send me pics of cat skulls and the like, and his qualifications on how he is able to determine that these bones were fabricated, I got no reply. Anyway, this is going off the topic. Thanks again for the help! EggplantTrent

04-30-2003, 06:26 PM	#7
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	It seems to me that any further "debate" on this subject will be fruitless. You opponent has a preformed bias, and will not listen to any evidence that contradicts his position.

04-30-2003, 06:43 PM	#8
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	One day, I'm going to challenge a motor mechanic to a debate on what makes cars go, taking whatever position is the opposite of the mechanics own. I obviously know absolutely fuck all about car engines, but I'd like to know how it feels to fervently debate something that one is utterly ignorant of.

04-30-2003, 06:48 PM	#9
Kimpatsu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Tokyo Posts: 1,126	Be careful, DD, too much experimentation to recreate empathy could have you going over to the fundies...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.