Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RogerLeeCooke · 08-07-2002, 05:24 PM

"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 notice you conveniently left the bears out of this, Hoesch. The fossil record also folds them into this "kind." But I suspect ICR is *very* afraid to touch that one. Since a lot of its members are YECs, to believe that bears and dogs had a common ancestor since the Flood, they'd have to believe in speciation at such a rate that it would make evolution simply fly.

Bubba · 08-11-2002, 08:51 AM

A good link or book on common ancestry for wolves/dogs and bears? I'm not doubting this, I just could use the info in an ongoing discussion I have with my veteraniarian who is kind of an Idist/old earth creationist who accepts some forms of common ancestry.

Thanks in advance if you've got anything.

Bubba

mfaber · 08-11-2002, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
<strong>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.

</strong>

The following is a quote from page 45 of the Talkorigins Fossil Hominids file.....
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/fossil-hominids.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/fossil-hominids.pdf</a>

"Creationists are generally reluctant to accept that australopithecines, including Lucy, were bipedal. A statement by Weaver (1985) that " Australopithecus afarensis ... demonstrates virtually complete adaptation to upright walking"
is dismissed by Willis (1987) as "a preposterous claim". Willis adds: "Many competent anthropologists have carefully examined these and other "Australopithicine" [sic] remains and concluded that Lucy could not walk upright."Willis' evidence for this consists of a statement by Solly Zuckerman made in 1970; a 1971 statement from Richard Leakey that australopithecines "MAY HAVE BEEN knuckle-walkers", and a quote from Charles Oxnard about the relationship between humans, australopithecines and the apes. In fact, none of these quotes refer to Lucy. Two of them were made before Lucy, andA. afarensis , was even discovered (and the third was made very soon afterwards, before Lucy had been studied).

Even in 1970, Zuckerman's views had long since been largely abandoned. In what is obviously a fabrication,Willis says that Leakey "referred to Lucy as an ape who did not walk upright", three years before Lucy was discovered. Leakey was merely making a suggestion (about robust australopithecines) which he soon retracted, notstating a firm opinion, and he has since stated (1994) that Lucy "undoubtedly was a biped". Oxnard (1975; 1987)" [emphasis added]

I don't think that Geo is quoting from ANYTHING Leaky wrote, but from CREATIONISTS SAID HE SAID and we all know just how dishonest creationists are when they "quote" scientists.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]</p>

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

08-07-2002, 05:24 PM	#31
RogerLeeCooke Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Burlington, Vermont, USA Posts: 177	"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 notice you conveniently left the bears out of this, Hoesch. The fossil record also folds them into this "kind." But I suspect ICR is very afraid to touch that one. Since a lot of its members are YECs, to believe that bears and dogs had a common ancestor since the Flood, they'd have to believe in speciation at such a rate that it would make evolution simply fly.

08-11-2002, 08:51 AM	#32
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	A good link or book on common ancestry for wolves/dogs and bears? I'm not doubting this, I just could use the info in an ongoing discussion I have with my veteraniarian who is kind of an Idist/old earth creationist who accepts some forms of common ancestry. Thanks in advance if you've got anything. Bubba

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.