[_ Old Earth _] Apeman (Question)

[John]

Why are artist drawings of apemen presented as a fact to students when fossil experts cannot even agree on where our ancestors came from or looked like? Why are the countless misinterpretations pf the human to ape links not shared with students in order to put the "latest finds" into proper perspective?

 

[jwu]

Why are artist drawings of apemen presented as a fact to students when fossil experts cannot even agree on where our ancestors came from or looked like?

They typically disagree only about some details though.
You'll need to ask the actual artists what exactly they base their drawings on.

Why are the countless misinterpretations pf the human to ape links not shared with students in order to put the "latest finds" into proper perspective?

"Latest finds" usually aren't part of the curriculum, are they?

 

[Bryce]

They typically disagree only about some details though.
You'll need to ask the actual artists what exactly they base their drawings on.

Yes, the biased details on a contraversial idea.
John posted this link that I rather enjoyed
http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessing ... lution.gif

All you have to do is research the first evolutionary archeologist who went looking to prove Darwin right. It took him 50 years before he found a small bone fragment in southeast Asia which turned out to be "piltdown" man which was a hoax. This "man" was sketched from nothing more than a small bone fragment that looked more like a rock than a bone.

 

[jwu]

They typically disagree only about some details though.
You'll need to ask the actual artists what exactly they base their drawings on.

Yes, the biased details on a contraversial idea.

The general idea is not controversial at all within the scientific community.

John posted this link that I rather enjoyed
http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessing ... lution.gif

I was hard pressed to find a single true and not misleading statement in that chart. It has been discussed before in this forum before:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31792&p=371780#p371780

By the way, i bet it was no "evolutionary" scientist who made these drawings. I bet that they were made by the creationist authors of the comic.

All you have to do is research the first evolutionary archeologist who went looking to prove Darwin right. It took him 50 years before he found a small bone fragment in southeast Asia which turned out to be "piltdown" man which was a hoax. This "man" was sketched from nothing more than a small bone fragment that looked more like a rock than a bone.

The piltdown hoax was exposed by ...drumroll... evolutionary scientists. Your summary of the supposed story not a single correct statement:

It quite certainly wasn't the first archaeologist who looked for evidence regarding the ToE, as other remarkable finds had been made before and the ToE already was pretty much accepted by that time. By the way, this is the job of paleontologists, not archeologists.
It didn't take him 50 years of searching either - Charles Dawson was 44 when he got his hands on the thing, i don't think he began searching 6 years before he was born. And the supposed find wasn't made in southeast Asia, but in England.
And of course it would look more like rock than like bone - fossils are rocks in first instance. By the process of permineralization, bones are turned into rocks. But there were many fossil fragments, which eventually could be used to reconstruct a whole skull.

 

[Patashu]

Why are artist drawings of apemen presented as a fact to students when fossil experts cannot even agree on where our ancestors came from or looked like? Why are the countless misinterpretations pf the human to ape links not shared with students in order to put the "latest finds" into proper perspective?

If 'fossil experts cannot even agree on where our ancestors came from or looked like', then where has the converged-apon picture and timeline and ancestry tree come from? If there is no common idea expressed and agreed apon by all of them then such things shouldn't exist at all.