[_ Old Earth _] Evolution, a theory for apes.

[Adam]

A little research by yourself will show that new finds under consideration are off-set by the elimination of other species no longer acceptable,

So it is a net zwero ball game so far, with the score standing at 22.

What is clear is that you are bias against the idea that Science confirms the Truth of what is stated in the Bible.
Are you hoping that Science will disprov the scriptures?

Or, do you contend that Truth, as it is defined in the scriptures, is a totally different concept than the Truth established by the Scientific Method?

I don't care about your ad homs or strawmen.

New discoveries simply don't net themselves out. While you may find it appropriate to cross one off the list everytime another is discovered, that's far from what happens.

The book you keep pointing to?

Only one of those, Homo florensiensis has been questioned as to it's status as a species, while on the other end we have found substantialy more species since the book was published.

I mean, we can do it this way: I'll list all the species that are not in the book because they hadn't been discovered at the time and you can list all the species in the book that have had their status changed, and we'll see if it simply nets itself out.

I doubt you want to do that, however.

 

[cupid dave]

I don't care about your ad homs or strawmen.

New discoveries simply don't net themselves out. While you may find it appropriate to cross one off the list everytime another is discovered, that's far from what happens.

The book you keep pointing to?

Only one of those, Homo florensiensis has been questioned as to it's status as a species, while on the other end we have found substantialy more species since the book was published.

I mean, we can do it this way: I'll list all the species that are not in the book because they hadn't been discovered at the time and you can list all the species in the book that have had their status changed, and we'll see if it simply nets itself out.

I doubt you want to do that, however.

Lame.

You and I will decide what the definitive list is...?

LOL

Just give us your list backed up by the Paleontologists now supercedes the book.

 

[cupid dave]

Yeah, see. You've widened the range specifically so that 22 would be the mean.

That's not how statistics works. We don't create parameters to work within so that we get the conclusion we want, nor do we just take averages.


You get your sample, you figure out what the standard deviation is and you create a margin of error from there, depending on what rate of error you find acceptible (how exact you want to be).


The range that we are looking at is more like 26-32, with 22 as an obvious outlier nowhere near to representing the data we have today.

That's what falsifies your hypothesis: your conclusion simply cannot be validated at this point by the data.

Hmmm...
I widen the spread...

I am differentthan you.
I tend to refer the last scientific statement on a subject which has scientists who have the correct credentials and have published their work.

This means they have allowed other peers in that field to respond with criticism.

Do YOU have a link to scientific criticism of the book which would be significant to the point that it eliminate what these men have stated?

 

[Asyncritus]

The nextfew posts are all taken fron :
The Darwin Papershttp://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number9/Darwin9.htm
"There are missing links aplenty in the ancestry of man . . .
This is why the paleontologists appease themselves with a rigged-up,
unspecified Tarsius for an original ancestor; and even if we accept this
we still have to use the arboreal theory as a cockhorse
on which to ride the rest of the way up to meet
the monkeys and the apes."
William Howells.​

 

[Asyncritus]

 

[Asyncritus]

Darwin thought man is descended from monkeys:

Darwin wrote: "There can, consequently, hardly be a doubt that man is an off-shoot from the Old World simian stem; and that under a genealogical point of view he must be classified with the catarhine [Old World monkeys] division . . . But a naturalist, would undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a monkey, an ancient form which possessed many characters common to the catarhine and platyrhine monkeys, other characters in an intermediate condition, and some few, perhaps, distinct from those now found in either group. And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the catarhine or Old World stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have been properly thus designated."

I don't think LK agrees with him.

 

[Asyncritus]

The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Would evolutionists knowingly misrepresent the fossil record, and is their objective totally scientific or do they have some sort of an agenda at work that would lead them to falsify their claims? The answer, according to Dr. Jack Cuozzo, is definitely yes in his book Buried Alive, where he documents his discovery that anthropologists have fraudulently misrepresented Neanderthal skeletons to the general public for many years, attempting to make them appear more "ape-like" than they actually were.



Of course this type of claim of bias on the evolutionists' part draws nothing but howls of protest from them-they claim that they are as honest and as pure as the driven snow in their motives. Just ask them.

 

[Asyncritus]

... (jim Foley's workit actually shows that the entire evolutionary "science" of paleoanthropology is in such a state of perpetual upheaval that every few years, or months, some stunning new "discovery" completely upsets the previous notions on human ancestry, and then the evolutionists have to get busy revising their schemes and rewriting their books. The whole anthropological system of man's "evolution" is in a state of continual profound disarray. What is heralded as a groundbreaking new development on human evolution in the media by one anthropologist will be hotly contested by other anthropologists, sometimes even at the same dig, and the "latest find" on some questionable species is trumped by another new find a few months later that finally "proves" human evolution at last. Evolutionists are always having to re-invent their stories, and quite often, depending on what trade journal you rely on for your information, there are two, three, four or five speculative stories floating around at the same time, all presented as the "factual" history of the evolution of man.

 

[Asyncritus]

For a detailed exposition of the monkey business going on in the name of science with evolutionists, go to Answers In Genesis where their hijinks are exposed by creationists.

 

[Asyncritus]

The first link in the evolutionists' story of man's primate history are the insectivores, from which the prosimians, the early or "lower" primates, supposedly branched off from....

Howells gives us valuable insight into the evolutionary pedigree of the insectivores. Bear in mind, this was written by one of the most respected anthropologists of the twentieth century, a noted Harvard professor, distinguished for scientific integrity and careful examination of the facts before making a statement in print. He wrote: "There is no difficulty in showing in full detail, that a primitive insectivore is a hairy, four footed, air-breathing, warm blooded, live-bearing, tree-going fish." 12. Howells, Mankind, pp.107

 

[Asyncritus]

the authors of Physical Anthropology write: "Although most texts discussing primate origins touch on the question of basal transition from or origins within the insectivores, there appears to be almost no actual fossil material that convincingly documents such a transition. The lengthy debate on primate origins appears to have its roots in hypothetical considerations (speculation).
Philip L. Stein, Physical Anthropology, pp.149-152.

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Do you actually have an argument to make, or are your carefully selected quotes meant to stand substitute for that?

 

[Asyncritus]

There's a lot more, but I find this particularly valuable:

So dentition is pretty important in the study of primate fossils. From just a few teeth and jawbones we can construct an entire species of apelike creatures. We get more again on the importance of teeth in primate taxonomy from Howells, where he tells of the discovery of Paranthropus (another ape that lived in the Pliocene and will be discussed later) by Broom in South Africa in 1938.

A South African school-boy had found some fossil teeth which Robert Broom immediately pronounced belonged to Paranthropus, a new "missing link." Broom, who had already been looking for evidence of a "missing link", proclaimed that he had " four of what are perhaps the most valuable teeth in the world in his trouser pocket.

 

[Asyncritus]

This is indeed unfortunate, for later Howells went on to write: "Now a great legend has grown up to plague both paleontologists and anthropologists. It is that one of these wondrous men can take a tooth or a small broken piece of bone, gaze at it, and pass his hand over his forehead once or twice, and then take a sheet of paper and draw a picture of what the whole animal looked like as it tramped the Tertiary terrain. If this were true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I look like a bunch of Boy Scouts . . . But it is not quite true . . . A tooth, all by itself, may speak volumes,but only about teeth."
Howells, Mankind, pp.127-128.

 

[Asyncritus]

They didn't have much to work with when attempting to identify some of these remains, and this led to more than a few mistakes. Michael Brown said that Proconsul was "an ape that was about the size of a baboon, with a cranial capacity of 167 cubic centimeters, which is half that of a chimpanzee's." (44) He further wrote: ". . . one time crocodile thighbones were mistaken for Proconsul collarbones! I had the opportunity to hold Leakey's Proconsul skull in my hands during a visit to the National Museums of Kenya in 1988. The crushed skull is small enough to belong to a terrier dog."

 

[Asyncritus]

Here's how to make mountains from molehills:

Donald Johanson said of Ramapithecus: "Like many other apes of the Miocene, Ramapithecus was represented only by gnathic (tooth and jaw) parts."
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number9/Darwin9.htm#N_49_


Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings Of Humankind, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, pp.362.


Thus all that we had were a few old teeth with which to classify an entire species with. At least these creatures must have brushed after every meal.


Based on this scanty evidence, Pilbeam has given us a remarkably detailed description of Ramapithecus habits, environment, and over all social life: "Ramapithecus was a very small form, no larger than a medium-sized dog, at 30 lbs. or so. As far as we can tell at present it was not a biped but an agile four-footed animal perhaps equally at home in the trees and on the ground. . . . I suspect that it climbed easily and frequently in the trees, slept, rested, played, socialized, fled there, even ate there. Yet it also utilized the ground, in woodland and at the forest edge, gathering tough and abrasive vegetable food, perhaps occasionally catching small prey. When on the ground it probably frequently moved, as do the smallest living apes, on two legs, especially when carrying objects. . . . I assume [the peculiarity of its teeth] was an adaption to a new and tougher kind of vegetarian diet. Ramapithecus probably used tools no more than does a chimpanzee." (ibid), pp.366-367.


That's quite an evaluation based simply on parts of an upper and lower jaw-bone and less than five teeth


Sounds very evolution theorist -like!

 

[Asyncritus]

Furthermore, molecular biology has proven that he could not be in the ancestry of man either. Michael Brown wrote: ". . . According to Sarich and Wilson [experts in the field of biochronology], Ramapithecus could not possible have been an early Hominid-a direct ancestor of man . . . and so the beloved Ramapithecus was demoted by biochemistry back into being a simple ape instead of a man-ape of any kind."
Michael Brown, The Search For Eve, pp.51

 

[lordkalvan]

^ So that's a 'No', then.

 

[Asyncritus]

It turned out that A. T. Hopwood of the British Museum of Natural History, the man who named Proconsul in 1933, used teeth from the wrong fossil specimen when comparing Dryopithecus to Proconsul in classifying it. This went undetected until 1963, when it was found that Hopwood had been using part of a Ramapithecus fossil by mistake.


Science writer Kenneth F. Weaver wrote of this entire epoch in National Geographic: "A gulf of mystery separates Aegyptopithecus at 33 million years and Australopithecus at four million. Candidates for intermediate ancestors that have been proposed at one time or another include two from Kenya known as Proconsul and Kenyapithecus; two from India, Pakistan, China, and Kenya called Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus; and two from Europe called Rudapithecus and Dryopithecus. These apelike creatures lived at various times between 8 and 20 million years ago."
"Despite much debate and speculation, none of these primates has been finally accepted as a human ancestor . . . the long geologic epoch known as the Miocene (24 million to 5 million years ago) will remain a largely veiled chapter in hominid evolution."

 

[Asyncritus]

The paper goes on at considerable length to show the quite foolish and extravagant claims that have been and are being made about human 'evolution'.

But enough has been said, I hope, to show that anti-evolutionists have little or nothing to worry about when hearing these claims.

They may simply be based on inadequate evidence, optimistic analysis, and evolutionary hopefulness.

Not a lot to build a complete science upon, I would have said.

Here's the link again. Please feel free to have a look if this subject bothers you.

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number9/Darwin9.htm