[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[BobRyan]

1. Take the 2 minutes to actually READ this post without glossing over the inconvenient details.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&start=315#p395873

2. pay attention to the section in RED (quotes from your own side's talkorigins site)

Hint L.K -- less smoke (harrumphing around) - more fire (substance)

3. Your own efforts to "tell a better story" are glossing over more facts than usuall.

(Or continue to claim that such tactics meet with your Darwinist standard of honesty)

Notice the deceptive tactic that Darwinists are easily encouraged to adopt as they are pointed to the time when Osborn begins to admit to himself the degree to which his own "Ape man" claims are fallaciou?

And what if Bryan had found out about the uncertain status of Hesperopithecus? If such doubts had been raised at the Scopes trial, it could have led to disastrous consequences for Scopes's defense and even for the public image of evolution

Clearly, it would have been best for Osborn to back off and stay out of reach in New York. So, having fulfilled his obligation to Scopes's defense with the July 12 piece in The New York Times, Osborn sat out the Scopes trial, not even submitting written testimony.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

As already pointed out in my previous post
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=300#p395823

-- as already "glossed over" as if "so much inconvenient fact to be ignored" by L.K.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ The point, Bob, is that you throw around words like 'fraud' with careless abandon. 'Fraud' has a particular meaning, namely suggesting the intent to deceive, and its public use has legal consequences, speaking as it does in this context of the professional and public reputation of individuals. In my initial response to your use of the term, I pointed out why I thought it an unreasonable and unjustified use in the context of Hesperopithecus. Your replies have done nothing to persuade me otherwise, and yet at the same time have failed to confront the central issue of whether or not you are directly accusing Osborn of fraud, i.e. the intent to deceive. Your tactic appears to be to hurl as much mud as you can in the expectation that some of it will stick.

Osborn was neither legally nor morally required to do Bryan's work for him. Here are some observations by Osborn and Gregory on Hesperpithecus published well before the Scopes' case came to court and that Bryan would have had easy access to:

The Hesperopithecus molar cannot be said to resemble any known type of human molar very closely..... (Osborn 1922)

Every discovery directly or indirectly relating to the pre-history of man attracts world-wide attention and is apt to be received with either too great enthusiasm or too great incredulity. (Osborn 1922)

....in view of the extremely worn and eroded state of the crown [of the Hesperopithecus molar], it is hardly safe to affirm more than that Hesperopithecus was structurally related to {chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus and man]. (Gregory 1923)

Scarcely the words of men engaged in systematic and deliberate fraud for no other reason than to discredit Bryan's efforts at Dayton. There were plenty of experts Bryan could have called on to respond to any claims about Hesperopithecus, such as Arthur Smith Woodward, whose doubts were well known. If he didn't, that was his own fault. It is of interest to note, of course, that Osborn was himself a devout believer in God who viewed evolution as a perfect expression of God's intent.

 

[BobRyan]

^ The point, Bob, is that you throw around words like 'fraud' with careless abandon. '

Are you familiar AT ALL with the Neanderthal fraud or Earnst Haeckle's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" fraud or the Piltdown fraud or the "Never happened in nature - so how could it be displayed" fact of Simpon's reproduction of Marsh's fictitious horse fossil sequence?

You see L.K -- Fraud' has a particular meaning, namely suggesting the intent to deceive

In the case of Nebraska man - the "deception" is in NOT Telling the public what Osborn ALREADY KNEW about the very real and SUBSTANTIVE problem of differentiating between a pigs tooth and a human tooth while make his wild "irrefutable evidence" claims!

Osborn was neither legally nor morally required to do Bryan's work for him.

True that Osborn was not being asked to "argue creationism" rather he was obligated to TELL THE TRUTH!!

As the article points out -- his OWN partner in research published the 1909 warning about the shallow basis of making claims based on supposed human teeth since they were too close to the pig to be diffinitive or anything close to "irrefutable evidence" -- much less proof about "ape-men".

Obviously.

Readily apparent to the unbiased OBJECTIVE reader that takes the time to CLICK on this link and follow the arguements in detail.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&p=396187#p396009

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ One thing at a time, Bob. Either you believe Osborn engaged in fraud or you don't. You appear to have downgraded your accusation now to one that he was 'obligated to tell the truth', which I wouldn't disagree with you about. In an ideal world we are all obligated to tell the truth, but few of us live in an ideal world and Osborn's patrician pride - Stephen Gould characterizes him as never being 'praised for a charitable nature' - was such that the way in which he told the truth was to drop the matter entirely and let Gregory make the public retraction. This is not commendable, but neither is it fraud, and Osborn's painstaking efforts to verify the status of Hesperopithecus place it in an entirely separate from, for example, Piltdown Man.

 

[BobRyan]

Not telling the public about the 1909 problem regarding the extreme difficulty in being certain about the difference between a pigs tooth find and a human-tooth find -- sweeping it under the rug and wildly proclaiming "IRREFUTABLE evidence" instead of giving the correct context for what should have been proclaimed as "WILD SPECULATION that might one day be shown to be correct if we can ever confirm this is not a pigs tooth" is perfidity at a level that ALL honest and ethical individuals can clearly see and recognize.

Whether it also crosses the line of FRAUD is a matter of individual judgment. You seem content with it - I do not think it is ethical and the stated argument about not wanting the public to question evolutionism by knowing the facts in full makes the case.

The fact that there EXISTS a true devotee to darwinism that is at all confused as to what would be ethically and academically the honest way to state the tooth-find - says a LOT about what Patterson calls the anti-knowledge and hence clouded thinking derived from evolutionISM.

You seem content to continue to demonstrate that point.

Recall that it irs TALKORIGINS that boldly proclaims that there IS NO WAY Osborn could NOT HAVE KNOWN about the speculative nature of his wild claims given his OWN partner's 1909 statements on that SAME POINT!

How sad that Darwinists must still "pretend" that it was "good ethics" to ignore the problem in the way it is presented to the PUBLIC!

How much WORSE that Darwinists argue the WISE course of action in NOT allowing the DOUBT being case on that find to enter into the Scopes trial lest the PUBLIC being lead by EVIDENCE to doubt evolutionISM!! AS if such an ethic is a GOOD THING!

lordkalvan wrote:
^ The point, Bob, is that you throw around words like 'fraud' with careless abandon. '

Are you familiar AT ALL with the Neanderthal fraud or Earnst Haeckle's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" fraud or the Piltdown fraud or the "Never happened in nature - so how could it be displayed" fact of Simpon's reproduction of Marsh's fictitious horse fossil sequence?

You see L.K -- Fraud' has a particular meaning, namely suggesting the intent to deceive

1. Presenting what DID NOT happen in nature -- as if it is SHOWN to have happened.
2. Presenting Ontogeny that you DID NOT find --as if you did
3. Presenting 20,000 year old dating arguments for Neanderthals AS IF they had been measured and confirmed by radiometric testing -- when they HAD NOT
4. Presenting the APE-Man Piltdown AS IF it were a REAL fossil find instead of fraudulent contrived.

The "intent to deceive" is clear.

And even in the argument in TALKORIGINS the INTENT is clearly shown when it comes to Osborn AVOIDING the risk of being questioned at a time when even HE was being convinced of the false nature of his APE-MAN (i.e pigs-tooth) claim because he wanted the PUBLIC not to question.

And what if Bryan had found out about the uncertain status of Hesperopithecus? If such doubts had been raised at the Scopes trial, it could have led to disastrous consequences for Scopes's defense and even for the public image of evolution

Clearly, it would have been best for Osborn to back off and stay out of reach in New York. So, having fulfilled his obligation to Scopes's defense with the July 12 piece in The New York Times, Osborn sat out the Scopes trial, not even submitting written testimony.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now and then I DO agree with TALK ORIGINS

Ironically, the similarity between peccary teeth and those of hominids had been noted 13 years before Osborn published his description of Hesperopithecus. In 1909, W. D. Matthew and Harold Cook had the following to say in describing Prosthennops: [quote:2zmk7ake]"The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries."

(p. 390) Matthew was Osborn's younger colleague at the American Museum of Natural History, and there is no way that Osborn could not have known about this 1909 warning.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
[/quote:2zmk7ake]

L.K -- since you brought this Nebraska Man -- Ape-Man example up -- I have to assume you simply did not read it.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ So you believe Osborn guilty of more than an honest mistake and over-eagerness and you regard his studious efforts to confirm the status of Hesperopithecus and the cautionary note in some of his comments about the tooth as what? Mere window-dressing? Does it cross your mind that Osborn and Gregory may have made a genuine mistake with no malicious intent? Do you never make mistakes yourself?

I am no expert in the analysis of teeth myself; are you? Stephen Gould makes this observation:

Yet anyone who has studied the dental anatomy ofmammals knows immediately that this seemingly implausible mix-up of pig for primate is not only easy to understand but represents one of the classic and recurring confusions of the profession. The cheek teeth of pigs and humans are astonishingly and uncannily similar..... Unworn teeth can be told apart by details of the cusps, but isolated and abraded teeth of older animals are very difficult to distinguish. The Hesperopithecus tooth, worn so flat and nearly to the roots, was a prime candidate for just such a misidentification. (Bully For Brontosaurus, 1992 Penguin edition, p.443)

In passing, I note your eagerness to embrace TO when it appears to support your argument, but ready to dismiss it more peremptorily when it does not.

 

[BobRyan]

^ So you believe Osborn guilty of more than an honest mistake

I agree with Talk Origins -- see this link

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&start=315#p396204

L.K
I am no expert in the analysis of teeth myself; are you?

I agree with the 1909 published statement from Osborn's own team regarding the shallow nature of such arguments given the TRUTH of the innability of science to clearly differentiate in those cases.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Remember this?

Darwinism's failed Neanderthal blunder may be 30 years old -- but the mistake was "just confirmed" in the last two years.

Darwinism's horse series fraud may have been promoted long after it was not to be something that "never happened in nature" in fact 50 years afterwards... but it is still waiting a full retraction in some darwinist texts.

The fraudulent history of Darwinism speaks for itself as we see in the case of Neanderthal man, Simpson's horse series, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Haeckles ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny farce ... you know the usual stuff.

Even Urey,Miller's wild claims are now hitting rock bottom.

First point - A system of junk-science such as Darwinism where fraud after fraud is exposed over time -- has to constantly keep "re-inventing itself" and arguing that people "should not notice it's track record" the same as you argue above --

Second point - I never bring up the gaffs, blunders and frauds of atheist darwinism as "proof for ID SCIENCE" rather I only refer to it when some devotee to darwinism takes a wild leap off the edge of reason claiming that Darwinism is some kind of proven science as compared to ID.

in that case I show that the proven track record of Darwinism is simply junk-science fraud after junk-science fraud.

I also argue Patterson's observations about the faith-based element in Darwinism and the anti-knowledge component in what Patterson called evolutionISM and of course the "stories easy enough to make up" central core of Darwinism that Patterson mentioned - as being key insights helping all objective unbiased readers better understand the Darwinist posts and methods used on the thread.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ So you believe Osborn guilty of more than an honest mistake

I agree with Talk Origins.....

Is that a 'Yes' or a 'No'? Do you agree with this from the TO site?

As evidence accumulated in subsequent field seasons, Gregory became aware that, despite the tooth's uncanny superficial resemblance to an anthropoid molar, Hesperopithecus was probably an extinct peccary. Gregory announced his retraction in Science at the end of 1927.

Which echoes Stephen Gould's observation that you chose not to comment on.

Do you regard this comment from the TO article as impacting on any conclusion as to whether fraud or genuine error was at work in this case?

....the morphology of the fossil tooth itself was extremely deceptive. Even if one examines the tooth after reading all the literature about it, the tooth bears a compelling resemblance to human or hominid molar teeth, both in overall size and shape, and in the mode of wear on the tooth (the latter being the result of an abrasive diet and tooth-on-tooth contact). After comparing the Nebraska tooth with teeth of contemporary peccaries belonging to the species Prosthennops crassigenus, it is clear that the Hesperopithecus tooth is not an upper molar, as Osborn had thought, but a fourth upper premolar (a bicuspid in human dental terms). Keep in mind that all surface features, those essential to correct identification, had been virtually obliterated by heavy tooth wear during life and later by postmortem abrasion in the streams that deposited the sediments containing the Hesperopithecus tooth. The overall morphology of the Hesperopithecus tooth matches that of a P. crassigenus fourth premolar, but there is no similarity in the wear patterns of the two teeth. This is an important point, because the jaw motions of mammals are quite stable, and an animal that chews in a certain way would be very unlikely to change that mode of chewing and produce a novel wear pattern in its teeth. The only reasonable explanation is that the tooth of Hesperopithecus was rotated in the jaw in life, and that its odd position produced the primate-like wear pattern. This is not a totally ad hoc idea, because a 90 degree rotation about the long axis of a fourth premolar has been described and illustrated for the fossil peccary Dyseohyus sp. by Woodburne (1969, plate 51, fig. 1). Tooth rotation along all three axes has been described for a fossil carnivore (Mellett, 1977), so it is not an unexpected phenomenon in mammals, although it occurs only rarely.

[quote:139tixvo]L.K
I am no expert in the analysis of teeth myself; are you?

I agree with the 1909 published statement from Osborn's own team regarding the shallow nature of such arguments given the TRUTH of the innability of science to clearly differentiate in those cases.[/quote:139tixvo]

I am not sure what you are expecting of science. Total certainty? Complete absence of doubt? An absolute end to the accumulation and refining of knowledge? Perhaps you agree with the closing remarks of the TO article that you keep referring to:

Today, with the evolutionary prehistory of humans firmly documented by African fossil discoveries beginning with Australopithecus in 1924, Hesperopithecus is little more than a peashooter in the creationists' arsenal. George Gaylord Simpson even wondered whether the whole matter needs re-airing -- "So even famous scientists make mistakes, as all humans do. Jove does nod. No one was hurt. No one was even misled for long. So what of it?" (pers. comm., 1983)

But this mistake involved mankind's origins, a topic that is inherently provocative, especially in the context of a creation/evolution conflict. Even after being corrected by scientists themselves, mistakes in descriptions of human ancestors are likely to be immortalized in the diatribes of the creationists. Whereas a few of the creationists' criticisms of the fossil evidence for human evolution are technically correct -- as in the case of Hesperopithecus -- they are often trivial. The reality of human evolution cannot be challenged by reference to one misidentified peccary tooth!

Good science can be practiced only when inappropriate external influences, such as politics, are left out. It is clear now that Osborn's wish to embarrass Bryan may have clouded his scientific judgment and led him to describe a specimen whose affinities required a more restrained assessment.

[/quote]

All TO quotes from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

Hesperopithecus represents an embarrassing misjudgement by Osborn, driven at least in part by the personal antipathy that existed between himself and Bryan, but in no sense can the case of Nebraska Man be categorized as one of deliberate fraud.

 

[BobRyan]

I am no expert in the analysis of teeth myself; are you?

Bob said
I agree with the 1909 published statement from Osborn's own team regarding the shallow nature of such arguments given the TRUTH of the innability of science to clearly differentiate in those cases.

L.K.
I am not sure what you are expecting of science. Total certainty? Complete absence of doubt? An absolute end to the accumulation and refining of knowledge? Perhaps you agree with the closing remarks of the TO article that you keep referring to:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=315#p396390

What am I "expecting" from science?

Answer: "Demonstratable Details" and "honesty about the level of GUESSWORK" when guesswork is being MIXED IN instead of presenting pure fantasy as "reveale truth" with bogus claims like "irrefutable" (NEBRASKA MAN) and "incontrovertable" (PILTDOWN)

I expect science to SHOW us what it discovers IN nature --

Hint: Be an EYE WITNESS
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266#p395365

Actual science is able to show us the mechanisms it discovers in nature - it is fine to animate that discovery as long as the science details being demonstrated are legit as we see in the case above.

But "making stuff up AND THEN HIDING the fuzzy nature of the guesswork" is not science -- it is the heart and soul of "junk-science"!

REAL science has NO interest in HIDING the level of GUESSWORK in it's presentation for fear of causing the public to use critical analysis instead of uncritical cheerleader like kool-aid drinking.

notice that OSBORN is commended (by the scorched-earth-for-Darwin groups in that TalkOrigins article) for finding a way to HIDE the fuzzy nature in his guesswork and AVOID the possibility of being QUESTIONED by anyone but uncritical devotees!!

Yes those are the methods of junk-science!

How sad.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

lordkalvan wrote:
^ The point, Bob, is that you throw around words like 'fraud' with careless abandon. '

Are you familiar AT ALL with the Neanderthal fraud or Earnst Haeckle's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" fraud or the Piltdown fraud or the "Never happened in nature - so how could it be displayed" fact of Simpon's reproduction of Marsh's fictitious horse fossil sequence?

You see L.K -- Fraud' has a particular meaning, namely suggesting the intent to deceive

1. Presenting what DID NOT happen in nature -- as if it is SHOWN to have happened.
2. Presenting Ontogeny that you DID NOT find --as if you did
3. Presenting 20,000 year old dating arguments for Neanderthals AS IF they had been measured and confirmed by radiometric testing -- when they HAD NOT
4. Presenting the APE-Man Piltdown AS IF it were a REAL fossil find instead of fraudulent contrived.

The "intent to deceive" is clear.

And even in the argument in TALKORIGINS the INTENT is clearly shown when it comes to Osborn AVOIDING the risk of being questioned at a time when even HE was being convinced of the false nature of his APE-MAN (i.e pigs-tooth) claim because he wanted the PUBLIC not to question.

[quote:21m7dsvv]
And what if Bryan had found out about the uncertain status of Hesperopithecus? If such doubts had been raised at the Scopes trial, it could have led to disastrous consequences for Scopes's defense and even for the public image of evolution

Clearly, it would have been best for Osborn to back off and stay out of reach in New York. So, having fulfilled his obligation to Scopes's defense with the July 12 piece in The New York Times, Osborn sat out the Scopes trial, not even submitting written testimony.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

[/quote:21m7dsvv]

Did you notice the degree to which TalkOrigins just appealed to the reader to JOIN with Osborn in that spirit of deception - APPLAUDING him for taking steps to AVOID letting the TRUTH come out about the pigs tooth -- WHEN that truth is not FAVORABLE to the darwinist's story telling!

As the author of the TalkOrigins article argues the point --- is to CRAFT "public perception" of Darwinism RATHER than fully appraise the public of the dark nature of the GUESSWORK being employed.

What kind of moral standard do they suppose their readers HAVE to make such an argument!!???

Now and then I DO agree with TALK ORIGINS

Ironically, the similarity between peccary teeth and those of hominids had been noted 13 years before Osborn published his description of Hesperopithecus. In 1909, W. D. Matthew and Harold Cook had the following to say in describing Prosthennops: [quote:21m7dsvv]"The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries."

(p. 390) Matthew was Osborn's younger colleague at the American Museum of Natural History, and there is no way that Osborn could not have known about this 1909 warning.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
[/quote:21m7dsvv]

L.K -- since you brought this Nebraska Man -- Ape-Man example up -- I have to assume you simply did not read these details carefully.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Now and then I DO agree with TALK ORIGINS

Ironically, the similarity between peccary teeth and those of hominids had been noted 13 years before Osborn published his description of Hesperopithecus. In 1909, W. D. Matthew and Harold Cook had the following to say in describing Prosthennops: [quote:hgdnxwj4]"The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries."

(p. 390) Matthew was Osborn's younger colleague at the American Museum of Natural History, and there is no way that Osborn could not have known about this 1909 warning.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

L.K -- since you brought this Nebraska Man -- Ape-Man example up -- I have to assume you simply did not read these details carefully.[/quote:hgdnxwj4]

Bob, you frequently enjoin others not to imagine things. You appear to discount the possibility that Osborn, while being aware of the 1909 caution about the difficulties in distinguishing between peccary and primate molars, could still have made a genuine mistake in the identfication. The references I gave you to the difficulties inherent in such identifications make this at least as plausible a scenario as the one you imply in your imaginings: that Osborn recalled the warning, wilfully ignored it and intentionally misidentifed a peccary molar as a primate molar in order to score points over Bryan. Again there is a qualitative difference between genuine error and deliberate fraud.

 

[BobRyan]

Once again you make a foxhole defense that appears to entirely MISS the point.

The 1909 statement was arguing AGAINST using a simple tooth to build a wild ape-man extremist claim. It points to the HUGE likelihood of that BEING a mistake. You then ask the innexplicable question "KNOWING about the 1909 warning isn't it POSSIBLE" that by doing the VERY THING that that he was being warned NOT TO DO -- because it was DUBIOUS at best -- that doing so "anyway" would result in a mistake??

It is like saying - BEING WARNED not to walk on the faulty bridge that is so ready to fall, isn't it POSSIBLE that one who IGNORES the warning might actually FALL as they walk across the bridge and it collapses??

What kind of "critical thinking" is that L.K????

The WHOLE POINT of TO's argument "There is NO WAY Osborn could NOT HAVE KNOWN" goes to the perfidity of his methods employed on behalf of his religious zeal to promote darwinism at any cost.

However one does have to conclude that Obsorn did not really believe that the extreme REACH in his argument "for Ape Man" would ever be discovered and come back to bite him as it did. That much we can all agree with.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

I am surprised that you feel able to turn this:

The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries.

into this:

The 1909 statement was arguing AGAINST using a simple tooth to build a wild ape-man extremist claim. It points to the HUGE likelihood of that BEING a mistake.

I fail to see where 'might well be mistaken for' is reasonably transformed into 'HUGE likelihood' (so HUGE, indeed, that it requires capitalization to illustrate exactly how HUGE it is). I fail to see also where 'wild ape-man extremist claim' is referred to at all in your chosen quotation.

I also note again your unwillingness to admit even the possibility that your own interpretation of the circumstances surrounding Hesperopithecus may be flawed and conditioned by your pre-exisiting assumptions about 'atheist darwinism', even to the extent of being unwilling to concede that errors may be made that owe nothing to fraudulent intent.

 

[BobRyan]

The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries.

I fail to see where 'might well be mistaken for' is reasonably transformed into 'HUGE likelihood' (so HUGE, indeed, that it requires capitalization to illustrate exactly how HUGE it is).

Apparently Osborn made the same blunder -- and so a pig's tooth made a monkey out of Osborn after which TalkOrigins concludes "THERE IS NO WAY OBSORN COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN"!

How glaringly obvious for the objective unbiased reader.

L.K
I fail to see also where 'wild ape-man extremist claim' is referred to at all in your chosen quotation.

Osborn himself made that one -- maybe just to show us all just how much of a monkey that pig's tooth could make out of him - who knows why he did it.

I am sticking with Talk Origins on this one when they say of the 1909 warning "THERE IS NO WAY that Osborn COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN"!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Once again you make a foxhole defense that appears to entirely MISS the point.

The 1909 statement was arguing AGAINST using a simple tooth to build a wild ape-man extremist claim. It points to the HUGE likelihood of that BEING a mistake. You then ask the innexplicable question "KNOWING about the 1909 warning isn't it POSSIBLE" that by doing the VERY THING that that he was being warned NOT TO DO -- because it was DUBIOUS at best -- that doing so "anyway" would result in a mistake??

It is like - BEING WARNED not to walk on the faulty bridge that is so ready to fall and then INNEXPLICABLY ASKING " isn't it POSSIBLE that one who IGNORES the warning might actually FALL as they walk across the bridge and it collapses??"

What kind of "critical thinking" is that L.K????

Though your "I fail to see... I fail to see" response does give us some insight as to how you could possibly end up so far out on that limb -- I doubt that very many reasonable readers after reading the 1909 statement AND after seeing just how REAL that 1909 warning was as the pig's tooth indeed made a monkey out of Osborn -- would still "fail to see".

Now and then I DO agree with TALK ORIGINS

Ironically, the similarity between peccary teeth and those of hominids had been noted 13 years before Osborn published his description of Hesperopithecus. In 1909, W. D. Matthew and Harold Cook had the following to say in describing Prosthennops: [quote:1jy9hy8q]"The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries."

(p. 390) Matthew was Osborn's younger colleague at the American Museum of Natural History, and there is no way that Osborn could not have known about this 1909 warning.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

L.K -- since you brought this Nebraska Man -- Ape-Man example up -- I have to assume you simply did not read these details carefully.[/quote:1jy9hy8q]

The warning AND the summary appear to be obvious enough.


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote="BobRyan"]

lordkalvan wrote:
^ The point, Bob, is that you throw around words like 'fraud' with careless abandon. '

Are you familiar AT ALL with the Neanderthal fraud or Earnst Haeckle's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" fraud or the Piltdown fraud or the "Never happened in nature - so how could it be displayed" fact of Simpon's reproduction of Marsh's fictitious horse fossil sequence?

You see L.K -- Fraud' has a particular meaning, namely suggesting the intent to deceive

1. Presenting what DID NOT happen in nature -- as if it is SHOWN to have happened.
2. Presenting Ontogeny that you DID NOT find --as if you did
3. Presenting 20,000 year old dating arguments for Neanderthals AS IF they had been measured and confirmed by radiometric testing -- when they HAD NOT
4. Presenting the APE-Man Piltdown AS IF it were a REAL fossil find instead of fraudulent contrived.

The "intent to deceive" is clear.

And even in the argument in TALKORIGINS the INTENT is clearly shown when it comes to Osborn AVOIDING the risk of being questioned at a time when even HE was being convinced of the false nature of his APE-MAN (i.e pigs-tooth) claim because he wanted the PUBLIC not to question.

And what if Bryan had found out about the uncertain status of Hesperopithecus? If such doubts had been raised at the Scopes trial, it could have led to disastrous consequences for Scopes's defense and even for the public image of evolution

Clearly, it would have been best for Osborn to back off and stay out of reach in New York. So, having fulfilled his obligation to Scopes's defense with the July 12 piece in The New York Times, Osborn sat out the Scopes trial, not even submitting written testimony.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

[/quote]

Did you notice the degree to which TalkOrigins just appealed to the reader to JOIN with Osborn in that spirit of deception - APPLAUDING him for taking steps to AVOID letting the TRUTH come out about the pigs tooth -- WHEN that truth is not FAVORABLE to the darwinist's story telling!

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

And even in the argument in TALKORIGINS the INTENT is clearly shown when it comes to Osborn AVOIDING the risk of being questioned at a time when even HE was being convinced of the false nature of his APE-MAN (i.e pigs-tooth) claim because he wanted the PUBLIC not to question.

So I see you are now claiming to have an insight into knowing Osborn's reasons for not testifying at the Scopes' trial. More likely, do you not think given the personal disdain that existed between himself and Bryan, that he wished to avoid admitting to Bryan in public that he it was beginning to look as if his early conclusions about Hesperopithecus were wrong. I draw your attention again to the undisputed facts about Osborn's expressed caution about Hesperopithecus well before the Scopes' trial, the meticulous enlisting of experts from around the world to bring their knowledge to bear on the Hesperopithecus molar, and the strenuous efforts he made to search out confirming (or otherwise) evidence in the field. None of these facts suggests a deliberate attempt to deceive anyone.

Did you notice the degree to which TalkOrigins just appealed to the reader to JOIN with Osborn in that spirit of deception - APPLAUDING him for taking steps to AVOID letting the TRUTH come out about the pigs tooth -- WHEN that truth is not FAVORABLE to the darwinist's story telling!

There was ample evidence available to Bryan to question Hesperopithecus if he had regarded it as sufficiently important to his arguments. There were several expert witnesses who could have been called who would have testified to doubts about Hesperopithecus that were already in the public domain. Osborn was under no legal or moral obligation to do Bryan's work for him. The overall tenor of your remarks in this discussion almost seems to suggest that you think Bryan lost the case in Dayton when, in fact, the jury found John Scopes guilty after only nine minutes of deliberation. Most observers would regard this as a fairly conclusive demonstration of the persuasiveness of Bryan's case. Obviously Osborn's supposedly deceitful reluctance to appear as an expert witness at the trial therefore had no bearing on the outcome of the trial; clearly Bryan had made his anti-evolution case convincingly enough to make the question of Hesperopithecus wholly irrelevant.

 

[BobRyan]

TalkOrigins -- thanks to L.K -

And what if Bryan had found out about the uncertain status of Hesperopithecus? If such doubts had been raised at the Scopes trial, it could have led to disastrous consequences for Scopes's defense and even for the public image of evolution

Clearly, it would have been best for Osborn to back off and stay out of reach in New York. So, having fulfilled his obligation to Scopes's defense with the July 12 piece in The New York Times, Osborn sat out the Scopes trial, not even submitting written testimony.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

Did you notice the degree to which TalkOrigins just appealed to the reader to JOIN with Osborn in that spirit of deception - APPLAUDING him for taking steps to AVOID letting the TRUTH come out about the pigs tooth -- WHEN that truth is not FAVORABLE to the darwinist's story telling!

So I see you are now claiming to have an insight into knowing Osborn's reasons for not testifying at the Scopes' trial. More likely, do you not think given the personal disdain that existed between himself and Bryan, that he wished to avoid admitting to Bryan in public that he it was beginning to look as if his early conclusions about Hesperopithecus were wrong.

The motivation to craft a certain public opinion favorable to Darwinism NO MATTER WHAT the actual facts is clearly seen there.

The TO point about the huge amount of damage that would have been done if the truth had come out -- is yet another example of "inconvenient details" speaking for themselves -- efforts to sweep them under the rug notwithstanding.

Bob