[_ Old Earth _] More Garbage From Scientists

[cupid dave]

Wrong. That would be journalists (the London Illustrated News, IIRC). Osborn never identified Hesperopithecus as a human ancestor.

Science has moved on a bit from the 1920s. I would have thought that, as a scientist (in which field? I've forgotten), you would have known that.
.

You work both sides of the street here, apparently.
You use science to support evolution against others.

But, you deny the evolution suggested in the bible when I show you that modern science recognizes 22 now extinct human species analogous to those 22 listed in the genealogy of Genesis, starting with the very first species to be called "Man," (or Adam in the Hebrew).

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

[Asyncritus]

You left out how at the time of this recycled pig tooth nonsense that most of the peers of the scientists had refuted the anthropologist's claim and their was no consensus in the scientific community that agreed with him. The Scientists eventually retracted his own claims and apologized after not being able to find anymore evidence and it was discovered that he did find a pig's tooth.

And how long did they swallow this 'evidence' for? Any idea? No? Go look.

Remember Piltdown man? How long before they cottoned on to the fact that it was a fake?

Remember Lucy? Leakey said that the skull was imagination built from plaster of paris.

Actually in this case the scientists thought they just found more neanderthal remains and DNA testing revealed that these specimens were from an entirely different species.

Well, well, well. Did you read the newspaper report in the given link?

The only similarity between the 2 accounts is a tooth. Otherwise everything is completely opposite. We actually convict murderers and rapists on less evidence.

Heh heh heh! Wowee! What a massive amount of evidence to draw conclusions from! A tooth! 80,000 years old.

Are they sure it wasn't from a wild pig or something?

I don't think so, considering that out of the small percentage of fakes, there has actually been an overwhelming amount of actual discoveries and study.

You're too easily 'overwhelmed'. You really should go look at the darwin papers on the subject. You might learn something!

Do you trust this same science that we use to convict murderers and rapists?

That is an interesting question.

Can you not see that it is sheer imbecility to use genetic identification of a single species, namely humans, get correct results, and then use the same kind of evidence to establish that paternity-wise, you had an ancestor who was a crab-louse in the Cambrian?

Doesn't that sound a bit excessive? And stupid?

Ever heard of unwarranted extrapolation from restricted data?

They're finding out that all this 'junk DNA' doctrine,based on molecular biological 'evidence' is complete tripe. Go to my blog where you'll find more detail on this: http://belligerentdesign-asyncritus.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/ervs-function-discovered.html

Even the BBC said so last night. So your foundations are a bit shaky, pal. Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus.

Now here is, as you say, a single tooth.

I was astounded to read the conclusions in the newspaper. How they dare derive such from a tooth is nothing short of miraculous or sheer nonsense.

You can believe what you like, but in my opinion, it is sheer stupidity and complete absence of any vestige of a critical faculty that permits them to produce such garbage. So confidently too!

And you can't really demonstrate how we are not related to Cambrian organisms, just scoff at it. So I'll side with Barbarian and the scientists.

Side with whoever you like. That doesn't make it right, does it? Maybe you are descended from this famous Cambrian crab-louse. You're welcome to your ancestry. But I promise you that I'm not so related!

You are showing your ignorance and your complete dishonesty since multiple people have explained to you the science. I'm starting to wonder if you actually get paid to do this.

Science? What science?

I don't get paid, but I do have an aversion to swallowing evolutionary crap. I exercise common-sense and an intelligent, severely critical faculty when it comes to evolutionary fantasies.

Probably because I'm not related to the Cambrian crab-louse.

Try it some time.

 

[lordkalvan]

You work both sides of the street here, apparently.
You use science to support evolution against others.

But, you deny the evolution suggested in the bible when I show you that modern science recognizes 22 now extinct human species analogous to those 22 listed in the genealogy of Genesis, starting with the very first species to be called "Man," (or Adam in the Hebrew).

As I have pointed out before, I do not accept your figure of '22 now extinct human species' as being definitively accurate and therefore your argument fails on this point. I do not think you need to reconcile the Bible literally with scientific knowledge because the Bible was written by a prescientific culture attempting to express an understanding of the world in terms that made sense to them. For the same reason I see no need to reinterpret Greek, Norse or Egyptian religious beliefs in terms of contemporary knowledge.

 

[lordkalvan]

And how long did they swallow this 'evidence' for? Any idea? No? Go look.

Oh, I don't know. How long have you been swallowing the 'evidence' for special creation?

Remember Piltdown man? How long before they cottoned on to the fact that it was a fake?

Remind me how many creationist scientists were involved in exposing the hoax? Can you tell us how long before creationists 'cottoned on to the fact' that the Paluxy Tracks were 'a fake'? What about the creationist argument that there are no beneficial mutations? How long before the dubious nature of that argument was realised? Or how about woolly mammoths being flash frozen by the biblical flood? How many years was this argument advanced before it was abandoned as false? Indeed, how many of these arguments have been wholly abandoned at all, despite even AiG recommending against their use? In contrast, how seriously are Nebraska and Piltdown Man still put forward in evolutionary literature as validating the theory?

Remember Lucy? Leakey said that the skull was imagination built from plaster of paris.

I remember Barbarian showing your arguments concerning Lucy to be poorly founded at best.

Well, well, well. Did you read the newspaper report in the given link?

Heh heh heh! Wowee! What a massive amount of evidence to draw conclusions from! A tooth! 80,000 years old.

Are they sure it wasn't from a wild pig or something?

Do you dismiss mtDNA evidence, then? On what grounds?

You're too easily 'overwhelmed'. You really should go look at the darwin papers on the subject. You might learn something!

For example?

That is an interesting question.

Can you not see that it is sheer imbecility to use genetic identification of a single species, namely humans, get correct results, and then use the same kind of evidence to establish that paternity-wise, you had an ancestor who was a crab-louse in the Cambrian?

So you accept that mtDNA evidence in the case of the Denisovan remains is sufficient to establish human-relatedness?

Doesn't that sound a bit excessive? And stupid?

Ever heard of unwarranted extrapolation from restricted data?

Well, I haven't seen this claimed relatedness demonstarted yet, but insofar as similar evidence establishes our 'relatedness' to living species, why should the same type of evidence not establish our relatedness to extinct species?

They're finding out that all this 'junk DNA' doctrine,based on molecular biological 'evidence' is complete tripe. Go to my blog where you'll find more detail on this: http://belligerentdesign-asyncritus.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/ervs-function-discovered.html

Your blog is not evidential.

Even the BBC said so last night. So your foundations are a bit shaky, pal. Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus.

What did the BBC say last night? That your blog is an invaluable source of information on the 'complete tripeness' of molecular biological evidence? Can you provide a relevant link, please?

Now here is, as you say, a single tooth.

I was astounded to read the conclusions in the newspaper. How they dare derive such from a tooth is nothing short of miraculous or sheer nonsense.

Why? Do you suppose that we cannot derive forensic information from tooth and bone fragments? Do you know that it is possible to determine the weight of a domestic fowl to within a few grams by examining its wishbone? Is that 'miraculous or sheer nonsense'?

You can believe what you like, but in my opinion, it is sheer stupidity and complete absence of any vestige of a critical faculty that permits them to produce such garbage. So confidently too!

Unfortunately your personal incredulity is insufficient to count as sound refutation of scientific findings.

Side with whoever you like. That doesn't make it right, does it? Maybe you are descended from this famous Cambrian crab-louse. You're welcome to your ancestry. But I promise you that I'm not so related!

And you know this how, exactly?

Science? What science?

The science you mostly deny, handwave away or ignore, I guess.

I don't get paid, but I do have an aversion to swallowing evolutionary crap. I exercise common-sense and an intelligent, severely critical faculty when it comes to evolutionary fantasies.

Mostly what you seem to exercise is personal incredulity. Do you think any organisms are evolutionarily related one to the other or not? I recall you saying in another post that you acknowledged that 'some' or 'a bit' (I can't recall the exact phrasing) of speciation takes place, but you avoided clarifying your understanding when asked about it. So is this 'some' or 'a bit' of speciation that you acknowledge'evolutionary crap' or is it something else?

Probably because I'm not related to the Cambrian crab-louse.

Are you sure? Why?

Try it some time.

Denial is a river in Egypt.

 

[cupid dave]

As I have pointed out before, I do not accept your figure of '22 now extinct human species' as being definitively accurate and therefore your argument fails on this point.

I do not think you need to reconcile the Bible literally with scientific knowledge because the Bible was written by a prescientific culture attempting to express an understanding of the world in terms that made sense to them. For the same reason I see no need to reinterpret Greek, Norse or Egyptian religious beliefs in terms of contemporary knowledge.

See...

You quibble about the facts of the moment in order to hedge your objections to idea stated in the Bible, while you are adamant when the facts of the moment support your own positions.

Confronted with the present facts as best known to us, you have the adaucity to say, "Your argument fails on this point. "
Clearly, it is the other way around for now, that your own arguments fail and your criticism is what we "do not accept."

I also point out that these 22 now extinct species of humans which correspond to the 22 eponyms in the Genesis genealogy are not "mine."
They ARE the present and accepted list of these extinct humans in our past that the Paleontologists have listed, published for their peers, and offer to open-minded fair and reasonable people, (which you apparently are not)?

 

[Adam]

Fine and all true, but regardless of that, Gen 5:2 STILL tells us that "man and woman" are a SPECIES called "Adam," (or "Man"), i.e.; a totally new species and one different from all other species up to that moment.

Speciation is a process that requires incremental change over time. It does not happen in a single moment.

If you are going to claim that Adam and Eve just suddenly appeared out of nowhere (something came from nothing) then you are no longer talking about the evolutionary process, biology, or science in general.

You aren't talking about speciation and the word "species" as you use it has no meaning or real world application.

And Genesis provides no definitions for species and tells us nothing about speciation, espacially of mankind.

 

[lordkalvan]

See...

You quibble about the facts of the moment in order to hedge your objections to idea stated in the Bible, while you are adamant when the facts of the moment support your own positions.

It's not a quibble, it's a simple observation of the fact that the classification of early hominids into different species is not straightforward and that pinning your argument to some sources that identify 22 while others identify fewer or more (see for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12733395) seems to be offering a hostage to fortune. What do you do when a '23rd' is identified or one of the existing '22' you refer to is reclassified as one of the other 21?

Confronted with the present facts as best known to us, you have the adaucity to say, "Your argument fails on this point. "

And confronted with the fact that your listed 22 species are not set in concrete, what do you propose to do with your hypothesis when the list grows or shrinks?

Clearly, it is the other way around for now, that your own arguments fail and your criticism is what we "do not accept."

Accept or reject what you like; it remains the case that the figure of 22 extinct hominid species is to some extent arbitrary and certainly not without difference of opinion in the relevant research community.

I also point out that these 22 now extinct species of humans which correspond to the 22 eponyms in the Genesis genealogy are not "mine."

They ARE the present and accepted list of these extinct humans in our past that the Paleontologists have listed, published for their peers, and offer to open-minded fair and reasonable people, (which you apparently are not)?

That would be some palaeontologists and depends on particular decisions about how certain specimens should be classified. If you reflect on how many of these early specimens have the qualifier 'possible' attached to their identification as human ancestors, you will understand my position.

 

[Adam]

And confronted with the fact that your listed 22 species are not set in concrete, what do you propose to do with your hypothesis when the list grows or shrinks?

He has already made up his mind to completely ignore that information and facts.

I gave a list of 30 that, in 2012, is nearly settled as distinct species.

He simply copied and pasted his canned response of the picture of the cover of a book from 2007. He has decided to keep his position regardless of the conclusions of the actual paleontologist community.

 

[cupid dave]

Speciation is a process that requires incremental change over time. It does not happen in a single moment.

If you are going to claim that Adam and Eve just suddenly appeared out of nowhere (something came from nothing) then you are no longer talking about the evolutionary process, biology, or science in general.

You aren't talking about speciation and the word "species" as you use it has no meaning or real world application.

And Genesis provides no definitions for species and tells us nothing about speciation, espacially of mankind.

The first man was the result of one fusing together of two sets of chromosomes in the womb of a surrogate ape mother who had the normal 24 chromosomes.

That "act of God" initiated a ntirely different species which we now look back upon and distinguish as the first man, one who would evermore pass on only 23 Chromosomes:





At each end of a chromosome we have a Telomere the purpose of the telomere in a chromosome is to prevent deterioration of the important bits of the chromosome from the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
"Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.
According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred after the human–chimpanzee split, but before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu et al. 2001) (Fig.5).

 

[Adam]

That's not how speciation works.

Evolution comes about from natural selection and change in gene alleles.


A chromosome fusion does not result in allele variation. The gene expressions are exactly the same.

 

[cupid dave]

That's not how speciation works.

Evolution comes about from natural selection and change in gene alleles.


A chromosome fusion does not result in allele variation. The gene expressions are exactly the same.

A chromosome fusion resulted in a totally new species, man.

 

[cupid dave]

And confronted with the fact that your listed 22 species are not set in concrete, what do you propose to do with your hypothesis when the list grows or shrinks?


.

1) You will tell people that science at any moment in time is just the best thinking of the scientists, and open to change in the future.

As of the last definitive book on the subject of human ascent, I have drawn your attention to the fact that Genesis claims that same number ending with three implied Racial Stocks just as our own paleontology says.

You ask here whether this present analogy has any value because science often has changed its mind and claims.
My question is how do you justify anyhting you have ben saying when you take the exact diametrically opposite view in insisy0ting what science says now is to be aceoted by those to whom you respond???

2) What are the rules here?
Do you and I compare Science of the moment to what Scripture says in stone, or do we not?????

3) Yes, you are correct in that the paleontologists are still looking for more inclusions and some rejections in their own best list of candidates for the lines of our ascent, but their weak science at this point does not seem to be very far from the number 22 found in Genesis, a number that is set and will not change.

 

[lordkalvan]

1) You will tell people that science at any moment in time is just the best thinking of the scientists, and open to change in the future.

Indeed. Science advances our knowledge and understanding by discovering further evidence and developing better explanations based on that evidence.

As of the last definitive book on the subject of human ascent, I have drawn your attention to the fact that Genesis claims that same number ending with three implied Racial Stocks just as our own paleontology says.

First of all, your claim to definitiveness for your source is open to question, as not only I have pointed out. Secondly, 'race' has no biological or genetic basis in the taxonomy of Homo sapiens; in other words, there are no 'racial stocks', implied or otherwise.

You ask here whether this present analogy has any value because science often has changed its mind and claims.

Mostly I ask whether it has any value because it appears arbitrary and self-serving.

My question is how do you justify anyhting you have ben saying when you take the exact diametrically opposite view in insisy0ting what science says now is to be aceoted by those to whom you respond???

Where evidence exists that refutes an argument, that evidence is valid. If you can show specific science-based counterarguments to be invalid, then the counterargument fails. Denying such counterarguments simply on the basis that science progresses and so thatvinvaldating evidence may subsequently be shown to be erroneous amounts to speculation. For example, our best evidence indicates that Earth is a sphere; this evidence cannot be put into question simply by suggesting that at some future date science may uncover further evidence that will indicate it is a disc (turtles all the way down). The point in respect of your argument is that the evidence that supporst it is at best ambiguous.

2) What are the rules here?
Do you and I compare Science of the moment to what Scripture says in stone, or do we not?????

My answer is that 'Scripture' is not set in stone and that it is a mistake try and reconcile science with one set or scripturecrathercthan another. For example, it could be argued that our current understanding of the origins of Earth fit better with Hindu scripture than they do with Christian scripture, but that does not make this suggestion supportive of the argument that comparing science with this scripture in some way validates it.

3) Yes, you are correct in that the paleontologists are still looking for more inclusions and some rejections in their own best list of candidates for the lines of our ascent, but their weak science at this point does not seem to be very far from the number 22 found in Genesis, a number that is set and will not change.

I suppose the problem for me here is that if a 'near miss' can be promoted as validating a precise figure based on legendary accounts, then this continues to smack of an exercise in confirmation bias; in other words, almost any data can be co-opted to support a pre-existing idea that the holder of it is certain is valid from the outset.

 

[Adam]

A chromosome fusion resulted in a totally new species, man.

Not possible.

 

[Adam]

I suppose the problem for me here is that if a 'near miss' can be promoted as validating a precise figure based on legendary accounts, then this continues to smack of an exercise in confirmation bias; in other words, almost any data can be co-opted to support a pre-existing idea that the holder of it is certain is valid from the outset.

That seems to be this guy's M.O.

 

[cupid dave]

First of all, your claim to definitiveness for your source is open to question, as not only I have pointed out.

Secondly, 'race' has no biological or genetic basis in the taxonomy of Homo sapiens; in other words, there are no 'racial stocks', implied or otherwise.

.

1) LOL
You complain to fundamentalists that what they say has no science support anywhere in Science, hence you criticize their interpretations of Genesis.

Here, you dismiss what I say in spite I do offer mainstream scienctific support.

I refer you to leading, well respected paleontologists who published their argument for 22 now extinct humans in our line of ascent,... and you also dismiss the Bible comparison on the basis that THAT particular scientific source is unacceptable.

2) You see no contradiction or hypocracy here, in insisting that I must accept a list of 30 possible now extinct humans that is found in no book, not one also subject to peer review.

3) You question the team of Paleontologists who wrote the book to which I referred for this up to date list as if their credwntials do not meet your specifications. How so?

4) You are in the enviable position (smug?) of accepting and rejecting modern science as suits your needs to oppose what the Bible says, are you not???

 

[Adam]

I refer you to leading, well respected paleontologists who published their argument for 22 now extinct humans in our line of ascent,...

You haven't read the book. They make no arguments for any particular number of species in the book.

Had you read the book you would know that the number of species isn't even the subject matter.

All of your assumptions are based solely on the title.

 

[lordkalvan]

1) LOL
You complain to fundamentalists that what they say has no science support anywhere in Science, hence you criticize their interpretations of Genesis.

Nope, I say that science directly contradicts certain 'young' Earth claims made about creation and the age of Earth and the Universe. That science embraces many diverse fields if study and research, all of which lead to the same conclusion.

Here, you dismiss what I say in spite I do offer mainstream scienctific support.

I have tried not to dismiss your arguments and, if that is what I have appeared to do, it was not my intention and the result of poor choices of phrasing on my part. What I have sought to do is point out that you are offering hostages to fortune by referencing these 22 extinct species, that the figure of 22 is not itself fully agreed and that 'near enough' doesn't really hit the mark when the only validation Yiu have for your model is the numerical agreement.

I refer you to leading, well respected paleontologists who published their argument for 22 now extinct humans in our line of ascent,... and you also dismiss the Bible comparison on the basis that THAT particular scientific source is unacceptable.

Not 'unacceptable', but rather not sufficiently well-established to make a definitive basis for your argument. Again, I think trying to make these kinds of agreements between the Bible and contemporary science is not worthwhile because the Bible was not written as a science textbook and should not be validated on that basis.

2) You see no contradiction or hypocracy here, in insisting that I must accept a list of 30 possible now extinct humans that is found in no book, not one also subject to peer review.

I don't insist on anything, I only point out that, in my opinion, your argument rests on shifting foundations.

3) You question the team of Paleontologists who wrote the book to which I referred for this up to date list as if their credwntials do not meet your specifications. How so?

Well, on the basis that some of the species' identifications are listed as, at best, 'possibly ancestral' and that other studies by other palaeontologists, forensic and otherwise, lead to different arguments about the ancestral human line. I have referenced at least one of these studies for you. I do not say it is 'better' or more authoritative than yours, only that different conclusions can be drawn from the evidence available.

4) You are in the enviable position (smug?) of accepting and rejecting modern science as suits your needs to oppose what the Bible says, are you not???

I don't think so. I am sure there are things that are said in the Bible that 'modern science' and other fields of study can proffer support for. I am thinking particularly of some of the historical aspects of the Bible, shorn of its nation-building and other elements of self-serving propaganda.

 

[cupid dave]

I have tried not to dismiss your arguments and, if that is what I have appeared to do, it was not my intention and the result of poor choices of phrasing on my part. What I have sought to do is point out that you are offering hostages to fortune by referencing these 22 extinct species, that the figure of 22 is not itself fully agreed and that 'near enough' doesn't really hit the mark when the only validation Yiu have for your model is the numerical agreement.
.

Well I am satisfied that you seem more open minded here.

1) My real thrust in all this is directed at the religious intolerance for discussion and free speech that has permeated the Institution of Religion now from time immemorial.


The very people who shed crocidile tears for their Jesus are exactly those who we see on this forum here, ready to silence and attack an honest, but different, "take" on the scriptures which they have read and studied.
There are what I would call "gangs" rather than congregations of people demanding the right to spread their private gospels while intent on suppressing any other.
How fair is that?

We see in just the last century the way the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons have been ostracized and denigrated by more established denominational churches.
Those are whole churches that think exactly like these people, here, so clearly exposing themselves to like examples ofa wide spread and general closed minded Religiously Correctness.

We can evidence this intolerance by noting how easily one can be banned on most forums which on th other hand, welcome and accept unbelievers and atheists. The stark contrast there, that as long as one doesn't interject theology atheism and even insulting attackers of religion in general are as welcome as the church goers.

Its about money, power, and maintaining a denominational Party Line, isn't it?

In a Nation where Truth is supposed to guide the voters, we find growing attempts by our government, and a Left skewed Media, working to make what was once the Freedom to Speak Out curtailed by an enormous and growing Political Correctness that will bury what some do not want heard.

But the Political Institution is new at this job which the churches have done so well for centuries.


2) In regard to the genealogy, the list of 22, and the general point that has been consistently made in my posts; i.e.; you mistake these interpretations to be a claim of proof, rather than a way of understanding what is written such that it does not contradict science.

There has been no attempt to show that Science validates the Bible, but rather the other way around for Theistic Evolution Intepretations, that the Scriptures do not contradict what Science is saying today.

This is quite different for all the other denominational interpretations, doctrines, and teachings which are often in stark contradiction to Science.

 

[Adam]

2) In regard to the genealogy, the list of 22, and the general point that has been consistently made in my posts; i.e.; you mistake these interpretations to be a claim of proof, rather than a way of understanding what is written such that it does not contradict science.

There has been no attempt to show that Science validates the Bible, but rather the other way around for Theistic Evolution Intepretations, that the Scriptures do not contradict what Science is saying today.

That is some backpedaling.

Either way, your interpretation does not conform with the now accepted 29 extinct species.