[__ Science __ ] Thinking Critically About “Ape-Man” Messages

[AIG.com]

“Four-million-year-old fossil offers proof of human evolution!” Here’s how to sort through such claims with biblical, critical thinking.

Continue reading...

 

[Barbarian]

That wouldn't appear in scientific literature. "Proof" isn't part of science. Being essentially inductive, it merely gathers evidence to the point that it becomes obviously wrong to deny the findings.

There is no magical rule to evaluating hominid finds. It's highly technical, and requires a good understanding of anatomy and paleontology. Occasionally, an understanding of genetics is necessary. If you don't have this understanding, you're unable to confirm findings for yourself.

Which is not a problem. I don't have any formal training in statics, but I drive my car across bridges with confidence, knowing that engineers and regulators have determined that the bridge is capable of holding a load. Even then, it can go wrong,and a bridge can fail disastrously. But not very often, and in such cases, corrective action and lessons learned increases our confidence in the systems.

 

[Truthfrees]

“Four-million-year-old fossil offers proof of human evolution!” Here’s how to sort through such claims with biblical, critical thinking.

Continue reading...

“

4: Check the Definitions.​

Do any terms in hominid claims need clarifying? Many such claims rest on (real or imagined) similarities between ape-like fossils and human skeletons. So, when we encounter broad claims that a fossil shows certain “human-like” features, it’s worth clarifying what seems “human-like” about them.

For instance, the supposed hominid Australopithecus sediba was said to exhibit “a very modern, developed hand with long thumbs, like in humans.”4 But as this article by Dr. David Menton, Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell clarifies, “the hand is not at all like a human hand. The thumb is proportionately much too long and the fingers too short . . . the hand is actually quite nicely suited for arboreal life.”

Continue reading...

amen

 

[Barbarian]

For instance, the supposed hominid Australopithecus sediba was said to exhibit “a very modern, developed hand with long thumbs, like in humans.”4 But as this article by Dr. David Menton, Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell clarifies, “the hand is not at all like a human hand. The thumb is proportionately much too long and the fingers too short . . . the hand is actually quite nicely suited for arboreal life.”

Sounds like a testable belief. Let's take a look...

No, your guys are completely wrong. Notice the large, robust thumb on human and Australopithecine hands, and the smaller, shorter thumb on the chimpanzee hand. Notice humans and Australopithecines have larger, more robust carpal and metacarpal bones, more useful for manipulating objects than for climbing. Obviously, this Australopithecine species had a very human-like hand, not at all like those of other apes. A. sediba does have slightly curved digits, more curved than humans, but less than those of chimpanzees. This is an adaption for climbing, indicating that A. sediba was less adapted for climbing than chimps.

Even more interesting, A. sediba had a well-developed adductor pollicis muscle, otherwise only found in humans.

Australopithecus sediba Hand Demonstrates Mosaic Evolution of Locomotor and Manipulative Abilities

Hand bones from a single individual with a clear taxonomic affiliation are scarce in the hominin fossil record, which has hampered understanding the evolution of manipulative abilities in hominins. Here we describe and analyze a nearly complete wrist

www.academia.edu

Snelling and Mitchell can be excused; neither of them have any training in anatomy or functional anatomy. However, this should have been very obvious to Menton, who almost certainly has training in human anatomy and should have been aware of these facts, and their significance.

 

[Truthfrees]

Notably, not all “human-like” features depicted in hominids are evident from the actual fossils. For example, artistic reconstructions of ape-like fossils often portray the apes with soulful human eyes showing whites around the irises, unlike the eyes of living apes. But researchers can’t gaze into a fossil’s eyeball sockets and divine the creature’s eye coloring. So, such humanized (or should I say, human-eyes-ed) depictions of ape fossils are not fact, but propaganda—a form of communication that primarily persuades using means besides logic and truth.​

Continue reading...

amen