Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Oh. Great. So you're not disputing that pre-human hominids existed. Good. But now you are questioning whether they existed! And you have been told why there isn't more evidence; fossilisation is a very patchy process and we are talking about species that did not inhabit many environments suitable for fossilisation, that did not last long, that never had huge populations, and which were relatively geographically isolated. You are yet to explain what you think is wrong with this explanation beyond repeating "It just seems wrong, there should be more".Well why should there be more? Tell us exactly why we should expect to see more? Demonstrate to us how you know that there is a real shortfall in hominid fossils. How many should we expect to see (if common descent between chimps and humans were true), and why?If you can't do that, all you have is "I dunno, seems wrong.". Yes. I know. It "seems wrong" to you. You said.The thing is, that on the one hand, we have the musing of Dawn Bertot/EMA, who thinks that it "seems wrong" and on the other, we have the hundreds of fossils from ancient hominids that actually exist. Surely you can appreciate why I find your opinion to be less impressive than actual physical evidence to the contrary? It was irrelevant, both because we would not expect to see hominids preserved that way and because we do have preserved hominids; we have their fossilised remains. We may not have enough to have reached your personal threshold of proof, but since you have neglected to tell us where that threshold might lie, I am not overly concerned.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Well I cant really ackowledge or disavow the existence of something where there seems to where there seems to be not enough evidence, now can iSecondly, my query has to do with the way the "evidence" is gathered, a piece of something here or there, with the composition of a whole creature simply from a small bone, or the such likeDidnt they construct a whole goomery creature out of a tooth only later to find out it was a pigs tooth, or am I mistaken about that?If there were millions then certainly we should be able to find numerous examples in tact to help support the cause, corrrect. i mean millions upon million over 100s of thousands of years and all we can come up with is, here a piece there a pieceDinos were what, 60 to 200 million years ago and we can find them all over the place in tactBTW, I have no problem or hestitations believing in Dinos, because the evidence is overwhelming. Not so with your monkey boys Werent your mokey boys found in different locations as in China and other areas that would have provided fossilization and examples that I am looking forI was not aware that they were all relegated to Africa, werent they discovered in many places all over the world?Perhaps you could provide a (SIMPLE) list, somewhat comprehensive that shows what they were and thier locations they were found. Maybe that would helpDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Yes, you are mistaken. A tabloid newspaper published a drawing of a hominid-looking critter after H. F. Osborn published the tentative identification of a tooth from Nebraska as belonging to a primate. Osborn called the illustration "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".And that all before my mother was born.

The thread is about potential falsifications of the theory of evolution. Even if the hominid evidence were woefully inadequate, that wouldn't be a falsification.--Percy

Ahhhhh the ever present and constant contradictions of a tyro.Tell me Panda, why are you so worried about the concerns and feelings of a creature that in your view does not exist?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Kill "Re: Bump for ICANT" subtitle.

Ok.In the meantime, arent these supposed hominids found in many other locations besides Africa?Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Why should I answer your questions when you repeatedly refuse to answer mine (or anyone else's).Why is your English at a level that would embarrass most 7 year old children?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Kill "Re: Bump for ICANT" subtitle.

What you can't do is pretend that the hominid fossils we do know about don't exist. We have have the fossils, thus they existed.How do you propose that the fossils got there if the creatures didn't exist? Once again, you are being absurd. Can you cite a particular specimen that you find unconvincing? Are any of those made from a pig's tooth Dawn? No?Then they existed. Please do not play silly games. As I have repeatedly asked you, how many ought there be according to your interpretation of the ToE version?Why should there be fewer than we see?The example of the passenger pigeon proves that even incredibly numerous species, with populations in the billions can disappear, leaving few fossils. Why should humans be any different?And Dawn; "million upon million"? Just how large do you think the hominid populations were? How do you know? If you can't tell us how many fossils there ought to be, you can't tell us that we see too few. Since I already addressed this and you failed to rebut, I'll just copy and paste; Note Dawn, that's 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. If you bothered to check your facts, you might find that you get less wrong. Yes there are hominid fossils in China. No, I did not say that they were restricted to Africa.You mentioned dinosaurs. Dinosaur fossils are found in multiple regions of Africa, Eurasia, the Americas, Australia and even Antacrtica. Hominids, by comparison, are restricted to Africa and Southern Eurasia. There is no comparison here. There a too many to put on a single image! The majority of the kind of species we're taling about are only found in Africa. So far, no Australopithecine (for example) has been found outside Africa. As far as I know, the only examples found outside Africa are from the Homo genus; i.e. they are human species.Try taking a look at the wiki page for the genus Homo,, which includes this graphic representing the spread of early humans into Eurasia; Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

No game is involved here i assure you. I have always wondered what these things might look like intact, bodies and all. Perhaps they would not appear as we have them pictured from reconstructionsAt any rate the lack of intact creatures in the fossil record, the scarcity in the fossil record and the inablity to view them as they actually were, always leaves doubt as to what they might actually have been, muchless whether is some chain leading to chimpanzees and modern humansgreat numbers of fossils that claim to be a certain type of species or type of humanoid or hominid would bolster the supposed chain in the examples you provideA few examples of this or that do not a satisfactory chain of evidence makePerhaps what we are viewing is simply another type and form of primate, with nothing to do with human existence itselfAt any rate tons of specimens and examples in the fossil record would of course bolster your claim . To bad such prime examples are absent or perhaps they havent been discoveredDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Hey, you can 'see' whatever you want in the fossil record. I'm just curious as to what your explanation is. Of course not. Few things are proven absolutely, especially in science. If that is your standard, I suggest you apply it to your own scenario. And just how does it 'follow'? You appear to open up the argument that data is open to any interpretation. That would be silly.

Here is what I mean. We have all types shapes and sizes of primates right, what would happen if we laid these examples (skulls)beside the head of any shape and size of existing primates we have todayStrip away the flesh and skin of each and wouldnt there be some primates that have exacally or nearly the same shape and size. there are tons and types of primates, small medium and large, correct?How about we try that. Im just trying to figure out what they might have been and when they would have beenDawn Bertot

Are you suggesting that anthropologists are incapable of disinguishing from a modern chimp and a H. habilis (for example)?

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Most osteology labs have skulls of the various primates, as well as the prehistoric specimens.When I was learning osteology we routinely examined existing and extinct primates, including a lot of specimens of fossil man.Why do you assume that scientists have never thought of this type of comparison?It is the kind of study that is started in beginning osteology courses (in Anthropology, not necessarily the medical fields). Folks who specialize in fossil man become real experts in these various primates and their ancestors.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

that was not my assumption about them, I know they do that. Is there a place where I could see side beside, these comparisonsI mean we have everything from spider monkeys to gorilla pusses and everything in betweenperhaps we are just looking at a type of primate, not necessarily in some chain headed twords manOf course enough evidence would support that, but i believe evidence of that nature is lacking and keeps people doubtful of its conclusionsAnyway it would be interesting to see these comparisons. so hook me up nature boyDawn Bertot

So again you're implying that anthropologists can't distinguish between different types of primates. Try the google machine, wikipedia, or perhaps a physical anthropology course at your nearest university.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor