Human Intelligence

You should note Crash that Nebraska "man" was hardly a fraud. An error and a media hype yes.Since we don't, for sure know who pulled Piltdown man we can't say what their motivation was or what their particular beliefs were.There have, of course, been frauds. I'm not sure of any that have been demonstrated to be by someone in the field of paleontology or who was trying to fabricate evidence to support any particular viewpoint. Piltdown man wasn't much support for anything anyway.The recent one(s? ) have, of course, been by outsiders for money. I hope that now researchers are aware of the possibility it will be harder to pull off.

Yep. But I forgive you. You make so many posts on this forum I'm sure it's hard for you to follow along and remember everything. I, too, have been busy all week and didn't even see every reply that people made to me. But I'm trying to go back and faithfully hit every one that I can while still being able to retire at a decent hour (and I've already blown that for tonight).
As for why I posted SJG's quote: Remember, I've been saying that it was evolution theory that helped feed the hunger of racists and supremacists and that we have Darwin to thank? You and other posters claimed this notion was ridiculous, but you seemed to eventually see it (sort of) my way and admitted it to some degree (It seemed as if you were sweating profusely while you did, but your strength prevailed), although you (or perhaps someone in your camp) tried to spin "culture" into it (which is ludicrous, by the way).But you still haven't explained away what Darwin's thought process may have been when he wrote: "...baboon...Negro or Australian and the gorilla...."
How in the world were people supposed to take that?[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-16-2004]

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

I'm inclined to see a rush to conclusion and publication by a scientist as a kind of fraud, I guess. When Pons and Fleichman announced that they probably had cold fusion before anybody had a chance to check, they committed a kind of fraud, no matter how honestly they thought they had succeeded.I see your point, but it's not a distinction I'm prepared to labor right now.

Because it is.It was, after all, the baseball bat that allowed Guido to break a shop owner's kneecaps when he didn't pay for protection. But it hardly follows that we have Louisville Slugger to thank for that. His thought process may have been that it was a foregone conclusion that white folks had more technology than black folks because white folks were more evolved.We now know this not to be the case. Again, I just don't see the relevance. Nothing in the modern theory of evolution is racist. Theories aren't racist. People are. Is the theory of gravity racist simply because black people tend to weigh more?

An "error"? Convenient. In 1922 a single TOOTH was found in Nebraska, and Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, determined that this "tooth" had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. From this he concluded Nebraska man was a missing link. In England, Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, fully supported Osborn.Media hype? Hmmm. Yes: - Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn of Columbia UniversityThe tooth, as you know, was later determined to be from an extinct pig. "Volumes of truth", yes. Media hype? Just like any well crafted "leak to the press" perhaps? The ultimate idea was to prove the Bible wrong, no matter the tactics used. From this single "tooth", Nebraska man was created via an "artist's conception", and Nebraska man was even given a WIFE! Artist's conception? Certainly, the newspaper simply hired a guy who just drew a missing link without input from any scientists, right? Just a drawing from a guy who really didn't know much about science. Right; blame it on the journalists or somebody. It's an old trick Nero used a while back. And the words of Dr. Osborn? What were his motives? (I'm interested in hearing your answer to that one).

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

Changed your mind again, I see. I'll have to knock off a couple of those points I gave you earlier. So if the theory is written by racist people, the theory can't have a racist twist to it? C'mon, Crash... You've done better than this in the past. Are you feeling ok tonight?But separately, it's BECAUSE of those people, that you have your ToE; that's what it is founded on. Godlessness and racism. Really. But I thought the observations were made scientifically?
Can you tell me where you cut off "old ToE" and began "Modern ToE"?Look at another quote from Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1926: Now, did he use scientific examination methods to gain this information? And do you see it? He excludes "Negroes" from the species Homo Sapiens. Scientific observations, eh?And, in 1926, in his book "Evolution and Religion in Education", on page 48, Dr. Osborn writes: "Rights to survive" are dictated by evolution? Crash, this is the stuff your scientific beliefs are founded on.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

It could, but there's no reason that it has to be. The content of a scientific theory is not related to the ideology of its proponents. That's why creationism isn't scientific. Better than refusing to commit the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent? No. It's founded on evidence. You'd know that if you knew anything about the theory. But your science is stuck in the 1800's - and your theology even father back. Sure. The convergence of descent with modification and genetics, aka "the new synthesis." Circa 1960 or so.You'd know this if you knew anything about the theory. But I guess it's easier to argue from ignorance, eh? Obviously not, because we know that there's no statistically meaningful difference between the intelligence of african-americans and anybody else.What he did was base his conclusions on faulty data, manipulated by those with a racist agenda. You can read all about it in The Mismeasure of Man by Gould. It's a great and engaging read. Racist garbage. There are no ethical principles inherent in evolution. "Survival of the fittest" isn't a call to action, it's a definition. The fit are those who leave the most offspring. I realize that as a creationist basing your beliefs on appeals to authority, it's difficult for you to imagine that others aren't doing the same. Nonetheless I implore you to at least try to imagine a school of thought where conclusions are based on deduction from evidence, not old books. It's called "science." Maybe you've heard of it? It's what you spent all that time ignoring in high school.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-16-2004]

In other words, NosyNed was correct, and you don't have the basic integrity to recognize a valid correction to your inflated accusations.It was error, and hype. Not fraud. Noone anywhere has ever made the slightest case for the charge of fraud. And all you are doing is describing the error and the hype. That was NosyNed's point. Can you tell the difference? Can you recognize the importance of the difference?A fairly detailed and referenced discussion is available in The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate by John Wolf and James S. Mellett. It is worth noting the limited lifetime and limited scope of the error. Most scientists were properly skeptical; a few made the erroneous identification of a primate, and one (Smith) speculated (not claimed) it was from a human ancestor. The error was quickly recognized by all concerned when better data was made available.You could learn from that, Skeptick. Your charge of fraud is an error. Can you learn from that mistake and recognize a more fair and honest description?You have obviously picked that word up from uncritical reading of creationist commentary. They just use the word fraud without any concern for honesty or accuracy. It is picked up and spread around by uncritical sheep who never bother to check the details of events, and never even seem to notice that the accusation of fraud rests on nothing whatsoever.It was error, and media hype. Why yes; the drawing was made by an artist hired by the newspaper. That is what Ned is telling you, dammit. It was media hype. Who do you think hired the artist? Do you have any better information, or any basis for your slimy innuendos?The artist was Amedee Forestier, and the drawing appeared in the Illustrated London News. It did not appear anywhere else. The artist stated that the drawing was based on his own understanding of Pithecanthropus (Java man). It was not based on input from the scientists. The caption of the picture included this comment by Smith: (Text cut from Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man at talkorigins, which also has further details.)The drawing was used by the newspaper to illustrate an article written by Smith. Smith had no complaints; but neither did he give direction to the artist.Osbourn was critical of using an imaginative drawing with no scientific value and inevitable inaccuracy. Osbourn's criticism of the drawing appeared in The New York Times a few months later.Osbourn's motives for his hasty identification of the tooth as an anthropoid ape are a red herring; but they are not hard to understand. His motives are discussed in the article by Wolf and Mellett. Osbourn was already on the attack against Bryan before he even received the tooth, and when he received the tooth its potential for continuing to the attack on Bryan may well have lead him to be too hasty. From the article: If you respond to this, pay close attention to what you have claimed and what corrections have been made to your claims.You said fraud. That was wrong; actually it was error and hype. It is absurd -- and also unChristian and malicious -- to respond to this by simply describing the error and then making undefended innuendo about fraud.If indeed you have no basis for the charge of fraud (and it is bloody obvious you don't; it is not like you have made any new discoveries on this eighty years old story) then the right thing to do is recognize that and actually learn to be a bit Skeptical about such claims.SylasPS. Added in edit: when you are citing a primary source that you have not read for yourself, the proper thing to do is cite the source you used yourself to get your information. You will see I have done this consistently in all my posts.[This message has been edited by Sylas, 02-16-2004]

Crash is right it is off topic more than a bit but there are a couple of things to remember:The tooth didn't enter into the scopes trial at all.A pig's tooth is close enough to human's for honest error to be possible. Though I agree with Crash that too much carelessness is getting pretty close to a form of fraud.You are conjecturing about the newspaper article.

Absolute bogus. You could never sell that to a jury, even with Clarence Darrow as your defender. The motive was there, as both you and I pointed out in quotes. Of course, motive alone is not enough to show guilt. But the part about what "a reasonable man would think" has been totally ignored here. If an employee shows up for work, punches his timecard at 08:00 AM and works for 4 hours and then punches out to go home at 12:00 NOON, but notices that the timeclock somehow "skipped" forward to 7:30 PM, what is the employee supposed to do? That's right, the employee is supposed to "do the right thing" and report his time accurately and write down "4 hours" and report the occurrence to his boss immediately. But if the employee says "hmmm, wow. Timeclock says I worked 11.5 hours today. Good thing, too, cuz I really need the money for bills this month." If the employee then writes down 11.5 hours worked (because of the timeclock "error"), what will his boss say when he catches this "error"? The employee can count on being terminated. The employee had a "motive" to report extra hours, just like Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn did with that pig's tooth (as you yourself pointed out). How in blazes can an employee claim 11.5 hours when he only worked four? How in blazes can a scientist claim a "missing link" when all he found was a TOOTH? Then blame it on an overzealous artist (or newspaper editor who gave the order). You make it sound like it was the "artist" who came up with the "tooth-to-man" story. The SCIENTISTS came up with the story, the artist drew a picture about THE STORY that he received from the SCIENTISTS. It was the SCIENTISTS with a MOTIVE that conjured up Nebraska man, not media hype.
Now, if evolution had a little better reputation, say if Nebraska man was only one of a "couple" of frauds and hoaxes over the decades, then maybe I would give you the benefit of a doubt. But the evolutionist camp has a rap sheet longer that I feel like listing right now (all of which are readily available from multiple sources. The frauds and hoaxes and forgeries still continue in our day). They're not corrections. Just different spins and interpretations, like in a courtroom. I look at several sources from both camps, including primary sources themselves (I have plenty of my own hard and electronic copies, including OoS and DoM). I then look at what both sides have presented and, like a jury, make a decision. I have disagreed with SEVERAL creationist arguments in the past, and will contiune to weigh the evidence and make judgements. The Democrats and Rebublicans don't agree on alot of issues. Each camp thinks they're viewpoint is correct. Can YOU tell me who is correct? I've quoted several sources, but this is a debate forum, not electronic practice for term papers with tons of footnotes. I don't mention the source of every quote I make, because most of my quotes come from multiple corroborating sources that are readily available with only a few keystrokes. A simple search engine can load you up with varying viewpoints to the same subject. Viewpoints that are vehemently both for and against. Writers and reporters calling each other infidels and spin-doctors for having a different viewpoint. Scientists with opposing views accusing each other of not being real scietists, etc, etc, etc. The courtroom is no different; the same evidence is reviewed, the same witnesses are examined and cross-examined, etc. etc., while each party has a completely different interpretation of the facts. Sometimes they can't even agree on what are facts at all, regardless if its a pick-pocket or murderer who's on trial. But the jury decides. We both provide the evidence, offer our interpretations and/or opinions, and the jury decides the rest. Why do you get so shook up about discussion on this forum? Say your piece, listen to replies, and expound further on your viewpoint if you'd like. If you don't respond back, that doesn't mean you've changed you mind about the issue or lost points in a debate. This is just open discussion, no points are calculated unless your name is really crashfrog or something. Yes, that is my opinion, and if Osborn would have been in my employ at the time, I would have terminated him for gross bias and gross errors in procedure. He could have sued me, I would have counter-sued and the case would have gone to court. My guess is that Osborn would NOT have taken the stand in his own defense because the opposing attorney would have destroyed him. But that's my opinion. Either way, the case would have gone to the jury. The decision? Up to the jury, of course. Cool off a little, and keep discussing if you're still interested.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

See Message 1 for a place to show some of the "rap sheet". It is a shame you didn't at least refer to one of the multiple sources to get this line started faster.

I don't understand where you get this idea that, just because I'm not going to sit here and let you say things that just aren't true, I'm keeping score or something.If I was into scores, wouldn't I be debating in the Great Debate forum, where points are actually given and scores are literally kept?You mistake my unwavering resolve to hold you accountable to your statements as some kind of attempt to score points, I guess. Most people here are content to ignore your unsubstantiated, ludicrous claims. I guess I'm a masochist or something.Were you going to return to the point? I believe we were discussing how the foundations of science aren't books, but rather evidence. It'd be nice if you could present some, sometime.

Yes, close enough to say it may be human. But a tooth of ANY kind is NOT enough to even SURMISE that you may have found a missing link, unless you're desperate in just finding a missing link (like Osborn indeed was at the time). My point sort of. Except that this leaves us with a question; HOW MUCH carelessness do you need to be guilty of, before it IS considered fraud? Where do you draw the line? It's easier to obtain forgiveness, than permission. Have you ever known someone (personally or not) who did something he knew he shouldn't have, then got off the hook by "playing stupid"? Sometimes the trick works, sometimes it doesn't; depends on who the judge and/or jury might be.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

Already have them, Ned; thanks anyway. And you're right by saying "...some of the..".
Did I say I didn't know, or that I just didn't want to list them "right now"? I know you guys already know, and I know you know that I know, so why should I list them? Do I also need to explain 2+2=4? You already know this stuff, you just don't enjoy admitting that the laws of statistics simply don't support an paramecium turing into a human except there be an infinite amount of time (including both parts of eternity; the past that goes as far BACK as the future does forward). Scientists come up with alot of good stuff, but they also come up with alot of garbage due to their own bias, errors in judgement, greediness, frustration in not finding evidence to support their theories, etc, etc, etc.And please don't get me started on polywater.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

You liked it, eh? I thought you would hate it. One of the few times I've failed to predict your response (ask my students). Usually, people can't stand the taste of their own medicine.