Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-29-2017 1:04 PM
441 online now:
14174dm, Aussie, DrJones*, Faith, james121515, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Porosity, Tanypteryx (9 members, 1 guest login, 431 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,165 Year: 6,771/21,208 Month: 2,532/2,634 Week: 195/525 Day: 28/82 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   A Critique of the "Evolution Essay" A GREAT DEBATE S1WC and anglagard ONLY
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 1 of 100 (320627)
06-11-2006 7:59 PM


In the topic Evolution Logic, Someone Who Cares suggests that a new topic be proposed to look at his essay (www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=688&m=249 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=688&m=249">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=688&m=249) which can be found at: http://www.freewebs.com/noevolutionguy/evolutionessay.htm.

I have been itching to start responding to such a topic, and out of impatience I decided to propose it myself. As the essay is an attempt to disprove the scientific validity of evolution it would fit well in the “Is it science?” category. I would envision that a piece of the essay be presented with an attempted refutation, then allow SWC to defend or clarify it. For this to work it would be important that we keep it simple and avoid ‘dogpiling’. Also keeping this a critique of SWC’s essay, not him.

As it turns out I have on hand a good number of the references cited in the essay on my bookshelf, especially the portions on human evolution. So I will start there. One important point that seems to be found throughout the essay is the definition of the word hominid. This term means members of the human family (Hominidae) and includes humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, as well as the extinct dryopithecinces, sivapithecines, and those forms classes as human fossils (although IIRC the sivapithecines and orangutans may still be considered pongids, family Pongidae). Hominid does not nor ever has meant simply “ape-man.” These distinctions are important in science because science relies on precise definitions.

SWC writes:

Ramapithecus is one of these finds. Based on merely some teeth, for about twenty years he was believed to be a hominid, a transition between ape and man. But he is now known to be just an extinct orangutan type of monkey.

This is fairly accurate. The palate and teeth of Ramapithecus look very much like human teeth. Where creationists go wrong with these points is to use them as evidence of flaws in the theory. It wasn’t Gish or Hovind that revealed Ramapithecus to be a sivapithecine, it was evidence found by scientists. As more skull fragments were discovered paleoanthropologists determined that Ramapithecus was a sivapithecine that had teeth and jaws that were similar to humans. Even before this happened molecular data was suggesting that Ramapithecus was far too old to be on the human side of the ‘split’. Subsequent fossils finds show that the molecular data is extremely accurate (we call this multiple lines of evidence). BTW, apes and monkeys are very very different creatures.

SWC writes:

Hesperithecus was made from just a pig’s tooth! It was used as a hominid for 14 years until the truth was found out.


and:
Nebraska man was also based on a pig’s tooth, just like Hesperithecus!

A bit of research would show that Hesperopithecus and Nebraska man are the same thing. It wasn’t used as a hominid for 14 years. The find is a rather insignificant footnote in the history of science. The discoverer only suggested that it might be an extinct species of ape but that judgment needs to wait for more material. It was a London newspaper that claimed it was a human fossil. The find was quickly recognized for what it was. Like with Ramapithecus this shows the self-correcting nature of science. People like Kent Hovind claim that Hesperopithecus is being used as proof of evolution, which is completely false.

Piltdown man was an ape’s jaw placed with a human skull, but for 45 years paleontologists called it ape human, and they wrote about 500 books on it!

500 books? On Piltdown? I am going to be generous and assume you made an honest mistake when citing F.C Howell as the source of that as he simply does not make this claim (Piltdown is mentioned as a fraud and chimaera, but nothing about 500 books) Although any more mis-cites and I will start becoming suspicious…

Pliopithecus was named a hominid because it was a cross between the spider monkey and a gibbon.

Doh! Not in Howell!

Proconsul was just an extinct type of an ape. No human characteristics in him. Dryopithecus was based on only a lower jaw and some teeth fragments, but later those bones were known to be just an extinct ape’s bones. [12] Nothing human about him either, he is not a hominid. Oreopithecus was based on only some teeth and the remains of a pelvis, it is also an extinct ape. [13]

Your point? The abovementioned finds have never been thought to be nor claimed to be human (okay, so Oreopithecus enjoyed a stint as a possible candidate for the common ancestor of apes and humans). Also Oreopithecus is known from nearly complete skeletons. We know more about Oreopithecus than we do any other extinct ape species. Howell never said that (known only from some teeth and a pelvis). That is three fabricated oops, I mean mistaken citations from one source!

I will leave it at this and hope this gets promoted.

Edited by AdminJar, : mark as Great Debate.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 06-11-2006 8:44 PM Lithodid-Man has responded
 Message 9 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-08-2006 1:01 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
AdminAsgara
Administrator
Posts: 2072
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 100 (320631)
06-11-2006 8:02 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 3 of 100 (320640)
06-11-2006 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
06-11-2006 7:59 PM


It wasn’t used as a hominid for 14 years.

Five years, to be a bit more precise. And within ten months of the first report, no less than nine other authors raised doubts. Science, vol 66, pp 579-581,(1927) has the skinny on it. It's online if you have a subscription - and a college library should.

I'll be reading this thread with interest and trying to keep my mouth shut. I don't like dogpiles much, either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-11-2006 7:59 PM Lithodid-Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-12-2006 5:13 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 4 of 100 (320696)
06-12-2006 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
06-11-2006 8:44 PM


Thanks for the ref!
Thank you very much for that. I downloaded the ref and found it it quite interesting. I am teaching a class on human evolution next fall, so it is good to have such material on hand.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 06-11-2006 8:44 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jtofgc, posted 07-03-2006 7:05 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
jtofgc
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 100 (328659)
07-03-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Lithodid-Man
06-12-2006 5:13 AM


quote:
Another class of hominids is Homo Sapiens. Modern Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, and older Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus, all lived at the same time, they all lived together. [10] They could not have been various degrees of evolving monkeys changing into humans.

if he had done any research whatsoever, he would know that neanderthal is on an entirely different branch of the evolutionary tree than homo sapiens and is not claimed to be a direct predecessor of man. of course, the evidence he gives here probably isn't credible anyway. i'd debunk more, but i don't have the time and the author probably won't read this so there's not really much point other than to just feel good about myself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-12-2006 5:13 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jtofgc, posted 07-03-2006 7:07 PM jtofgc has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-03-2006 8:22 PM jtofgc has not yet responded

  
jtofgc
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 100 (328662)
07-03-2006 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jtofgc
07-03-2006 7:05 PM


maybe someone should email the author and tell him that apes ARE types of hominids.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jtofgc, posted 07-03-2006 7:05 PM jtofgc has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 07-03-2006 7:29 PM jtofgc has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 7 of 100 (328666)
07-03-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jtofgc
07-03-2006 7:07 PM


run and hide creationist
maybe someone should email the author ...

The 'author' pieced together a bunch of mis-information with an argument from incredulity, and did no checking for veracity while labelling his work the "truth" ...

When he was challenged with real facts that contradicted his "work" he ran away to hide from the reality rather than admit to any errors or make any corrections. He hasn't been seen in a while: too dangerous.

He will rationalize this some way so that he is the 'victor' of the debate, and will continue to push his mis-information and falsehoods on other sites.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jtofgc, posted 07-03-2006 7:07 PM jtofgc has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3471
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 8 of 100 (328680)
07-03-2006 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jtofgc
07-03-2006 7:05 PM


Neanderthals / Homo sapiens relationship
if he had done any research whatsoever, he would know that neanderthal is on an entirely different branch of the evolutionary tree than homo sapiens and is not claimed to be a direct predecessor of man.

I'm just a geologist, but I believe things are believed to be not that clear cut. I think at least some think there was some neanderthal/Homo sapiens interbreeding.

There has been a fair number of neanderthal topics including:

Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon - 48 messages.
Neanderthals - 159 messages.
Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man??? - 52 messages.
Neandertal Place in Human Origins - 7 messages.
All in the Family - Guest star: Neanderthal - 87 messages.

I suspect the first one might be the best as it was started by Mammuthus, but I suspect there's also lots of good stuff in the others.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change "interbreading" to "interbreeding". I'll keep bakery considerations out of this topic.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jtofgc, posted 07-03-2006 7:05 PM jtofgc has not yet responded

    
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 9 of 100 (347467)
09-08-2006 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
06-11-2006 7:59 PM


BUMP for Someone Who Cares...
Glad to see you back, I started the thread some time ago. Would love to discuss it. -LM


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-11-2006 7:59 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 2157
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 10 of 100 (347471)
09-08-2006 1:02 AM


Bump for Someone Who Cares...
Welcome back Someone Who Cares, you seem to have gone on vacation before seeing this thread. Are you interested in defending your Evolution Essay?

ABE - Can't believe I missed this before, Why/How would evolution:

http://www.freewebs.com/noevolutionguy/whyhowwouldevolution.htm

Edited by anglagard, : Use full name in title

Edited by anglagard, : Additional resource from S1WC


    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 11 of 100 (347513)
09-08-2006 7:52 AM


Bump for "Someone who cares"
From Message 138

Actually, reread my essay on evolution there. I did make a few rewordings to make it more proper, just recently.

Here's your chance to show that what you wrote is not full of misrepresentations and falsehoods.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 8:52 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 12 of 100 (347628)
09-08-2006 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
09-08-2006 7:52 AM


Error still there -- no surprise eh? Creatortionistas are like that.
From the "essay" after he has made a "few rewordings to make it more proper" -- it still says:

"Someone who cares" with no basis on facts writes:

Lucy’s inner ear structure, skull structure, and other bones show that she was most likely related to the pygmy chimpanzee. She did not even walk like humans do. When a knee joint for one find of Lucy was requested, they found one more than about 200 feet lower in the earth and about two miles away from the rest of her! [5] How could that joint have possibly belonged to that particular Lucy find?

It has been pointed out to "Someone who cares" that this is not the truth and that the knee joint was not combined into the Lucy skeleton as part of that find.

He has NOT corrected that error "to make it more proper" so it is a valid conclusion that he wants to continue portraying this demonstrated falsehood as what he calls "truth" in his essay.

Perhaps he would like to enlighten us on his reasons for not making a correction to such a blatant error when (a) he had the opportunity (while he was making other changes) and (b) he was aware of the fact that this specific error had been pointed out specifically to him.

Richard Dawkins is quoted (properly, versus some creatortionista versions) as saying:

quote:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, ...

... I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed.


The word that comes to mind for me on this fifth category is deluded. He lays out his reasoning rather well in the article concerning the first four categories, especially about "ignorant" -- but it seems that in some cases such ignorance is involutary, yet not bedded in stupidity or delusion either. Rather it includes (among other things) a complete {inability\failure} to understand the relevance of logic and evidence to science. They think all such thought structure is no different than their belief about things.

The test for delusion is relatively simple: how much of the real world do you deny?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 7:52 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 2157
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 13 of 100 (347671)
09-08-2006 10:39 PM


A Few Questions About the Essay
I have many questions concerning the essay Someone Who Cares (S1WC)has written. I was hoping should S1WC show up here to answer such questions that he? would consider answering a few of mine for starters.

Someone Who Cares writes:

Another observation, the majority of our planet’s surface doesn’t even have the geologic layers in the order that scientists gave them to support evolution.

I have some educational experience in the geosciences, yet I have never heard anyone state that any geologic layers violate the "order scientists gave them" much less that the majority of the Earth is covered by such layers. May I impose upon you by asking for a single example?

ABE - Or is what you are saying that the entire geologic column should exist everywhere just as one would expect from a 4500 year-old flood. Are you arguing that erosion did not exist in the past? Please clarify.

Like in the Cambrian layer, the one on the very bottom of the geologic layers, there have been finds of complete trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, etc., that have no links to ancestors. And this is the bottom of the geologic strata, it doesn’t get more primitive that this layer according to evolutionists…

I was curious about this statement because all the relevant geologic literature refers to rocks below the Cambrian with the imagination-challenged term Precambrian. Are you saying there are no rocks below the Cambrian in the geologic column? Are you saying this Precambrian era does not exist? Just curious as to what you meant by the above statement.

I have many other questions, but I figured I would start with these few as I do not desire to make you feel overwhelmed.

Edited by anglagard, : Trying to figure out essay by divining possible meanings


    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3104 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 14 of 100 (347689)
09-08-2006 11:03 PM


Please check Evolution Logic before repeating attacks at my essay
I have addressed many points in Evolution Logic about my essay, I would like you to check all that is there before repeating the same matter. Yes, I did feel overwhelmed in my last visit, and now I feel overwhelmed again. That's why I would like a one on one debate instead of a topic where I get attacked by an army of evolutionists. Perhaps, if one of you would like to have a one on one debate with me on the matter of my essay, I may agree, but I do not wish to spend hours each day replying to attack after attack after attack... Ok? So tell me if one of you decides for a Great Debate so we can proceed like that. And the rest of you can watch that debate, I'm sure many of you have the same questions, so only one debater should be enough, and it should ease my overwhelming.

Oh, and, please reread my essay before debating again, I recently updated it. You can find it here: www.freewebs.com/noevolutionguy/

(Yes, I left before this topic was made, no, I was not hiding, I just didn't like it here, too much pressure from too many evolutionists, wasted too much time, getting to be the same again unless we settle for a Great Debate... or two...but not on the same topic)

Edited by Someone who cares, : More info


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 09-08-2006 11:09 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 17 by anglagard, posted 09-08-2006 11:13 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3226 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 100 (347691)
09-08-2006 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 11:03 PM


Re: Please check Evolution Logic before repeating attacks at my essay
I think anglagard has accepted your challenge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 11:03 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 11:12 PM Quetzal has responded

  
1
234567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017