|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Missing Link | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apostle Inactive Member |
HUMANS
Where did we come from? What evidence is there regarding the origin and evolution of human beings? While there are varying theories, by far the most prominent evolutionary theory is that human beings are the result of time, chance, and an endless struggle for survival. The creationist tells us that we are here by creation. Some dismiss the creationist belief because they view it as a religious belief. Indeed a belief in a Creator is a religious belief, but because of this does the creationist viewpoint deserve to be ignored? I think not. If all living things are God's creation, then the study of them is, in many ways, the study of God's genius. Religion has its place in the debate on origins and evolution. When evolutionists criticize religious beliefs it comes across as somewhat hypocritical. Why? Because just as creationists choose to believe in a Creator, so too do evolutionists choose to believe in evolution and in the descent of man. I believe that evolutionists place their faith in the ape-to-man transition for philosophical and 'religious' reasons and not because of the fossil evidence that they point to in the hopes that you will just take their word for it. Is their a missing link out there that connects ape to man? Darwin believed in such a transition yet was not able to cite even one piece of fossil evidence in support of his belief. Since then there have been several possible specimens. However a quick analysis of each will quickly dismiss all. What are these possible missing links? In the next couple weeks I will bring up what many have viewed as missing links. I will start with the Neanderthal Man, then the African, the Piltdown Man, the Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man and finally Leakey's Ausralopithecus, and Johanson A,Afarensis. Keep your peace about various missing links until the proper time. For this time however, let us start with the Neanderthal Man. THE NEANDERTHAL MANThe first Neanderthal skull was found in 1865. Since then many have been found in many different locations. The Neanderthal was originally portrayed as a 'bettle-browed, barrel-chested, bow legged brute.' This was a misconception. The Neanderthals were just plain people, some of whom suffered from bone disease. This is not idle speculation either but a reasonable assumption due to the fact that the first discovered Neanderthal came from the harsh inland environments in Europe where they easily could have experienced skeletal abnormalities due to lack of iodine and a shortage of sun-induced Vitamin D that is necessary for calcium absorption during long winters. American Indians in the past also suffered from such bone diseases. People today with these problems would not be viewed as sub-human, nor would they attract any particular attention today. What leads me to assume some of the Neanderthals had bone disease rather than naturally stooped features is the fact that Neanderthals hailing from around the Palestine area show none of the stooped or massive features that the European ones show. Scientists note that most of the Neanderthals walked fully erect and a few have been found to be at lease five foot two inches. What of the apparent unintelligence attributed to the Neanderthal? Interestingly the Neanderthal's brain is slightly larger than the average volume size today. The Neanderthal also had a well-developed concept of art, culture and religion. Fossil remains show that some Neanderthal's were buried with the greatest care. Many tools, and animal bones found nearby, show that the Neanderthals were successful hunters in the subarctic European environments.Where did they live? It is clear that those who followed the herds lived in temporary shelters and also sometimes in caves. At one point the Neanderthal was viewed by the evolutionist as the missing link, however today they agree with creationists that these individuals were just ordinary people. Sincerely,Apostle edited to put lines between paragraphs and make it easier reading - The Queen [This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 10-25-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
At one point the Neanderthal was viewed by the evolutionist as the missing link, however today they agree with creationists that these individuals were just ordinary people. This is not the current scientific thought. The current scientific thought is that the Neanderthal represents a unique species of hominid, not Homo Sapiens with a bone disease. (It would certainly be odd that all humans with this bone disease would have their bones altered in exactly the same proportions.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Furthermore why would you suspect any links are missing?
To explain, why don't you tell me how you can be related to your father. After all, where's the missing link between your father and you? Since I can't find a fossil, or even a living organism, between you and your father, I can conclude that you aren't related to your father, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Hey Apostle
"I believe that evolutionists place their faith in the ape-to-man transition." This statement alone shows that you do not understand how evolutionary evidence presents itself nor how science views theories in the operative sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5280 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Apostle writes:
I will start with the Neanderthal Man, then the African, the Piltdown Man, the Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man and finally Leakey's Ausralopithecus, and Johanson A,Afarensis.
That is a strange selection. I will be happy to consider the examples you consider in turn; but it is fair enough also to note at the outset the problems with the overall selection of examples you have chosen. Neanderthals were the first examples found of an extinct human species. That is a useful paleospecies to consider. By African, I presume you mean modern humans in Africa. Africa contains more human genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined. Modern African just means modern human who lives in Africa. Piltdown man is a well known fraud. It is of great interest in the history of paleontology, but of no relevance to studies of evolution or human ancestry. Nebraska man is one proposal for an extinct ape, which was proposed by one scientist, picked up briefly in the popular press, and retracted by its finder a few years later, all without having any impact on paleoanthropology. It is irrelevant. Peking man and Java man are both very early fossil finds, relating to Homo erectus. There have been many fossils of Homo erectus found in Asia. A more useful discussion would be of Homo erectus generally, and should consider the wealth of fossil evidence available; not just finds about a century old. The Australopithecines are certainly something to consider; but again, don't stop just at the earliest discoveries by Leakey and Johanson. In a historical study, you should credit Dart, who found and named the first Australopithecine fossils. In a scientific study, you should consider many further remains found by other independent investigators of Australopithecines. You should also include Homo habilis in your list. They are a well attested paleospecies, intermediate in form between the Australopithecines and Homo erectus, and usually simply ignored by creationists. Including them in your list, and giving serious consideration of the available evidence (not just one or two fossils only) would really make you stand out from most creationist considerations of human ancestry. With respect to your first example, your discussion of Neandertal remains has two serious problems.
The first Neanderthal skull was found in 1865. Since then many have been found in many different locations. The Neanderthal was originally portrayed as a 'bettle-browed, barrel-chested, bow legged brute.' This was a misconception. The Neanderthals were just plain people, some of whom suffered from bone disease. This is not idle speculation either but a reasonable assumption due to the fact that the first discovered Neanderthal came from the harsh inland environments in Europe where they easily could have experienced skeletal abnormalities due to lack of iodine and a shortage of sun-induced Vitamin D that is necessary for calcium absorption during long winters. American Indians in the past also suffered from such bone diseases. People today with these problems would not be viewed as sub-human, nor would they attract any particular attention today. What leads me to assume some of the Neanderthals had bone disease rather than naturally stooped features is the fact that Neanderthals hailing from around the Palestine area show none of the stooped or massive features that the European ones show. Scientists note that most of the Neanderthals walked fully erect and a few have been found to be at lease five foot two inches. First, you speak of "bone disease". The point about bone disease is that it was proposed as an explanation for the unusual form of Neanderthals, as an alternative to the explanation that the Neandertals naturally had bones that were plainly distinct from modern humans. The bone disease explanation is quite simply wrong. One of the very first finds was of an old man who suffered arthritis; but not any significant bone disease. Many fossils have been found since then, and they all show a clearly distinct healthy Neanderthal morphology. European Neanderthals are not "stooped", and Palestinians Neanderthals certainly are "robust". Your conclusion is as follows:
At one point the Neanderthal was viewed by the evolutionist as the missing link, however today they agree with creationists that these individuals were just ordinary people. This is incorrect. Scientists recognize that Neanderthals are clearly distinguished from modern humans. They are human, but not "ordinary" in the sense of being a variation within the range of living humans. They are not modern humans, and neither are they simply ancient humans in the sense of being an evolutionary stage of our ancestors. Most scientists think there were entirely distinct subspecies. Some scientists argue for some cross breeding, but this is a minority view. No-one thinks that modern humans are the result of evolution of Neanderthals, and no-one at all familiar with the evidence thinks they were just ordinary humans a bit distorted by disease or whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7033 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Which ones are human, and which ones are ape?Where is this supposed "missing link" supposed to go? (BTW, these are sorted in order of dating results.*Not* carbon dating for almost all of them (carbon dating is the only "calibrated" method that is frequently used; most of the others tend to just use ratios)) (P.S. - you should also learn that finding a *direct*decendant is generally unexpected, as the odds of finding it are tiny; the goal is to find as close of a relative as possible from a given point in time. For example, an archaeologist a million years later trying to trace back of the lineage of a decendant of the canebrake rattlesnake might only have a skeleton of a timber rattlesnake, or even a sidewinder; it's not exact, but it's close enough to trace most developmental features) ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." attempt to fix formating to fit page into window - The Queen [This message has been edited by Rei, 10-26-2003] [This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 10-27-2003] [This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 10-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1499 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Maybe it has never occurred to you, but don't you think
that Darwin might have been vroadly right, but made a few mistakes. Quoting Darwin's opinion as evidence against evolution deniesthe hundred of years of intervening research. Even in Darwin's day, with newspaper cartoons on the monkey'suncle, there was no suggestion that man developed from ape, only that we both, at some stage in the pre-historic past, share a common ancestor. There is no missing link, because a link of that kind nietherexisted nor needed to exist for man and ape to have descended from a common ancestor. Added thought:- maybe of one stops focussing on human progressionand looks also at ape progression this common ancestry might be more plain (I meant no sense of getting better in using progression incidently -- just loosely used to mean movement toward the present). [This message has been edited by Peter, 10-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apostle Inactive Member |
CJHS, allow me to attempt to respond to your feedback which I thank you for taking the time to send.
Forgive me for not commenting immediately on the different points you brought up about the various specimens that I have chosen. Because I will be more detailed about them later, now is not a good time for me to discuss them. I did note however, that as you were talking about them, you mentioned the phrase 'no relevance' as well as 'irrevelent.' I respectfully disagree. On the other hand perhaps you are right. However the purpose of this analysis is to show to others those that have been viewed at some point as missing links. Yes, Piltdown is a fraud. Is it irrevelent? I think not. It is a careful reminder for us not to 'jump the gun' as some would say. Nobody beleive that the black man is the missing link either anymore, when 80 years ago the leading evolutionist taught this. I think the purpose of my posts will be to simply remind people of the history of the various, once- viewed-as, possible missing links. Your tip on Homo Habilis will be taken into account and I thank you for it. With regards to the last bit concerning the Neanderthal, I will when I am finished discussing the missing links, put out a piece on various misconceptions that I feel many have concerning the Neanderthal. Until then on this issue also, I ask you to hold your peace. Respectfully, Apostle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5280 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
No problem, Apostle.
In deference to your request I deliberately avoiding going into details of the various examples. I am happy to consider them in order, and respond to your remarks. I do feel a brief comment on the initial selection itself was quite in order. If (when you get to them) your discussion actually considers some of the breadth of fossil evidence available, by taking a few more examples of Homo erectus than just the very earliest finds about a century ago (called Java man and Peking man), and by considering more than just what Leakey and Johansen found for the Australopithecines, then you will have done well. Including Homo habilis as another example would really make you stand out from the crowd. My comment on relevance with respect to Piltdown man is that it is very significant in the history of anthropology; but it is not relevant for a study of human origins precisely because it is a fraud. By all means discuss it. It is a very significant fraud; in stark contrast to the others. But Nebraska man really is irrelevant. If you do discuss it, do a bit of research on the matter first. If you still think it has any relevance, we can discuss it when it comes up. With respect to the Neanderthals, they were your first example; and I will certainly respond to comments as you make them. You had a couple of clear misconceptions of your own in your discussion of the Neanderthals, so I pointed them out. Regardless of your own personal opinions, do you recognize that it is incorrect to say that evolutionists agree with creationists that the Neanderthals were just ordinary people? What evolutionists say is that they were a plainly distinguished form of humanity, well outside the current range of human variation, and now extinct. They were not stooped, and they were much more robust than modern humans. This includes Neanderthals from Europe and from Palestine. Cheers -- cjhs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7033 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
You apparently don't know much about Piltdown Man. Piltdown Man was actually a *problem* for evolutionists. When it was created, it was an "in-between" (in fact, there were relatively few fossil hominids for comparison at all at the time), but as time progressed and more finds were made, it stuck out more and more like a sore thumb: it didn't fit what was being found with the transitional fossils. Eventually, they studied it intensely, and discovered it to be a hoax - i.e., by evolutionists, due to it not fitting into the evolutionary pathway.
Want some comparative creationist hoaxes? The "man tracks", Moab Man, Malachite Man, the Calaveras skull, etc - I can literally name over 50 if you would like. And unlike Piltdown Man, which stopped being used as "evidence" when it was exposed as being a hoax, the creationist ones continue to be cited. They just don't die
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
quote:And a ‘hypothesis’ that requires an unevinced supernatural creator to do unevinced supernatural creating according to the holy book of a particular religion... is what, exactly? quote:No, not because of that. Because of lack of evidence. Because of tons of counter-evidence. Because it is demonstrably wrong. I will elaborate when you are more specific. quote:True. The early biologists -- all early scientists -- regarded themselves as natural philosophers, studying the magnificence of creation. Though I would strongly disagree with there being any "genius" involved. quote:Why? quote:Oh deary dear. The difference being that evolutionists base their ‘beliefs’ on evidence. Please provide some for creation. That is, not alleged evidence against evolution, but rather, evidence for creation. Even if evolution were shown to be wrong, that would not make creation right by default, because it is the already-discredited hypothesis that evolution replaced because evolution fitted the evidence better. quote:Whoah there Tonto. Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans are apes. Even Linnaeus -- no evolutionist -- thought so. quote:Then you are utterly, totally wrong. As will become clear. quote:In science, unlike religion, nobody has to take anyone’s word for anything. Anybody can look at the evidence for themselves. This is why I can be so confident that you will be taking a hammering on this matter. quote:Nope. We’ve got plenty of links already, and which are therefore not ‘missing’. (Unless of course you want to play a game of semantics and division: there’s a gap between A and E; here’s an intermediate C; okay, well now there’s two gaps, A to C and C to E. And so on.) Perhaps you could define ‘kind’ for us please? Does it roughly equate to the taxonomic category of species, genus, family, order... or is it something else (what?) This is crucial, in fact. You think that kinds are immutable -- that human ‘kind’ is not derived from ape ‘kind’. Therefore we need to know what the defining characteristics of these ‘kinds’ are, if we are to see whether any fossil creatures bridge between them. To see, that is, which of us is correct.
quote:Who cares what Darwin did or did not think, write, cite, get right or wrong, have for tea or scratch his arse with? Unlike your ‘hypothesis’, evolution is not based on an Argument from Authority. Darwin may or may not have been able to cite any fossils, that is neither here nor there. I can. quote:Yeah, I’m sure a quick ‘analysis’ such as yours would. The folks who spend their lives studying these things might disagree though. quote:Well duh, if they were missing we wouldn’t be able to discuss them, would we? quote:Which is neither missing nor considered a direct link. I await your ‘analysis’ with bated breath, holding my peace -- temporarily -- on the looong list of examples I could give you. quote:the African what? quote:Yeah, a fake... quote:which example of Asian Homo erectus did you have in mind? quote:A quickly re-identified misidentification... quote:Trinil? The Mojokerto child? Again, which example of Asian Homo erectus did you have in mind? quote:Which one is Leakey’s? quote:Riiight... you mean, presumably, AL 288-1. What about, for instance, BH-001? quote:Heh. Well I guess they were rather ‘plain’ by our standards. Very robustly built; cranial vault longer and lower than sapiens, and near-circular from the back; substantial mid-facial prognathism; heavy supraorbital torus; no mental process; retromolar gap (no impacted wisdom teeth for them!); first and second bones of thumb and big toe of equal length... quote:So? What sort of bone disease can produce their retromolar gap and midface prognathism? What sort of bone disease can put their mtDNA waaay outside the range for modern humans (see eg here -- I can get you the original paper if you’d like). quote:... but armchair speculum use by someone who’s never even held a fossil? quote:Phew, you’re in danger of sounding like you know what you’re talking about! So do tell: why did the archaic sapiens who replaced the Neanderthals not similarly have these bone diseases? Same places, same times (well, an overlap). If Neanderthal anatomical distinctions were diseases etc, developmentally due to their harsh environment rather than because they were a distinct lineage, where are the retromolar spaces, heavy brow ridges, midfacial protrusion and equal-length first digit bones in those sapiens that lived there too? quote:Hmmm. So why did your great creator form us so as to be susceptible to these diseases? He didn’t give us gills, so we can’t have been designed to live under water. (Though he didn’t give gills to whales either, and so they do sometimes suffocate...) Neanderthals were humans who suffered from diseases because they lived where they weren’t ideally designed to live, so you say. So if stuff goes wrong, it’s because we aren’t living where we were designed to. What exactly is our ideal environment then? (Oh, and don’t come the suffering from diseases is due to the Fall with me. How does the Fall explain all the Neanderthal positive adaptations to their environment -- the sturdy build, the strong muscles etc? And how does it cause a retromolar space and make the mental symphysis evaporate?) quote:Please present some actual evidence that the Neanderthals were merely diseased sapiens. So far, all we’ve had is assertion. quote:Name some examples. That Neanderthals suffered from rickets, arthritis etc is hardly controversial. That Neanderthal morphology can be explained purely by these things is a lie. See eg here for some more on this.
quote:Whoopy-friggin-do. Please explain their derived characteristics. quote:The apparent unintelligence that creationists, a hundred years behind the times (of course), like to play up -- the image of knuckle-dragging brutes? Or the apparent unintelligence Neanderthals in their lack of innovation, eg sticking with their monotonous Mousterian technology for a good 150,000 years, even after contact with the far more advanced UP Aurignacian technology used by archaic sapiens? quote:No shit, Sherlock. It was also enclosed in a thick-walled, low cranium with heavy brow ridges and an occipital ‘bun’. quote:Debatable, and highly debatable as to whether it was at the same level as ours. But so what? Nobody denies that Neanderthals were very similar to us. The question is, were they actually ‘us’? And the answer is No. quote:False. The argument is whether they were a distinct species, or a subspecies: Homo neandertalensis or Homo sapiens neandertalensis. No ‘evolutionist’ thinks neanderthalensis were just ordinary people. I have explained several of the distinctions between us. quote:On which matter? Was this not your first example of a missing link problem? If this wasn’t ‘it’, then why not? We are supposed to hold our peace while you cast aspersions on all of palaeontology and palaeoanthropology; to sit around quietly while you spout off with no supporting evidence. So far, it’s mere assertion. Get on with it man! TTFN, DT [Edited to fix link] [This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 10-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
quote:What? You were going to discuss the hominid fossil record without mentioning habilis? Why am I not actually surprised...? DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I wonder, since you mention the hoaxes of Piltdown and Nebraska Man, if you could tell me which brave and insightful creationists it were that debunked them? Since those fossils were so important to evolutionists, apparently, it must have been a smart creationist indeed who discovered their perfidy.
Who, then, were these heroes of creationism? These scientists of God with the Bible in one hand and a dissection scope in the other? After all it couldn't have been evolutionists who exposed these fakes, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Evolution forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apostle Inactive Member |
I started to respond to your comments. Yet as I read through them I became less and less impressed with the general tone. It will be a waste of time for you to write in my columns if this tone continues, for you will simply go unanswered. But if you do want to discuss something then please ask a question respectfully and we will begin an exchange of ideas.
Respectfully Apostle
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024