Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 46 of 190 (133037)
08-11-2004 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by NosyNed
08-11-2004 9:18 PM


No problem ned
I have done it myself lots of times!
So well make the question nice and simple:
Do you have any sources at all to back up your claim or do you withdrawn it?
Actually how far are we going with this? The author of the thread has failed to provide any evidence to support his premise, how about he had another ten posts to at least present some evidence or the plug is pulled?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-11-2004 08:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 08-11-2004 9:18 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NOTHINGNESS
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 190 (133083)
08-12-2004 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by NosyNed
08-11-2004 9:18 PM


Re: Monkey Steps
Alright, my problem with the steps is that my research has showed me that 'some' people claimed that the missling link from the species of bird to reptile was the Pseudosaurs (Archaeopteryx).
I have a Creationist personal video of scientests (Evolutionists)who made such a claim. I will see if they mention their names.
These scientists claimed that this fossil was considered part bird, and part reptile. Do you know anything about that?
I'm being very careful not to assume everybody is in the same boat anymore. So I will ask questions, not presuming anything, to the best of my ability. I'm going to try to be objective so do bear with me.
I understand about not having the 'evidence' "missing link". But this is the basis of why I do not feel it necessary to go beyond this point.
To me, if this is incomplete, how can the above be correct.
This is my personal opinion. I also understand that you do not follow the vertical path now, and if I am correct?
My problem is that I believe that Darwin supposely intended a vertical path.I believe he did, but I ask simply so I wont seem self centered
This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-12-2004 01:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 08-11-2004 9:18 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by AdminNosy, posted 08-12-2004 2:19 AM NOTHINGNESS has not replied
 Message 49 by coffee_addict, posted 08-12-2004 3:15 AM NOTHINGNESS has not replied
 Message 52 by CK, posted 08-12-2004 6:08 AM NOTHINGNESS has not replied
 Message 57 by Loudmouth, posted 08-12-2004 1:13 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 48 of 190 (133087)
08-12-2004 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by NOTHINGNESS
08-12-2004 1:59 AM


Topic
The evolution of birds hardly seems to fit into the topic of this thread or even this forum.
Take it somewhere else.
Others! Do NOT respond to this here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-12-2004 1:59 AM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 49 of 190 (133095)
08-12-2004 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by NOTHINGNESS
08-12-2004 1:59 AM


Re: Monkey Steps
Nothingness writes:
My problem is that I believe that Darwin supposely intended a vertical path.I believe he did, but I ask simply so I wont seem self centered
Oh gosh.... Ok, please provide some references, preferably from Darwin's own words, to back this belief... unless you want to tell us that this is an unsupported belief.

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-12-2004 1:59 AM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 50 of 190 (133111)
08-12-2004 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by NOTHINGNESS
08-11-2004 9:13 PM


Re: Monkey Steps
1) No. Darwin beleived that many of the gaps reflected the limits of the geological record and would never be filled.
"I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines"
2) No.
3) The previous stages are not "species" - except possibly "man" and even then you must accept the species Homo erectus and Homo habilis as being something other than man. If what you are asking for is a fine-grained transitional sequence (because you won't see a fossil transform before your eyes !) then we really have only a few examples, all of marine life. However we do hvae the so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens specimens which while being accepted as part of our species fit in between modern humans and Homo Erectus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-11-2004 9:13 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 190 (133116)
08-12-2004 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by NOTHINGNESS
08-11-2004 9:13 PM


Re: Monkey Steps
quote:
2. Are these the steps of Evolution which are claimed as the origins of man?
Steps: Cell/Fish/Reptile/Bird/Monkey/Man
It should be [starting with 'cell' which I will presume as a generic eukaryote]
'Cell'> Primal Vertebrate > Fish > Primal tetrapod > Reptile > Therapsid > Primal Mammal > Primal Primate > Ancient Ape > Man

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-11-2004 9:13 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 52 of 190 (133120)
08-12-2004 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by NOTHINGNESS
08-12-2004 1:59 AM


Re: Monkey Steps
this is all smoke and nothing to do with the question that you posed.
you said:
I would like to know why then do they still teach this as fact?
I would ask AGAIN - do you have any evidence to back this, anything at all that you can present to us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-12-2004 1:59 AM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 53 of 190 (133163)
08-12-2004 10:37 AM


Nebraska Man (non) Reconstruction
Nothingness has made the claim, and others have accepted as fact that a reconstrcution of Nebraska Man was made from the evidince of a single tooth.
This is untrue.
No such reconstruction was ever made.
The claim was based on an article in the "Illustrated London News" in 1922 (can't remember the exact date). The Illustrated London News was a popular magazine/newspaper (rather more respectable than the National Enquirer though).
A quote from the article shows this (the information was repeated in both the picture caption and the body of the text):
quote:
Mr. Forestier [The artist] has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted.
My emphasis, but note the stress on the speculative nature of the information, and this in a popular paper, not the scientific press. The picture is actually more based on the better known Java Man.
It is worth noting that the scientific establishment decryied the production of this drawing as being overly speculative, despite the clear caveats.
On the claim that Nebraska Man was accepted in the scientific literature, note this:
quote:
Most other scientists were skeptical even of the modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote:
quote:
"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted.

Even at the time Nebraska Man was not generally accepted, and shortly after the publication of the above book was found, by later discoveries to be an error. Note, an error, not a fraud.
All quotes from the Talk Origins page on the subject.

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by CK, posted 08-12-2004 11:53 AM MarkAustin has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 54 of 190 (133195)
08-12-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by MarkAustin
08-12-2004 10:37 AM


Re: Nebraska Man (non) Reconstruction
thanks for that - so we are still left with our central question:
Nothing - can you provide ONE source to back your claim?
if not I reckon this thread is a busted flush and is done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by MarkAustin, posted 08-12-2004 10:37 AM MarkAustin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 08-12-2004 11:57 AM CK has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 55 of 190 (133196)
08-12-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by CK
08-12-2004 11:53 AM


Re: Nebraska Man (non) Reconstruction
if not I reckon this thread is a busted flush and is done.
Well, Charles, that only takes care of N-man. Nothing might have something else he wishes to discuss.
Nothingness, you might want to consider the veracity of some of your sources. It seems you've been lied to. This might be a lesson.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by CK, posted 08-12-2004 11:53 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by CK, posted 08-12-2004 12:01 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 58 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-12-2004 7:55 PM NosyNed has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 56 of 190 (133198)
08-12-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NosyNed
08-12-2004 11:57 AM


Re: Nebraska Man (non) Reconstruction
Ned - but it would nice for him to acknowledge that rather than dodge the question!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 08-12-2004 11:57 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 190 (133236)
08-12-2004 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NOTHINGNESS
08-12-2004 1:59 AM


Re: Monkey Steps
Nothingness,
Before we jump to another fossil in this thread or another, perhaps you could address the points made by Mark Austin about Nebraska Man in the post above? Within this thread, you have accused the scientific community of fraud and of lying. Being a scientist myself, I would like you to either recant or to explain why you still think fraud is rampant with regard to Nebraska Man. If you think fraud is still ongoing, I would appreciate evidence to back up this claim. I would think that a christian would not leave an unsupported accusation to go on like this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-12-2004 1:59 AM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

  
NOTHINGNESS
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 190 (133379)
08-12-2004 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NosyNed
08-12-2004 11:57 AM


Re: Nebraska Man (non) Reconstruction
I guess it's very technical in here.
Am I really off base here with the linkage? I thought since the line of the Apes needed to be proven, the steps to it was along the same subject.
In regards to the issue of being wrong:
Somebody already asked me to admit to my mistake, Nebraska Man was not in book texts. I believe I have already done that. I then restated the fact that I also wanted to point out the fact that it was a fraud.
Everybody acknowledged it , and then stated it was already a known fact-and never denied. I even mentioned that I had to eat some humble pie.
Am I wrong?I believe someone just wanted to hear it again. Must have been a perfect person.
This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-12-2004 06:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 08-12-2004 11:57 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by CK, posted 08-12-2004 8:14 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied
 Message 60 by NosyNed, posted 08-12-2004 8:31 PM NOTHINGNESS has replied
 Message 64 by Loudmouth, posted 08-13-2004 12:45 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 59 of 190 (133382)
08-12-2004 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NOTHINGNESS
08-12-2004 7:55 PM


Re: Nebraska Man (non) Reconstruction
just a few pointers for you -
Some of the threads on here get quite technical, that's true - however quite a few are more general debates about viewpoints and outlooks.
If you want to get involved in technical discussion, you really need to make sure you know what you are talking about (and I don't so I don't!).
It's really tempting just to cut and paste from a creationist or science site but generally you will be exposed with-in a few posts. Even worse because many of the creationist sites are dishonest to start with, it's quite easy to spot (and frankly like old jokes - we've heard them all before!).
Charles

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-12-2004 7:55 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 60 of 190 (133386)
08-12-2004 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NOTHINGNESS
08-12-2004 7:55 PM


Re: Nebraska Man (non) Reconstruction
Everybody acknowledged it ,
No one acknowledged it as a fraud. Some of us did think it was a mistake. We've learned it was much less of a mistake than we thought.
When the tabloid press gets something wrong I don't call them fraudulent. I guess I just have very low expectations of them getting things right. But even they did, it turns out, admit that what they were saying was very speculative.
As I think I noted, the only fraud that you've found here is the creationist sites that still use this as an example of anything meaningful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-12-2004 7:55 PM NOTHINGNESS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-13-2004 1:39 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024