|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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So well make the question nice and simple: Do you have any sources at all to back up your claim or do you withdrawn it?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTHINGNESS Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Nothingness writes:
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. 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 The Laminator For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MarkAustin Member (Idle past 3815 days) Posts: 122 From: London., UK Joined: |
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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Ned - but it would nice for him to acknowledge that rather than dodge the question!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTHINGNESS Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024