The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

I never once heard of "Nebraska Man" until I became aware of the creationist movement about five years ago. I challenge you, Nothingness - heck, I double-dog-dare you - to find one single example of a non-creationist biology textbook published since 1930 that "teaches" Nebraska Man as anything other than a mistake. I very much doubt that you'll even find it mentioned at all.Produce me a reference, or shut up about this "fraud." There was no fraud.

Hi, Nothing!About Nebraska Man, it's pretty much just as Asgara described. While there was a lot of excitement about it in the popular press for a period after its discovery, it was never embraced by scientists, it was identified as a pig tooth in relatively short order, and it certainly is not in any modern textbooks as a human precursor.About Piltdown Man, this was a purposeful fraud found in 1916 that wasn't positively identified as such until 1953, but was suspected to be a fraud from the beginning. Even so, it was consistent with what scientists were expecting to find in the fossil record (a large braincase), and so it found acceptance in many paleontological corners. This hindered proper interpretation of the larger fossil record for many years. For example, the Taung child discovered in 1923 wasn't assigned the significance it deserved at the time because, having a small braincase, it wasn't consistent with Piltdown.The lesson of Piltdown is that scientists are vulnerable to accepting evidence and making interpretations that are consistent with their preconceptions.About Lucy being a modern human with rickets, you're confusing Australopithicus afarensis with Neandertals. When Neandertal fossils were first discovered, one of the early interpreters insisted it was merely a modern human with rickets or arthritis. This interpretation was soon proven wrong as more and more Neandertal bones were uncovered with precisely the same bone configuration.There is an extremely large hominid fossil collection worldwide, and the progression from primitive hominid to modern human is well documented. But even with all this evidence, there is little agreement on the details of the progression, or on which fossils lie on the path to modern man and which are side branches and detours.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 08-10-2004 10:44 AM

How was I agreeing with you? About the tooth? I doubt that anyone here would disagree with the fact that the Nebraska find was a tooth.YOU were claiming that it is still being taught as truth. I stated the basic story of the find to show that it was NEVER taught as truth.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Almeyda stated: Absolutely incorrect. Look up archeological research on Mesopotamia. The first signs of civilization are dated back to 9000 bc. The first major permenant mesopotamian settlement, jarmo, dated around 7000 bc, nearly 3000 years before the bible's faulty timeline.
Heck, even though the Nile culture of the egpytians dates to about 4k bc, there are other archeological sites that date local civiliation back another 1000 year, to 5k bc. Again, before any biblical timeline.

If I was a teenager, the skeleton fossils would have impressed me, as they once have in the past. But, please do not try to make me believe something is factual just because you display a complete fossil.A fossil of what? That is the important issue. And considering your previous misleading displayed fossils, I cannot easily be persuaded.
It's all in the interpretation of the fossil, not the claim.You want me to drop my jaw in amazement?
You cannot confirm that 'Klein' is Ape-man. You may disagree with the australopithe fossil in regards to the upright issue, nevertheless, the issue is still the fact that, it shows the difference between our structure and a monkeys.Just because you believed it evolved, does mean it did. There is no 'middle stage' showing evolving into another.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-10-2004 12:36 PM

Before we go down that side-street can you provide the name of any textbooks that support your tale that N-man is or was being told as truth?I mean, you are not talking out of your hat based on some creationist website are you?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-10-2004 12:34 PM

quote:

---

But, please do not try to make me believe something is factual just because you display a complete fossil.

---

Translation: Evidence means nothing to me; please do not try to supply me with evidence.

[quote]If I was a teenager, the skeleton fossils would have impressed me, as they once have in the past.[/qutoe]What made you unimpressed? Was a religious reason or a scientific reason?

quote:

---

But, please do not try to make me believe something is factual just because you display a complete fossil.

---

So you accuse scientists of making up fossils, but refuse to look at legitimate ones. Very strange. I believe this is called "close-minded".Well, let's look at the facts. The FACT is that this fossil represents a species whose characteristics are between ape and human. The FACT is, the age of the fossil puts it in an evolutionary time frame that is consistent with the theorized evolution of man. The FACT is that there are numerous fossil finds of this species. The FACTS fit the MODEL, otherwise known as evidenciary support for the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

You cannot confirm that 'Klein' is Ape-man.

---

The fossil contains both human and ape characteristics. It is BY DEFINITION an ape-man. If you don't agree, then by what objective criteria is it NOT an ape-man? Are you denying that this fossil is an ape-man because your bible says otherwise, or do you actually have objective criteria?

quote:

---

There is no 'middle stage' showing evolving into another.

---

So how many fossil species do we need then?

(1) Please do not try to move the goal post. We have been talking about the creationist's claim about the N-man being embraced by mainstream science or not.(2) Please substanciate your claims with either evidence or references.(3) Please try have the courage to at least admit error on your part if it comes to it. The more you deny, the more you're just going to make yourself look like an ass. I've admitted my mistakes before. It's simple. Don't try to avoid it.(4) The "middle stage" you talked about really is a topic about transitional fossils. This subject has been beaten to death by at least 5 threads that I can think of. It, therefore, is considered off-topic. Since we have an admin that gets a kick out of batting people for going off-topic, I strongly advice against going that way.

---

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

It's all in the 'interpretation' of the fossils. They can look at the same fossil, and have different interpretations of it.Some see a glass half full, others see it half empty. The reason I always attack the foundation of a theory, is because if the foundation is weak(filled with fraud), everything else is automatically suspicious.What make you believe that the scientists that 'interpret' the discoveries are not being biased? Of course you wouldn't come to that conclusion, because they favor your point of view.And then when that same fossil is interpreted as being something else than what they expect, they jump out of their chairs as if they were infallable.Of course, you are always going to be right in your eyes. Of course, you will always be objective, even after seeing all the claims falling short-doctored misinformation.And then you expect us to believe it just because you find some biased authority that you agree with? The past of Evolution has been stained wiht fraud, and misinformation.These proposed 'missing links' are either very humanlike with a trace of some apelike characteristic, or very apelike with a trace of some human characteristic. Of course you agree with that? What makes you so confident on the evidence? Just because it's 'interpreted' to your liking?There is never nothing in between( where you would expect a "rea" transitional species). A lot of the stuff you accept must be taken by mere faith. Are you a paleontologist? Where you ever there to confirm the findings of what they really are?One example of a change seen by scientists would be in the shape of a jaw. The jaws in some apes are almost rectangular and others are more curved. Since the human jaw is roughly parabolic, those apes possessing a more curved jaw are claimed to be "more human."Similarly, a huma skull that had a slightly squared jaw would be considered 'more apelike." Therefore, please keep in mind that the tiny variations seen by scientists may actually be variations in normal ape and human populations that are incorrectly labeled as missing links.Fossils of Modern Humans in Pliocene Layers? Yes, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to this theory is the discovery by scientists of modern human (Homo Sapiens) fossils in Plicene layers- geologic layers so "early" that none of the proposed "missing links" could have possibly been ancestors.However, since these discoveries fly so strongly in the face of the currently popular evolutionary theory, these discoveries are ignored.
Australopithecus-These fossils known as Australopithecus are very apelike.Scientific treatment of the subject, it provides reasonable evidence that modern humans existed at the same time or earlier than the fossils of "human missing links," which are probably examples of regular humans and regular apes that had some tiny irregularity.Again, no fossil has EVER been discovered that is more than slightly different from either an ape or a modern human.
But the most convincing point against the Ape Man, is simply back to the basics.The most important thing to remember though is this, IF THE -FOUNDATION PROCESS TO THE DEVELOPEMENT IS WRONG- WHO REAALY CARES WHAT IS SHOWN, THE GAPS ARE S T L L M S I N G. If steps are missing, you can never reach the top.Chop the roots down, and no need to prune the branches.How old are these fossils? Millions of years? Another reason it's hard to believe the "infallable' biased scientist is that they have convinced us that univrse is millions of years.Like I said before, just follow the monkey trail, and you are sure to find pre-mediated errors. The errors of Nebraska Man, Piltman. Then you have the errors of Recapulation-"Ontogany Recupulates Phylogony"
(Fake Drawing Charts Of Similar Embry Developement)You guys must be proud to have such forefathersI will open this Topic later.Now, let's see if we can be objective once and for all. I do not need to , I'm always wrong. Anyway, since the farthest galaxies are 13 billion light years away-these galaxies must have existed 13 billion years ago.(I'm sure you like me for saying that- but do not stand up and clap just yetI believe in a youg earth, but it wouldn't bother me if it was older, because- time/space was created at the Big Bang, and since the universe has a beginning- then Billions of years would be inside the sphere of time/space. God would be outside-creator of time, not creator in time.If the universe was formed 13 billion years ago as a result of a big bang ( or some other mechanism), this "youg age" of 10,000 years does not seem reasonable.However, a straighforward reading of the creation account does not allow for the universe and our world to evolve over billions of years. (playing devils advocate-could explained earlier-time being created.)Since the predicted ages from these two sources are in conflict, most people (unfortunately) take one of two positions:
1)Since the Bible disagree with science, it must have erors in it nd can not be trusted.2)The Bible must be flindly trusted and even questioning its accuracy is forbidde. (This could even imply that scientists are somehow evil, or "tools of the devil.")The fact is that neither of these viewpoints is accurate. Then you must ask, "How can you explain having a 10,000 year old Earth if science and the bible agree?The universe has been proven to be 13 billion years old hasn't it? I am glad you ask, didn't you?
Except for parts of the Milky way, most of the stars vissible to the naked eye are closer than 6,000 light years. Therefore , the stars and galaxies that can be seen and measured only with the help of scientific equipment.The First Measurement Technique, the Parallax Method- Stated simply, as the Earth orbits the Sun, our viewpoint of the univrese changed. Astronomers observe the apparent change in position that closer stars make relative to distant "reference stars' while the Earth moves.Less apparent movement implies that the star being measured is closer to the earth (and behaving less like the reference stars). The best measurements are made 6 months apart, since those are the two points at which our viewpoint from the Earth has changed the most (half an orbit).This measurement technique makes the assumption (not specifically stated)that the reference stars do not move or move in a pattern we know perfectly.Let's see how this method works with the star closest to the Earth. Alph Centauri.(Note: the results are rounded to the nearest three significant digits.)The formula looks like this: d=3.262 over p Whered=the distance, measured in light years
3.262 is a constant that takes care of the units
p= the parallax, measured in arc secondsTherefore, if d=4.28 light years, then p= 0.762 arc seconds. Now let's look at the facts.1)The two measurements to determine the parallax would have been made 6 months apart, at opposite ends of the Earth's orbit.2)These measurements assme that the reference stars did not move. (This is difficult to beliee in a universe that astronomers admit is expanding.)3) These measurements assume the star we are measuring did not move4) This is the measurement of the -closest star-, and therfore represents the best accuracy we can get with this method.5) The measured parallax is less than 1 over 3600 of one degree. Now , let's repeat the calculations, for an object that is 10,000 light years from us-the greatest distance we would expect from reading the Bible.If d= 10,000 light years, then p = 0.000326 arc seconds-only 0.0000000906 degrees. Summing up again, we now add the following difficulty (to those encountered in the measurements made to Alpha Centauri)7) The theory of general relativity states that light is bent by gravitational fields (when it passes by other stars).Is it possible that this bending of light (alone0 could reach a level of 90 billionths of one degree? (The size of the measurement.) The conclusion is obvious. The parallax measurement, even for an object only 10,000 light years away ( and therefore still in our Galaxy, the Milky Way), is so tiny that it is very difficult to measure accurately.This implies that the parallax method is not really valid for determining the distance of anything that is farther away than approximately 10,000 light years.The Second Measurement Technique, the Luminosity Method. Asstronomers are aware of the parallax method's shortcoming and have other ways of measuring larger stellar distances.Unfortunately, all of these other techniques measure distances indirectly. For example, we can calculate the distance to a star once we know its luminosity, or energy output. (Luminosity is not the same as the stars apparent brightness, although the two values are connected.)The Ultimate Measurement Technique, Using Cepheld Variable Stars
Cepheld variable stars are stars whose apparent brightness change with time. In 1912 Miss Henrietta Leavitt reported thte perioed-luminosity relation of Cepheid variable stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud 9currently considered to be the third closest galaxy to ours).Stated simply, when the length of the variable stars's perieod 9 the duration between the star's times of times of highest brightness) is plotted on a logarithmic chart against its (estimated) luminosity, the result is a straight line.This implies that if you measure the star's period, you can use the graph to estimate its luminosity. Today , the use of Cepheid variable stars is considered the most reliable method available for measuring large cosmic distances.Although I am in no way criticizing the work that has been done in astronomy, it should be apparent that for distances beyond a few thousand light years that the disances are still estimates.To demonstrate this point, let's examine the parallax measurement required to fix the distance to a Cepheid variable star in the Small Magelanic Cloud.Astronomers currently estimate the Small Magellanic Cloud to be about 210,000 light years from Earth. Therefore, using our parallax formula, we know what ifd=210,000 light years, then p= 0.0000155 arc seconds, or 00000000431 degrees. Based on this , we know that when the scientists first measured the distance to this star, they measured a parallax of 0.0000155 arc seconds. This parallax measurement precisely confirmed the distance and "standardized" the perido/luminosity graph, allowng astronomers to use it with confidence.You may rread about the use of the VLBA, the Very Long Baseline Array string of ten radio telescopes stretching from Mauna kea Hawaii to St. Croix Virgin Islands (about 5,000 miles 0. It is reported that by using the VLBA that accurate distance measurements can be made to NGC4258 ( reported to be 23.5 million light years away).Coordinating these ten radio stations to 'work together as the worlds largest dedicated, full-time astronomical instrument" is impressive. Still, a claim that the VLBA can acurately define the distance to an object over 20 million light years away may be deceptive.The VLBA is primarily a "telescope' designed to produce images of celestial bodies. It is not a "distance measuring device." (Note: these images are patterns of radio waves which are like, but not the same as, visible light images seen through a conventional scope.)The VLBA can very accurately observe a variety of radio phenomena in the frequency 100 MHz to 100 GHz and display them in great detail.( The detail, or resolution, of those images can be as fin as one thousanth of an arc second. ).Still, although such signals give us a good, sharp picture., they do not indicate distance. Stated another way, the VLBA must use techniques like those we discussed earlier to measure distances, and an attempt to refer to it's technology as a way of directly measureing these great distances is deceptive,(once again)Incidently, this is not meant in any way to diminish the value of the efforts of the people associated with the VLBA, or research done by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.It is onnly intended to show that the primary purpose of the VLBA IS NOT DISTANCE MEASUREMTNTWhat happends if ay of the stars moved and/ or the light was bent one ten millionth of a degree when the parallax measurement was being made? Under such conditions- WE COULD BE LED TO BELIEVE THAT A STAR 10,000 LIGHT YEARS AWAY WAS ACTUALLY 210,000 LIGHT YEARS AWAY. ( Rememer, we are still looking distances of only 210,000 light years away, not 13,000,000,000 light years.)For that matter, what happens if your 'reference stars' were not as far away as you thought they were? Well, although science has put great faith in the measurement of the brightness of variable stars, the connection of that brightness to their actual luminosity and their distance is weak (since they are indirect measurement methos).If you followed my comments, you should realize that believing in stellar measurements of more than a few thousand light years requries more faith than believing the Bible.Now, to be fair, the lack of more accurate stellar measurement techniqus does not prove that our universe extence only 10,000 light years, either. I'll be objective, not like most of you.By the way, accordig to the theory of relativity, time changes for anything that moves at high speed (that is, anything that has high velocity). This is especially true when that velocity approaches the speed of light. For example......Let me see, the theory tells us that if some people made a round trip to the Andromeda Galaxy in a space vehicl that traveled at the speed of light, they would 'think' the round trip took them about thirty years.However, here on Earth that crew would not seem to return until 4 million years later. Now, consider that we live in an expanding universe that scientist tell us is the result of an explosion.(I know you guys keep changing it..expansion)If the big bang theory is true, -the Earth and all the other heavenly bodies are moving at "explosive' but unknown velocities. Would you agree that this makes time calculations rather difficult?remember, this "time" is used with the Cepheid Variable Star data to estimate the age of the universe.)As you can see, one problem leads to another, leaving us with more unanswered questions than we had before.....Now we are all confused, not just EvolutionistslolSince time itself varies by huge factors when the observer's frame of reference changes, how can scientsts identify the frame of reference that measures the age of the uiverse? The truthful answer is they can not. So, again, why do we follow a path of made up truths?And you say we are confused, and gullible?This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-11-2004 01:03 AM

you are still dodging the question and not debating in good faith.Look at the title of your thread - please provide evidence of your assumption?Can you name one book?

Whoa! That's one off-topic post there, Noth! If you want to copy it to a new thread, there are three or four of us around here who will be happy to educate you on parallax.It's up to triple-dog dare now! Find ONE SINGLE non-creationist biology book published since 1930 that mentions "Nebraska Man" as anything other than a mistake. Give us the title and author.

As noted much of your post is off topic. You may take individual items to more appropriate theads if you are prepared to defend what you say.You have not, as yet, offered defence for what you have said here. I suggest you review the forum guidelines.Continued violation of them can result in suspension of priviledges for a time.

If I got off course by suggesting that books are "still" proclaiming Nebraska Man as a fraud, I could agree that I got a little carried away.But, my main point I really wanted to make was that it was a fraud, and along with the ones I already mentioned.You may retaliate by saying that it was never proclaimed as genuine.It doesn't matter, because if I know I am going to get caught with my handsin the cookie jar, I would admit to the fault before, just to save face.It's like a criminal who kills someone, then turns himself in. The problem was that the initial group didn't turn themselves in.
The Ape Fossils have no foundation to fall upon. As I explained earlier because of the bias opinions of scientists who are Evolutionists.

I apologize to everyone, I have a bad habit, and I get carried away into different subjects. I guess I'm not used to staying on subject, although I try.Every message board I ever went to, had an open format. I guess I really expected the same thing. (Men never read instructions....just ask my wife.)I have to go now, my humble pie is waiting.....