Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lucy and Secular Humanism
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 64 (218125)
06-19-2005 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
06-19-2005 5:53 PM


Re: Heackel's Drawings, Lucy's footprints.
There is another aspect to bring up.
Every time there is a mistake or a misrepresentation of information, whether it is one of the infamous ones like piltdown man or the lesser ones like Haeckle's drawings, it has NOT been creationists that have exposed them, but scientists. And they are then removed from the science except as a footnote.
Compare this to creatiortionista sites that continue to display exhibits that have been exposed as frauds (like paluxy river tracks).
The issue of Lucy's hands and feet have been discussed before. This is not a matter of "putting hands on lucy" but of assembling a composite skeleton from all the known Australopithicus afarensis fossils (making some adjustments for sizes of bones in common or fit to joints). Another good set of bones comes from what is known as the "first family" -- a set of 13 individual skeletons all found together -- but there are many (hundreds?) fossils from this time period that all reinforce each other (rather than contradict).
There is another piece of information from the same time period as Lucy, and that is the set of footprints from Laetoli discovered by Mary Leakey. The footprints match the size and gait of Australopithicus afarensis, but more than that: they do NOT show the gait of a chimpanzee OR any "knuckle" walking.
see this site for some more information:
Evolution: Humans: Riddle of the Bones
Note in particular the parallel tracks on the first page, one larger than the other and consistent with the sexual dimorphism in size of other fossils from this period.
Note too that Lucy has one wrist bone and one hand bone in the set, that can be related to the same bones in the other fossil sets which includes a more complete hand that is the main basis for that part of the reconstruction. If this was a mis-matched hand to the lucy base, then these two bones would not agree in relative size\shape with the ones from the specimen known as AL 333-105, a nearly complete hand from the same time period and general area.
see http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/palette/100/aafar61.jpg
The assembled skeleton is a composite based on the best scientific information available, and I don't believe it is presented as anything more than that.
Many reconstruction exhibits have gone through changes when new evidence shows that errors were made: the t-rex and others are typical examples.
That doesn't make early exhibit frauds, just that they were based on insufficient information.
Finally there is an analysis of Australopithicus afarensis hands at Entrez PubMed Abstract: Morphological affinities of the Australopithecus afarensis hand on the basis of manual proportions and relative thumb length (click).
Don't look for the exhibit hands (or feet) to change significantly as more information becomes available.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2005 5:53 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:10 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 64 (218129)
06-19-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by johnfolton
01-21-2005 11:25 PM


Re:
Hello Tom\Bret\Charlie\Craig\Tim\...\Whatever,
New evidence: Lucy was a knuckle-walker
the reconstructed skeleton with the feet, ankles, legs and hips all based on fossil evidence matches the gait, size and shape of the Laetoli footprints.
Unfortunately there were no hand prints made when the footprints were made -- unfortunately for you: if Lucy were a knuckle walker there would have been handprints (and the gait would have been different too, having to do with the angle of the knee bones -- as already pointed out).
see Message 46 for more.
were ‘not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have long curved fingers and toes’2 even more so than apes today that live mostly in the trees.
Actually they are intermediate and closer to human than to chimp. Having a scientist say that they are not like human hands does not make them like chimpanzee hands.
See http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/palette/100/aafar61.jpg -- a fairly complete Australopithicus afarensis (not Homo sapiens) hand specimen known as AL 333-105
enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2005 11:25 PM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 48 of 64 (218134)
06-19-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by randman
06-19-2005 5:32 PM


Re: Heackel's Drawings
The evidence is faked. You cannot get around it. There were actual photos posted on the same thread which clearly show the drawings used were inaccurate.
Please refer to those photos. I seem to have lost track. Could you describe the inaccuracy please?
What exactly is being lied about? That is, what is the claim that is being made that is inaccurate? The old idea of Heackel's has been discarded for a long time. What is it that is being put forward as your "lie" now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 5:32 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 49 of 64 (218135)
06-19-2005 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by randman
06-15-2005 1:42 AM


Neanderthal
Yep, just typed in Neanderthal images, and up they came.
Neanderthal images - Google Search
Precisely how is this image of neanderthal flawed?
The nose is broad, there are brow ridges the forhead is not tall. Is there something wrong with any of that?
What is the source of this image? Who is responsible for it? What information is it based on? In what way does it deviate from the input information?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by randman, posted 06-15-2005 1:42 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 50 of 64 (218285)
06-21-2005 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
06-19-2005 5:33 PM


Re: accusations bumped for Randman
You still have not defended your charges. There are outstanding questions.
I suggest that you concentrate on this or withdraw the charge. If you need help to focus on this you won't like how I supply that help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 5:33 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 1:45 AM AdminNosy has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 51 of 64 (218290)
06-21-2005 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by AdminNosy
06-21-2005 1:19 AM


Re: accusations bumped for Randman
If you don't think I have defended the charges, that's your business. Do what you will.
Part of the problem is that you and others seem so concooned in your thinking, that say, the false images "based on Haeckel's drawings" seem accurate to you.
You ask for comparisons, but you already saw the comparisons on the other threads. if you cannot see the major differences and exegerrations in viewing the actual photos of embryos and these faked drawings, I might as well be trying to convince you the sky is blue when you've made up your mind that it is yellow.
On the ape to human transition most of us were presented graphically as a means to convince us in school of common descent, I honestly do not understand how you or anyone can contest the fact it was a deceptive use of images.
Why should I elaborate more when you are not willing to even consider the fact the ape-human transition graphics are based on making Neanderthal subhuman, excessively ape-like, and even including non-transitional species like Ramapithicus?
Why are you not answering any of the questions I put to you, and allowing evolutionist posters to ignore the evidence?
You demand I answer how Neanderthal's features were exagerrated as if I did not already show you how evolutionists working under their assumptions exagerrated skulls.
So here it is again.
The first Neanderthal child we shall examine is the supposedly 2-year-old Pech de l’Aze from southern France. In his original description, E. Patte in 1958 said that when the teeth are placed in a normal bite, the end of the lower jaw doesn’t contact the concave socket in the head.3 (Figure 1) He said it was a projecting jaw. Ivanhoe exaggerated the same features in 1970.4
Figure 2 shows how wrong they were, because when I studied it, the teeth fitted perfectly together and the lower jaw fitted into the socket. There was no projecting face as in Figure 1. In fact, a detailed study of measurable X-rays found Pech’s face didn’t project as far forward as a modern 2-year-old, but was further back in relation to the forehead than even the modern 1-year-old.5
Here is a ‘custom-built’ transitional fossil with a projecting lower jaw, so made because of the evolutionary belief that men descended from apes, and it is used to support that same belief. This is circular reasoning!
Neanderthal Children’s Fossils | Answers in Genesis
By the way, I am accusing them of using the images falsely, whether of error or fraud, I cannot say obviously, but I can say that in my opinion, I think the evolutionist community has tended to depict things in a slanted fashion, and even when they finally, after years and years of being called on it by their critics, sometimes even decades, evolutionists still seem slow to admit the implications of how what they told everyone before was bogus.
In fact, the same dogmatic attitude is asserted, even more so.
You tell me.
Why after 1950 did evolutionists still depict Neanderthals as more or less subhuman?
Why are you refusing to address the issues I raised, and threatening banning me?
I could take a guess, but you wouldn't like it.
This message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 01:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by AdminNosy, posted 06-21-2005 1:19 AM AdminNosy has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 52 of 64 (218292)
06-21-2005 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by NosyNed
06-19-2005 7:09 PM


Re: Fudged Drawings?
Compare the following to the faked depictions on the following link. The chick (and pig) for instance are totally different than the faked drawings "based on Haeckel's drawings" of the web-site you used in an argument. Just look at the different images. The chick and all of the embryos are articifially made to look similar, put into a shape that is not at all reflective of the shape they actually are during that stage.
If you want to be truly honest, post the comparisons. I don't know how to import the images from that web-site.
Look at the drawings on the following link.
http://users.rcn.com/...ltranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.html
Now, compare them to the following.
fish:
chick:
pig:
human:
In fact, if you look at the depictions "based on Haeckel's drawings" you can see they include the same faked errors Haeckel does. They are still using faked images.
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html
Why Ned, I ask again, do evolutionists such as the web-site you used in an argument here, use faked drawings. The drawings are fake. That's 100% admitted to, except by some around here. The web-site colored on some of Haeckel's faked drawings to make their point.
How can justify that?
This message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 01:56 AM
This message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 01:58 AM
This message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 02:02 AM
This message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 02:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 06-19-2005 7:09 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2005 2:07 AM randman has replied

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


Message 53 of 64 (218293)
06-21-2005 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
06-21-2005 1:54 AM


Re: Fudged Drawings?
Compare the following to the faked depictions on the following link. The chick (and pig) for instance are totally different than the faked drawings "based on Haeckel's drawings" of the web-site you used in an argument. Just look at the different images. The chick and all of the embryos are articifially made to look similar, put into a shape that is not at all reflective of the shape they actually are during that stage.
There is no pig on the pictures you post??? You should also supply your source.
What stages of development are the drawings and what stages are the pictures at?
What are the changes that have been made to (for example) the chick and the human that are a problem to you. You'll have to point them out since I don't see them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 1:54 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:17 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 59 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:56 AM NosyNed has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 54 of 64 (218294)
06-21-2005 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
06-19-2005 8:16 PM


Re: Heackel's Drawings, Lucy's footprints.
Every time there is a mistake or a misrepresentation of information, whether it is one of the infamous ones like piltdown man or the lesser ones like Haeckle's drawings, it has NOT been creationists that have exposed them, but scientists. And they are then removed from the science except as a footnote.
Actually, that's not true. Pressure from creationists continually exposing misrepresentaions, at least in the case of Haeckel's drawings, at times seems to be the only reason evolutionists have abandoned their use.
In fact, one can see evolutionists still using Haeckel's drawings.
And yet they were exposed decades ago as frauds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 06-19-2005 8:16 PM RAZD has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 55 of 64 (218298)
06-21-2005 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by NosyNed
06-21-2005 2:07 AM


Re: Fudged Drawings?
No pigs, which is why I edited with ( ). It's still a valid point because it shows a different form.
As to the source, I merely cut and pasted from an evolutionist who did not post his source.
Funny though that you did not demand he post his source. Could that be because he was defending your claims on that thread?
As far as to the changes, I suggest you read the links I supplied. There is no need for an amateur analysis. The fact Haeckel distorted embryos in his drawings is well-established. I suspect you are fairly well aware of that, but choose to be unreasonable here, but maybe you really are unaware that Haeckel faked his drawings?
But Haeckel's drawings are wrong. Photographing actual embryos at these stages, Richardson and colleagues show that Haeckel's drawings are oversimplified to the point of obscuring important differences between classes of vertebrates.
...
Interestingly, this knowledge appears to be "old hat" among German biologists. Haeckel's drawings were not trusted (see Goldschmidt, 1956), and Haeckel was accused of scientific fraud by a university court in Jena, where he worked and by other embryologists, as well (see Hamblin, 1997; Richardson et al., 1997b). Yet, the idea that early vertebrate embryos are essentially identical has survived. I think there were two reasons for the survival. First, Haeckels' illustration was reproduced in Romanes' (1901) Darwin and After Darwin. From here, the illustration entered Anglophone biology, "sanitized" from Haeckel. Second, the picture can be used (as it has been in several developmental biology books, including my own [Gilbert, 1997, p. 254]) to illustrate von Baer's principles rather than Haeckel's biogenetic law.
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2005 2:07 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2005 2:22 AM randman has replied

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


Message 56 of 64 (218300)
06-21-2005 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by randman
06-21-2005 2:17 AM


Re: Fudged Drawings?
As far as to the changes, I suggest you read the links I supplied. There is no need for an amateur analysis. The fact Haeckel distorted embryos in his drawings is well-established. I suspect you are fairly well aware of that, but choose to be unreasonable here, but maybe you really are unaware that Haeckel faked his drawings?
I am aware of that. That is not what is being discussed here.
Funny though that you did not demand he post his source. Could that be because he was defending your claims on that thread?
I have no idea where they came from so how could I ask previously. Part of assessing the drawings accuracy would require a comparison of ages of each. That will require the source.
Since you don't know the stages nor are prepared with an analysis you have yet to back up this particular one of your accusations.
You were also asked about the details of the neanderthal reconstructions. You have yet to answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:17 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:29 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 58 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:46 AM NosyNed has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 57 of 64 (218301)
06-21-2005 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by NosyNed
06-21-2005 2:22 AM


Re: Fudged Drawings?
Below is a textbook publisher admitting that Haeckel's drawings were:
1. "frauds"
2. "became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook"
As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!
Haeckel's Embryos
Can we agree on that?
Next, the web-site you linked to on the other thread is this one below.
http://users.rcn.com/...ltranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.html
They are nearly identical to Haeckel's faked drawings.
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html
In every respect of error, they are the same. Just look at the drawings. It appears to me the only difference in Haeckel's drawings and the drawings based on Haeckel's fraudulent drawings is the coloring.
Case closed on that point.
That's deceptive use of images.
Can you agree to that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2005 2:22 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2005 8:24 AM randman has not replied
 Message 62 by Jazzns, posted 06-21-2005 8:46 AM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 58 of 64 (218303)
06-21-2005 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by NosyNed
06-21-2005 2:22 AM


Re: Fudged Drawings?
Also, before going on to Neaderthal depictions I'd like you to honestly consider the facts.
1. Haeckel faked his drawings.
2. Hackel's drawings were exposed over 130 years ago.
3. Evolutionists nevertheless used his drawings to the point that until a few years ago they were included in almost all biology textbooks.
4. A paper in 1998 that showed the drawings to be faked was "news" supposedly despite critics of evolution pointing out the drawings were faked long before that, despite the fact they were known to be fakes long before that. I am not saying, of course, that everyone in the evolutionist community deliberately use faked evidence, but it does raise the question of credibility. Why should we accept the scientific community as far as evolutionary theory when they perpetuated a fraud for 130 years.
5. In fact, evolutionists still seem to use this fraud, as I showed on the site that uses the drawings "that are based on Haeckel's drawings", and not to be mean about it, but the reluctance here among evolutionists to just come clean and admit, yep, they were frauds, and the fraud was used by evolutionists for over a 100 years, and it was wrong. The fact you are having such a hard time admitting that, or even unaware of that, and are challenging me on it, speaks volumes to me about the nature of evolutionism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2005 2:22 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dr Jack, posted 06-21-2005 9:06 AM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 59 of 64 (218306)
06-21-2005 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by NosyNed
06-21-2005 2:07 AM


Re: Fudged Drawings?
Here is an example of hard proof via X-rays showing how evolutionists have exagerrated the features, specifically manufacturing a flat forehead and projecting jaw which did not actually exist in the skull. Depictions and recreations of this Neanderthal skull by evolutionists are false.
The fourth Neanderthal child is Le Moustier, a French Neanderthal of supposedly 15 to 18 years of age which is in a German museum. Figure 6 is Le Moustier’s museum replica. The flat forehead and projecting jaws are meant to be convincing examples of our ape heritage. Figure 7 is a diagram of Le Moustier’s souvenir slide bought at the museum counter. Both jaws are approximately 30 millimetres forward of their true position.
Figure 8 is a composite of my X-ray of the actual forehead and my X-ray of the top and back of the head, and Figure 9 is my composite drawing from these measurable X-rays. The large arrow in Figure 8 shows the concave socket where the lower jaw fits into the head. There is a tremendous difference between these X-rays with real measurements and real parts as compared to the ape-like reconstructions in Figures 6 and 7.
To their credit, the German museum people are now trying to put the parts together again, accurately this time, and they have requested my X-rays for this purpose. (For those interested in greater detail and more illustrations please see Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol.8 (Part 2), 1994.)
Neanderthal Children’s Fossils | Answers in Genesis
Why should we, in light of evidence showing evolutionists exagerrating ape-like features, perhaps do to their preconditioning to do so as the article states and not deliberately, well, why should we accept the claims of more ape-like features in Neanderthals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2005 2:07 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2005 8:31 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 60 of 64 (218344)
06-21-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by randman
06-21-2005 2:29 AM


Re: Fudged Drawings?
Yes, I have to agree. The drawings are false, using them is deceptive.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-21-2005 08:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:29 AM randman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024