Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 49 (9180 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   A Critique of the "Evolution Essay" A GREAT DEBATE S1WC and anglagard ONLY
Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 10 of 100 (347471)
09-08-2006 1:02 AM

Bump for Someone Who Cares...
Welcome back Someone Who Cares, you seem to have gone on vacation before seeing this thread. Are you interested in defending your Evolution Essay?
ABE - Can't believe I missed this before, Why/How would evolution:
Page Not Found - Webs
Edited by anglagard, : Use full name in title
Edited by anglagard, : Additional resource from S1WC

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 13 of 100 (347671)
09-08-2006 10:39 PM

A Few Questions About the Essay
I have many questions concerning the essay Someone Who Cares (S1WC)has written. I was hoping should S1WC show up here to answer such questions that he? would consider answering a few of mine for starters.
Someone Who Cares writes:
Another observation, the majority of our planet’s surface doesn’t even have the geologic layers in the order that scientists gave them to support evolution.
I have some educational experience in the geosciences, yet I have never heard anyone state that any geologic layers violate the "order scientists gave them" much less that the majority of the Earth is covered by such layers. May I impose upon you by asking for a single example?
ABE - Or is what you are saying that the entire geologic column should exist everywhere just as one would expect from a 4500 year-old flood. Are you arguing that erosion did not exist in the past? Please clarify.
Like in the Cambrian layer, the one on the very bottom of the geologic layers, there have been finds of complete trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, etc., that have no links to ancestors. And this is the bottom of the geologic strata, it doesn’t get more primitive that this layer according to evolutionists .
I was curious about this statement because all the relevant geologic literature refers to rocks below the Cambrian with the imagination-challenged term Precambrian. Are you saying there are no rocks below the Cambrian in the geologic column? Are you saying this Precambrian era does not exist? Just curious as to what you meant by the above statement.
I have many other questions, but I figured I would start with these few as I do not desire to make you feel overwhelmed.
Edited by anglagard, : Trying to figure out essay by divining possible meanings

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 17 of 100 (347695)
09-08-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 11:03 PM

Re: Please check Evolution Logic before repeating attacks at my essay
I have read and reread your essay and volunteer to engage in a great debate.
Please let me know if this is acceptable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 11:03 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 11:19 PM anglagard has not replied

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 24 of 100 (347723)
09-09-2006 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 11:56 PM

Re: My essay
Start fresh with the questions? OK, do you want to start with my questions, prefer a different set, or do you have something to say to start?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 11:56 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Someone who cares, posted 09-09-2006 9:48 PM anglagard has replied

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 26 of 100 (347974)
09-10-2006 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Someone who cares
09-09-2006 9:48 PM

Essay Introduction
S1WC writes:
Well, I would first like to say that I wrote my essay and considered it to be correct. But then, as I grew in knowledge of evolution more and more, I learned some new things. As I looked over my essay, I saw things in there that I had used that were incorrect or not precisely correct, and so I updated it.
I'm glad to see that you are open to suggestions.
So I'm just saying that if we do come across a point and I figure out I was mislead by my sources or just mislead, don't be surprised if I apolegize and change some things in my essay. This is a normal process for getting closer to the truth. Besides, we're all human, we all make mistakes, and none of us know everything about every subject there is, so when we learn more, we figure out how foolish we once were or that we were using wrong information. I hope you will understand this, so we may both learn something from this debate.
As you know, I disagree with most of the content of your essay. However, I only seek to ask questions and discuss the assertions made within, not to criticize you personally. I believe you are showing a very proper perspective in this post and must agree completely with your statement here. We both have reasons for our beliefs concerning this matter, and an unemotional examinaton of such beliefs can only lead to a better understanding of each one's position.
I think I should let you know that I also believe in God, just not in quite the same way as you do. What we primarily differ on here is the method and manner in which God relates to life in a general sense after creation, not how God created life.
I would also like to clarify that it is actually the Theory of Evolution rather than the concept of evolution we are discussing. After all, your essay, by being modified through time, is by definition, evolving. Therefore, for purposes of this discussion, I will use the term evolution to mean the Theory of Evolution as first comprehensively explained by Darwin, as I believe you also mean in the essay.
Let the debate begin!
I would like to examine your essay in the order you have created with this exception. First, I would like to discuss your sources. Many of the resources you cite in the essay are over 40 years old and much has changed in the scientific understanding of evolution in the meantime. This is particularly true in the case of theories concerning hominid evolution. Just to let you know, I intend to debate using current scientific conclusions, not conjectures from 40 years ago. Should you use discredited conjectures from the past to argue your position, I will point out what is being done.
Additionally, you appear to be relying upon a very narrow area of the relevant literature. This is somewhat understandable given the relative lack of scholarly material in support of your position. Just to be upfront and fair in this I believe you should know that as a librarian, I am a professional researcher of the written word and will use all resources available to me in this discussion, including evaluations concerning the quality of such information and public knowledge about the integrity of the source.
Please feel free to comment upon this post if desired. Within the week I intend to examine the essay in order by first discussing the concept and nature of transitional fossils.
Edited by anglagard, : speling and punkuation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Someone who cares, posted 09-09-2006 9:48 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Someone who cares, posted 09-11-2006 7:46 PM anglagard has replied

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 28 of 100 (348981)
09-14-2006 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Someone who cares
09-11-2006 7:46 PM

Transitional Fossils
From the Essay:
One of the best types of evidence we have now, of the past, are the fossil finds. The fossil finds are gathered from all over the world. Now if evolution really did occur, we would expect to find many intermediate fossils; the transitional fossils between one kind of an organism to the next. But that is not the case with the finds we have now. We do not find transitional fossils between the animals. Like between fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and to mammals; as would be the case if evolution really did occur. Because evolution was supposed to take millions of years to happen, we should have at least a couple thousand fossils to prove it, yet we don’t even have one, unquestionable, transitional fossil!
Apparently there are several sources that dispute this assertion. Here is one from Kathleen Hunt at Transitional Fossils FAQ at Page Not Found - HolySmoke!:
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
o Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache).
o Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus)
o Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus)
o Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache)
Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
o Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes.
o Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus.
Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
o Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate
o Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels)
o Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus)
o Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus)
o Protacanthopterygians
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
o Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis)
o Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
o Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet.
o Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil.
o Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.)
Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
o Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle.
o Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian.
o The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds).
Transition from reptiles to mammals:
o Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next)
o Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward.
o Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus) -- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably reptilian jaw joint.
o Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon, Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint.
o Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. Diarthrognathus) -- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a double jaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really stunning transitional fossil.
o Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of the middle ear).
o Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) -- these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint.
o Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) -- small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian molars.
o Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end]
Transition from reptiles to birds:
o Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead.
o Protoavis -- this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently.
o Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds).
o "Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
o "Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird.
o Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds.
o [note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth.]
Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates:
o Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like clawed primates with generalized nails.
o Notharctus, an early Eocene lemur
o Parapithecus, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene)
o Propliopithecus, a small primate intermediate between Parapithecus and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters.
o Aegyptopithecus, an early ape.
o Limnopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons.
o Dryopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes.
o Ramapithecus, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor.
o Australopithecus spp., early hominids. Bipedal.
o Homo habilis.
o Homo erectus. Numerous fossils across the Old World.
o Homo sapiens sapiens. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.)
o Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (not on the direct line to H. sapiens sapiens, but worth mentioning).
o [I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general- interest books on human evolution.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents:
o Paramyids, e.g. Paramys -- early "primitive" rodent
o Paleocastor -- transitional from paramyids to beavers
o [yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but Paramys and its friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.]
Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins):
o Pakicetus -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found. It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a land animal (tip of snout). The ears were partially modified for hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils of land mammals, suggesting this early whale maybe could walk on land.
o Basilosaurus isis -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the Eocene (after Pakicetus). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale.
o Archaeocetes (e.g. Protocetus, Eocetus) -- have lost hind legs entirely, but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils.
o Squalodonts (e.g. Prosqualodon) -- whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth.
o Kentriodon, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth.
o Mesocetus, an early whalebone whale
o [note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores:
o Miacids (e.g. Viverravus and Miacis) -- small weasel-like animals with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth.
o Arctoids (e.g. Cynodictis, Hesperocyon) -- intermediate between miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger.
o Cynodesmus, Tomarctus -- transitional fossils between arctoids and the modern dog genus Canis.
o Hemicyon, Ursavus -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids and the bears.
o Indarctos -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.
o Phlaocyon -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials, transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.)
Meanwhile back at the ranch,
o Plesictis, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels et al.)
o Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon, early civets related to the miacids (see above)
o Tunguricits, transitional between early civets and modern civets
o Ictitherium, transitional between early civets to hyenas
o Proailurus, transitional from early civets to early cats
o Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats
o Hoplophoneus, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats
Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals:
o Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet.
o Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws.
o Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals).
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls:
o [Perissodactyls are animals with an odd number of toes; most of the weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.]
o Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like teeth
o Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.
o [The rest of horse evolution will be covered in an upcoming "horse fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your appetite:]
o Orohippus -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests
o Epihippus -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser
o Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- a subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth
o Mesohippus -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
o Miohippus -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of successful three-toed browsers]
o Parahippus -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot"
o 'Parahippus' leonensis -- a Merychippus-like species of Parahippus
o 'Merychippus' gunteri -- a Parahippus-like species of Merychippus
o 'Merychippus' primus -- a more typical Merychippus, but still very like Parahippus.
o Merychippus -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony (gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers)
o Merychippus (Protohippus) -- a subgenus of Merychippus developing Pliohippus-like teeth.
o Pliohippus & Dinohippus -- one-toed grazers, spring-footed
o Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler.
o Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
o Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
o Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs
o Heptodonts, e.g. Lophiodont -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional to modern tapirs
o Protapirus -- a probable descendent of Lophiodont, much like modern tapirs but without the flexible snout.
o Miotapirus -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional between Protapirus and the modern Tapirus.
o Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos
o Caenopus, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos.
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals):
o Dichobunoids, e.g. Diacodexis, transitional between condylarths and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle.
o Propalaeochoerus, an early pig, transitional between Diacodexis and modern pigs.
o Protylopus, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through Protomeryx, Procamelus, Pleauchenia, Lama (which are still alive; these are the llamas) and finally Camelus, the modern camels.
o Archeomeryx, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through Eumeryx, Paleomeryx and Blastomeryx, Dicrocerus (with antlers) and then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer -- muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc.
o Palaeotragus, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi & giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since Palaeotragus and is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After Palaeotragus came Giraffa, with elongated legs & neck, and Sivatherium, large ox-like giraffes that almost survived to the present.
So, there's a partial list of transitional fossils.
The lenghty list of transitional fossils from Kathleen Hunt may also be found at Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ This partial list fits in well with other sources I have examined.
Transitional fossils have been covered many times in this forum as well.
My purpose in this large pasting from the above source is to let you know that the vast majority of bioscientists and geoscientists believe, with reason, there are not only a few examples of transitional fossils but rather hundreds, if not thousands.
Of course, according to evolution, virtually all fossils are to some degree "transitional" as they exist at a point in time between what once was and what exists now, unless the fossil was at the terminal end of an extinct line. This is because all fossils exist as part of a continuous line that is discretly defined by points along that line, the points being individual or groups of fossils that show highly similar distinguishing characteristics. It really amounts to simply believing one can interprolate a line, curve, or series of lines from a series of points.
Under evolution, when one looks at transitional fossils in this manner, in order to deny the existence of transitional fossils one must deny the existence of all fossils.
One common assertion I have noticed from those who claim that there are no undisputed examples of transitional fossils is that each transition creates two gaps in the fossil record, as though every thing that ever lived should be continuously found in the fossil record. The concept that every thing that ever lived should leave a fossil does not appreciate the rarity of the fossilization process in the geologic record. However, the concept of interprolating continuous lines and curves from a series of points is considered mathematically valid. In fact, if one is not allowed to interprolate in such a manner from the data, far more than the sciences would be disallowed.
Taken to the extreme, it is as if I could not prove paternity because there are no transitional fossils between my daughter and myself.
So I guess in this vein, my question to you would be what disqualifies all the listed examples in general from being considered transitional? And if such fossils are not transitional, what is the explanation for their existance?
After the discussion of the above is concluded, I would next like to examine the remainder of the third paragraph of the essay concerning other aspects of transitional fossils.
PS - Sorry for the long cut n paste, I felt that if I chose to examine each example of every transitional fossil, we would never get past this point to examine the remainder of the essay. I do not forsee anything near this large a paste in the future.
Edited by anglagard, : interprolate not extrapolate!
Edited by anglagard, : speling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Someone who cares, posted 09-11-2006 7:46 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Someone who cares, posted 09-15-2006 12:59 AM anglagard has replied
 Message 30 by Someone who cares, posted 09-16-2006 1:19 AM anglagard has not replied

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 31 of 100 (349583)
09-16-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Someone who cares
09-15-2006 12:59 AM

Re: Transitional Fossils
If we are forced to use your definition of transitional fossil, which is closer to chimera than transitional fossil in normal English, then I would say you are most likely correct, there are no transitional fossils.
In order to criticize evolution as false, you must use the definitions used by life scientists and geoscientists, not your own made-up definitions. If you use your own definitions concerning terms used in evolution, then all you have done is criticize as false your misunderstanding of evolution, not evolution as commonly understood.
For example, if I was to go into a church and say that the parishioners did not believe in god it would be true under some circumstances if I was allowed to define god. If I defined god as the flying spaghetti monster, and the parishioners did not believe in the flying spaghetti monster, then the parishioners are all atheists that do not believe in god.
Would such a tactic have any meaning to the parishioners? Of course not. Does your misunderstanding as to what constitutes a transitional fossil have any meaning to those who believe in evolution?
From How to Argue by the New England Skeptical Society at » Page not found
When evolution deniers say there are no transitional fossils their unstated major premise is that they are employing a different definition of transitional than is generally accepted in the scientific community. They typically define transitional as some impossible monster with half-formed and useless structures. Or, they may define transitional as only those fossils for which there is independent proof of being a true ancestor, rather than simply closely related to a direct ancestor - an impossible standard.
The assertion that there are no transitional fossils is very common and has been refuted. See SLOT88 Situs Judi Slot Online Terpercaya No 1 di Indonesia
Also see:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
http://EvC Forum: All species are transitional -->EvC Forum: All species are transitional
h2g2 - Why There Are No Transitional Fossils - Edited Entry
Can we use a somewhat neutral definition such as the first hit in Google such as:
A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage.
Edited by anglagard, : Fix bad link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Someone who cares, posted 09-15-2006 12:59 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Someone who cares, posted 09-16-2006 11:16 PM anglagard has replied

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 33 of 100 (349816)
09-17-2006 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Someone who cares
09-16-2006 11:16 PM

Re: Transitional Fossils
S1WC writes:
Sorry, won't do. That first and only hit on Google define for "transitional fossil" is from a biased source, Wikepedia. Wikepedia is completely in favor of evolution, so we cannot use this if I, as a Creationist, am to debate fairly. This is not a "neutral" definition, it is made up by evolutionists and for evolutionists to use to defend their theory. Most Creationists would give you a different meaning, more like what I said before.
And my definition is not so unscientific, let us reason:
Your definition is definitely unscientific as you admit above. Evolution is the prevailing scientific view among over 99% of actual life scientists and geoscientists, those who fields most directly involve they study of the 'by what process did it get here in current form once started' of life.
Additionally, there is no proper use of reason here, as you are guilty of a logical fallacy. This logical fallacy is known as the straw man
By refuting a definition of transitional fossil not used by evolution supporters, you have refuted a straw man, not the concept of transitional fossil used in evolution. This is the point I was trying to make with the church and parishoner example in my previous post.
If you are going to claim to use reason, and lay claim to fairness, then you can't use logical fallacies to support your position.
Sorry won't do.
Question: If a creature that was a reptile, and had reptilian scales, was to gradually evolve into a bird, would it or would it not evolve the scales into feathers? If you say "no", then that means you probably believe in the "hopeful monster" type of theory, where the reptile would change into a bird in a "great leap", thus no scale/feather transition would be needed (but I doubt this is what you believe in). But, if you say "yes", let us continue reasoning:
No, I don't think feathers evolved from scales because the scientific evidence does not support this. Apparently feathers evolved from epidermal hollow cylinders as outlined in the following article:
Which came first, the Feather or the Bird?, By: Prum, Richard O., Brush, Alan H., Scientific American Special Edition, 15512991, Mar2004 Special Edition, Vol. 14, Issue 2
From the article:
Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feathers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight.
Recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find fresh evidence for the idea that developmental processes--the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form--can be a window into the evolution of a species' anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or "evo-devo." It has given us a powerful tool for probing the origin of feathers. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today's birds or even Archaeopteryx. They are critical clues to the structure, function and evolution of modern birds' intricate appendages.
Together these advances have produced an extremely detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.
This source, among others, is courtesy MiguelG in post 13 of the the thread http://EvC Forum: Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution -->EvC Forum: Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution
I'm sure you remember it, having posted there in the past. Please feel free to read the remainder of the article for further details as I can't post it in its entirity due to copyright law and forum guidelines. Since it is Scientific American, it should be commonly available at any reasonably-sized college or public library.
So I guess answering the remaining questions is unnecessary as such answers would be based upon a false premise.
Now that I have answered your question, perhaps you would like to answer mine. Scientific theories have power in modern logical discourse because they predict the future. The concept that transitional fossils should occur was predicted by Darwin, and then, two years later, archaeopteryx was discovered, and ever since, hardly a year goes by where another transitional isn't discovered that meets the definition as used in the Theory of Evolution. This is just like relativity predicting the bending of light around the sun, as observed in a solar eclipse a few years after the theory was first published by Einstein.
This ability to predict events is perhaps the most powerful evidence for any scientific theory, gravity has it, relativity has it, evolution has it.
My question to you would be what have any anti-evolution theories predicted (provided they have made any predictions at all), and where has this prediction been shown to be true by subsequent events or discoveries?
Please, answer the above questions, and think about it deeply. Keep open about it. I truly do wish you will find the truth one day and accept it. May God help you understand more about what the evidence obviously points to.
Thanks, that's very kind of you and I wish you likewise.
Edited by anglagard, : remove useless sentence
Edited by anglagard, : edit to remove possible confusing of concept of abiogenesis from theory of evolution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Someone who cares, posted 09-16-2006 11:16 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Someone who cares, posted 09-19-2006 10:19 PM anglagard has replied

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 35 of 100 (350562)
09-20-2006 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Someone who cares
09-19-2006 10:19 PM

Re: Transitional Fossils
S1WC writes:
have a feeling you're using an exagerration with the "99%" to make it seem as if evolution is popular or something and Creation is childish. Some polls showed that about half the Americans believe in Creation. And other surveys showed that most medical doctors reject strict Darwinism. So I have a feeling that your 99% is not so truthful. Unless you could provide a statistic or something...
According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%
This is from Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation
The polls cited in this article also show that in the US, the more education and earnings one has, the less likely they are to believe in YEC.
I was being generous by just using the 99% figure.
When you are sick, do you go to a plumber to diagnose your illness?
I do believe you said if we used my definition (the Creationist type), then I would be most likely correct, there are no transitional fossils. Right? Now if you don't like my definition, tell me, how can your definition be of any real use to your theory?
Because it is the one used by the theory. If you are going to disprove a theory, you have to disprove what that theory says, not what you think that theory says. What you think the theory says, or are trying to impose upon the theory, are false by definition, therefore it is a strawman.
Mind showing me a picture of an epidermal hollow cylinder? I can't picture that.
Ok then, can you show me a fossil of an epidermal hollow cylinder evolving into a feather? And would these epidermal hollow cylinders grow on reptiles? If so, can you show a reptile fossil with them?
Sorry, not all scientific articles come with pictures, they are written for adults. Will look (like that would make any difference).
Second, I believe archaeopteryx was a hoax.
Which one, there are at least seven? You have already made the assertion of fraud here http://EvC Forum: Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution -->EvC Forum: Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution
and it has been roundly trounced by subsequent replies. Your assertion of fraud is as fraudulant as the assertion of some absurd conspiracy among the evil scientists.
Thanks, but God has already opened to me what He did in the beginning, through His Word, the Bible, Genesis in particular. Have you read it? I would encourage you to read what God wants you to know, it's important, really important. If you haven't read it, please do, open yourself up to God's Word, trust He will show you the answers.
Of course I have read the Bible, have you read Spinoza's On the Interpretation of Scripture?
May God bless you and shine His light to show you the Truth, the truth that will always win, the truth that has no conspiracies or deceit or lies.
Are you implying that the vast majority of scientists teamed up with the theistic evolutionists in some vast conspiracy to question a ridiculously over simplistic reading of the Bible that denigrates God and God's creation?
They were never that organized.
Edited by anglagard, : take direct to message

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Someone who cares, posted 09-19-2006 10:19 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Someone who cares, posted 09-21-2006 12:25 AM anglagard has replied

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 36 of 100 (350565)
09-20-2006 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Someone who cares
09-19-2006 10:19 PM

Re: Transitional Fossils
S1WC writes:
Second, I believe archaeopteryx was a hoax. The specimen with the feather next to the reptile like fossil was produced by Haberlein (spell?) after having a chat with Max Bushby, where Max Bushby told him how great a find would be for evolution if it was a reptile fossil with a feather next to it, to supposedly "show" that reptiles evolved into birds. And so this hoax was produced a little while later, where the feather was imprinted on one slab, a reptile fossil was on another, and they were cemented together. Ah yes, all the conspiracy of evolution, but thanks to Sir Max Bushby's manuscript, in The Darwin's Conspiracy, we can read all about it. The dark, gloomy rooms, with Darwin's bulldog, Max Bushby, a couple others, deciding how to promote evolution, plotting, etc. Really, you should read that book, nice eye opener, but of course, you probably won't find it in a public library, try Christian libraries in Christian schools or maybe a Christian bookstore, or the internet to buy.
Unbelievable. Didn't you read Arachnophilia's reply at http://EvC Forum: Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution -->EvC Forum: Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution
How can you think anyone here is so stupid as to buy this conspiracy crap?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "#174" to the end of the link. This gets you directly to that message, rather than just to the top of the page containing message 174.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Someone who cares, posted 09-19-2006 10:19 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Someone who cares, posted 09-21-2006 12:35 AM anglagard has replied

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 39 of 100 (351507)
09-22-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Someone who cares
09-21-2006 12:25 AM

Re: Transitional Fossils
S1WC asks:
Can we get back on track and further dissect my essay since we can't come to an agreement about the transitional fossils definitions? Because my classes already started, and we have only barely begun examining my essay. With my classes and homework, I may have to limit time here, and then this debate will go really slow, it may even hault.
Continuing from where we left off:
I hope you don’t take this too personal, as my debate style may appear a bit brusque.
Your essay is full of statements that are either knowingly false, which is a violation of a Biblical Commandment or just plain sloppy. There are others that show a lack of basic understanding as to what the Theory of Evolution actually represents, which is an act of willful ignorance on the part of one who seeks to pronounce such a theory as false. Here are some examples.
From the Evolution Essay paragraph 3:
For example, all animals and plants remain relatively unchanged throughout the whole fossil record.
False witness or slop, if I were you, I would consider modifying this sentence. Obviously, there are no non-avian dinosaurs since the Cretaceous and no flowering plants in the fossil record prior to the Cretaceous. Therefore animals and plants have changed in the fossil record, sometimes drastically.
We do not see animals with partially evolved brains, eyes, legs, arms, or other organs or tissues.
Of course not, such organs and parts would be fully evolved, fully complete, fully functioning transitionals at a given point in time. There is no such thing as "partially evolved" only modifications of preexisting parts over time aka transitions. I can’t debate a straw man theory concerning “partially evolved” organs that neither I, nor anyone else I know, actually supports.
Evolutionists claim that fish evolved into amphibians, but no transitional forms are available, there is not one fossil of a creature with part fins or part feet.
Tiktaalik shows such a form. See: Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer
We find no transitional form fossils of invertebrates turning into vertebrates, as evolution requires in the beginning transformations. Fish supposedly evolved into amphibians. But amphibians have their pelvis attached to their backbone, whereas fish do not. Fish do have a small pelvis, but without it being attached to their backbone, legs would not function, if fish really did evolve into amphibians. Non-flying animals were supposed to evolve into flying animals. But we do not see this transformation in animals or in the fossil finds. Same with dinosaurs, we don’t see transitional forms in any of the dinosaur finds. All taxonomic orders, classes, phyla appear suddenly in the fossil record, there are no evolutionary connections between creatures.
See post # 28 in this thread.
Like in the Cambrian layer, the one on the very bottom of the geologic layers, there have been finds of complete trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, etc., that have no links to ancestors. And this is the bottom of the geologic strata, it doesn’t get more primitive that this layer according to evolutionists .
False witness or slop, there are rocks below the Cambrian in the geologic column. If the Cambrian is at the very bottom of the geologic layers, then what is the Precambrian? Also there are Precambrian fossils of ancestors. See: Just a moment...
All mammals are found fully developed in the fossil finds as well. Marine mammals, also, are found fully developed. For example, evolutionists believe that the dolphins’ ancestors were pigs, cattle, or buffalo.
False witness or slop, show us where anyone remotely knowledgeable about science ever stated that dolphins evolved from pigs, cattle and/or buffalo, retract, or allow your essay to continue to bear false witness. Here is an example of what evolution supporters really believe:
Clearly, you do not understand the concept of two species having a common ancestor. How can you hope to criticize evolution as false if you can’t seem to even fathom an easily understood central concept of evolution. Maybe it is just sloppiness.
Coelacanth fossils have remained the same for the supposed million years, . interesting. Why is this so?
Slop. The fossils have remained the same as minerals making up the fossils are not changing. However the species represented by the fossils are changing. Coelacanth fossils are not the same species as the ones recently caught. See
Evolutionists claim that fish evolved into amphibians, but no transitional forms are available, there is not one fossil of a creature with part fins or part feet.
See above concerning Tiktaalik and related fossils.
Why is this so? So who chooses which creatures evolve and which ones don’t?
No who, by process of natural selection. Do you know the difference between a person and a process? Your statement makes it unclear. I call slop.
Aside from big animals, we have small insects as well. Their fossils and preserved bodies are also found to be complete. Plants too, are found complete, without transitional forms.
Why is there such an obsession with fossils being preserved complete? Would an incomplete fossil be better? Is this part of the chimera straw man?
Primates? Yes, they too are complete without a tie to humans. Many evolutionists claim that we have found the remains of hominids which fill in this gap, but that is not so.
That’s next.
Edited by anglagard, : misplaced quote box

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.
Sir Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Someone who cares, posted 09-21-2006 12:25 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Someone who cares, posted 09-23-2006 10:57 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 42 by Someone who cares, posted 09-23-2006 11:03 PM anglagard has replied

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 40 of 100 (351530)
09-23-2006 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Someone who cares
09-21-2006 12:35 AM

Re: Transitional Fossils

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Someone who cares, posted 09-21-2006 12:35 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Someone who cares, posted 09-23-2006 11:13 PM anglagard has not replied

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 44 of 100 (352405)
09-26-2006 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Someone who cares
09-23-2006 11:03 PM

Re: Transitional Fossils
S1WC writes:
Point "Can't get anywhere": Since we couldn't agree upon a definition of "transitional fossils", this point can't be argued properly at the moment.
It appears others on this forum disagree. See http://EvC Forum: Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. -->EvC Forum: Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.
You may want to check it, your alias is even coming up more often than mine.
If you are unwilling to discuss the definition of transitional fossil in regard to your essay, well OK, just don't expect any of the opposition to take your essay seriously based on that very point.
For the record, I completely agree with RAZD's detailed OP in the linked thread.
Edited by anglagard, : Fix link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Someone who cares, posted 09-23-2006 11:03 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Someone who cares, posted 09-26-2006 10:52 PM anglagard has replied

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 46 of 100 (352527)
09-27-2006 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Someone who cares
09-26-2006 10:52 PM

Re: Transitional Fossils
S1WC writes:
I know RAZD likes to attack me in particular, but I don't really reply in other topics anymore but this one, so don't expect me to defend myself on that linked topic.
For one thing, neither RAZD, myself, or anyone else around here who does not agree with your position is attacking your person. We simply disagree with your position, want to clarify ours, and dispell any false assertions.
Because the evolutionists here are feeling attacked, so they try to look good by putting me down and saying all sorts of things about me. But I don't worry, I've got the truth on my side, and the truth will always win. I know that Creation is the truth, and I don't worry. I just want you to see this for yourself.
See above. Also If truth is on your side in the particular, why are you revising the essay as we go?
I was willing to discuss this matter earlier, but you just ignored my post, take a look if you want to reply and continue debating about the definition of transitional fossils and how they relate to the evolution theory, and which one would be more meaninful and useful. I just figured if you ignored it, that you didn't have anything to say about it, so we continued debating other matter.
I think it would be best if this matter was deferred, lest the rest of the essay goes unexamined. Don't worry, much of your essay is dependent upon the definition of transitional fossils, if there is room for posts left, I personally guarantee it will be addressed again.
For the record, I disagree with much of what RAZD said there, especially the part where he says something like there are 4 facts, the earth being old, things evolving, etc. If RAZD would like, I could debate him one on one so that he would TRY proving these four points to be facts, because obviously they're not.
I'm sure that in the future, your desires can be accommodated.
Oh, and, are you going to get to replying to all those points above? It took me a long time to reply, and I'm hoping for a reply back...
I'm thinking of just going through the entire essay including your replies, before responding to such replies. Will see how this evolves.
May God bless you Anglagard!
And may God bless you as well S1WC!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Someone who cares, posted 09-26-2006 10:52 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Someone who cares, posted 09-29-2006 8:51 PM anglagard has replied

Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006

Message 48 of 100 (353390)
10-01-2006 2:02 AM

Hominid Evolution
Apologies to EvC directors for this long post. S1WC apparently will not follow any links I may post, either within or from outside of this forum, which necessitates the use of large cut and pastes from my sources.
From paragraph 4 S1WC essay downloaded on Nov. 30, 2006:
Let us now look at the major hominid finds, and test their validity, since many evolutionists still believe that they are true transitional forms between apes and man. But some evolutionists have already acknowledged the fact that some of them are false finds.
I think you should say false interpretations instead of false finds. Using the term false finds implies you believe all the fossils are faked. Is that what you are saying?
Point 10:
Ramapithecus is one of such finds. Based on merely some teeth, for about twenty years he was believed to be a hominid, a transition between ape and man. But he is now known to be just an extinct orangutan type of monkey.
False, I don’t know of anyone who claims orangutans are monkeys, they are considered great apes. This is the modern definition of hominid:
A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"), including the extinct and extant humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. (This classification has been revised several times in the last few decades. See the Hominidae and history of hominoid taxonomy articles.)
This is from Hominidae - Wikipedia
Are you disputing this current definition? Are you using a past definition?
Point 11:
Piltdown man was an ape’s jaw placed with a human skull, but for 45 years paleontologists called it ape human, and they wrote about 500 books on it! [4]
False, actually “Piltdown Man” was strongly challenged since its discovery by a host of suspicious scientists. From
The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible -- two were not.
It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a "missing link" between ape and man. It was an open question as to what that missing link would look like. Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.
This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries. None the less, Sir Arthur Keith (a major defender of Piltdown man) wrote in 1931:
It is therefore possible that Piltdown man does represent the early pleistocene ancestor of the modern type of man, He may well be the ancestor we have been in search of during all these past years. I am therefore inclined to make the Piltdown type spring from the main ancestral stem of modern humanity...
In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored. It was carried in the books as a fossil hominid. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again. The American Museum of Natural History quietly classified it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it. In Bones of Contention Roger Lewin quotes Sherwood Washburn as saying
"I remember writing a paper on human evolution in 1944, and I simply left Piltdown out. You could make sense of human evolution if you didn't try to put Piltdown into it."
Finally, in 1953, the roof fell in. Piltdown man was not an ancestor; it was not a case of erroneous interpretation; it was a case of outright deliberate fraud.
Additionally, my research using WorldCat, the catalog of all cataloged books, indicates only 50 books were written on Piltdown Man. Your source is plain wrong.
Point 12:
Hesperithecus was made from just a pig’s tooth! It was used as a hominid for 14 years until the truth was discovered.
False, this claim, that “Hesperihecus” (normally spelled Hesperithecus) was used as a hominid of 14 years is shown as the dishonest claim of a single individual. From
In this section, we will look at some of LaPointe's more outrageous claims. LaPointe claims:
"Hesperithecus was actually created from one pig's tooth but it fooled the entire paleontology field and dental experts for fourteen years"
LaPointe clearly is in error regarding almost all the basic facts surrounding Hesperithecus. Firstly, the only scientist who seemed to think that the tooth in question belonged a primate (not necessarily a human ancestor) was H.F. Osborn, who described the tooth in 1922.
As to the 14 year claim:
Aside from his completely bogus and deceptive claim that it "fooled the entire paleontology field," he is also incorrect to suggest that it fooled anyone for 14 years. The molars were first described by Osborn in 1922, and by 1927 articles appeared in Science, Nature, the New York Times, and the Times of London which confirmed that the molars came from a peccary, not a primate. This gives us just 5 years, not 14.
Point 13:
Orce man’s fallacy was the skull cap, it wasn’t a human or monkey skull cap, it was the skull cap of a donkey.
This is a false claim from Duane Gish, the small size of this piece makes it of unknown origin. From Creationist Arguments: Orce Man
By the next paragraph, Gish is exaggerating even further, and is calling the disputed fragment a "donkey's skull". It is not a skull, and it was not necessarily from a donkey.
It is easy to score cheap rhetorical points by implying that scientists are so incompetent that they cannot tell the difference between a human and a donkey. A more charitable explanation, which turns out to be the correct one, is that the bone is genuinely difficult to identify, as proved by the fact that debate over its status has continued for over 10 years.
Point 14:
Lucy’s inner ear structure, skull structure, and other bones show that she was most likely related to the pygmy chimpanzee.
False, here is the Lucy fossil, please show us where the inner ear is located.
Point 15:
She did not even walk like humans do. When a knee joint for one find of Lucy was requested, they found one more than about 200 feet lower in the earth and about two miles away from the rest of her! [5] How could that joint have possibly belonged to that particular Lucy find?
False, several have claimed and some have issued retractions. See Lucy's Knee Joint
The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981, ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it is false. Despite this, none of the major proponents of the claim has publicly retracted it. One major proponent has privately agreed that it is false, and a few creationists have agreed to stop repeating it. One minor proponent made a public retraction.
Here is how this lie has been handled by those who have repeated it.
To summarize: At least eighteen creationists have made this bogus claim. Three have never responded in any way to questions about it (Girouard, Menton, Willis). Another two have not responded to further inquiries (Brown, McAllister). Only five have shown a willingness to discuss the matter (Chittick, the Nuttings, Sharp, Taylor), but one (Chittick) cut off correspondence. Four have agreed that the claim was in error and agreed to stop making it (Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, Taylor), and two agreed to stop making it if further investigation showed that the claim was bogus (the Nuttings) but have continued to repeat it. One (Arndts) has indicated a willingness to believe that the claim is in error but no interest in researching further or offering a correction because the article in which he made the claim just used it as an example of a type of error in reasoning. One (LaHaye) has insisted that the claim is not in error, but agreed to stop making it at the request of the Institute for Creation Research. Three (Baugh, Huse, Mehlert) have not yet been contacted for comment. One (Brown) now denies having made the claim at all. Only three (Menton, Morris, Sharp) have issued public corrections or clarifications.
Anyone need a definition of integrity?
Point 16:
Boisei was based on a skull that was put together from about 400 pieces! Plus it had a large crest on the top of the skull, a characteristic which is special only to apes. It had no human characteristics to make it a hominid, it was an ape.
Paranthropus Boisei, formerly known as Australopithecus Boisei by many physical anthropologists, is an offshoot of the human family tree and is not a direct ancestor to humans, according to essentially all physical anthropologists. Yes, just like humans, it was an ape. For reference, here is a pretty good example of the tree:
Point 17:
Neanderthal man was found to be pure human, whose brain was deformed by arthritis. [6] Neanderthal had arthritis and was crippled, that is why he would have walked stooped, but not because his whole civilization was like that, and not because he came from a monkey, he was a human. [7]
False, there is more than one Neanderthal specimen, there are fossils from over 400 Neanderthals, are you stating that each and every one had a brain deformed by arthritis, including children? From Creationist Arguments: Neandertals
Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise, most creationists still believe that Neandertals were merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. Some, but by no means all, Neandertals have been found with signs of health problems such as arthritis. But Neandertals have many distinctive features, and there is no reason why these diseases (or any others) would cause many, let alone all, of these features on even one, let alone many, individuals. Modern knowledge and experience also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of Neandertal features, because these diseases do not cause modern humans to look like Neandertals.
There are now 5 DNA analyses so far on Neanderthals clearly showing they are not identical to Homo Sapiens. From NCBI
We indeed show that the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA sequences in Europe is compatible with at most 120 admixture events between the two populations despite a likely cohabitation time of more than 12,000 y. This extremely low number strongly suggests an almost complete sterility between Neanderthal females and modern human males, implying that the two populations were probably distinct biological species.
Point 18:
Neanderthal and Homo Erectus had brain sizes like those of modern humans.
Essentially false depending on the definition of “brain sizes like those of modern humans.” On average, Neanderthal brains were 10% larger in volume and Homo Erectus brains were 75% of the volume of the average human. The larger size of the Neanderthal brain case is usually attributed to its more robust body, where limbs are 50% more massive than a human of the same height.
Point 19:
Neanderthal fossils were found in the same layers as modern human fossils, according to evolutionists, Neanderthal should be layers below modern humans to make him a valid ape-human transition.
False, every physical anthropologist considers Neanderthals in Europe contemporary with early Homo Sapiens in Africa. Additionally, Neanderthals are not considered direct ancestors, but rather cousins. See above.
Point 20:
The skulls of Neanderthal were the only ones with brow ridges, which is supposed to show it to be sub human.
False, Homo Erectus would be appalled by this insult. See this picture?
Can you tell us which of the fossil pictures have brow ridges and which are classified as Neanderthals? How about which are human and which are chimpanzee?
Point 21:
But, there are variations in human skulls, one of which is brow ridges. [8] Using the skull of Neanderthal man, an artist can draw either a human, or a monkey; this is not a method to rely upon, and is not proof of anything, pictures are not valid proof in the first place.
You have stated previously that you wanted pictures of fossils, now you don’t? You just stated only Neanderthals have brow ridges and now that some humans have brow ridges?
At any rate, feel free to post pictures of verified modern humans with brow ridges like classic Neanderthals.
Also, do the humans with brow ridges, however slight, all have brains deformed by arthritis, as you previously claimed for all Neanderthals?
Point 22:
There is a class of hominids called Homo Erectus. Homo Erectus was thought to be sub human because of a small brain size, but it is now known that this size of a brain is the size of an average European person’s brain. [9]
False, Homo Erectus had a brain volume of 950-1100cc making it 75% of modern humans. If I was a European, I would feel insulted.
Point 23:
So Homo Erectus is not hominid, he is just human.
False by definition, Homo Erectus is a hominid, humans are hominids.
Point 24:
Another class of hominids is Homo Sapiens. Modern Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, and older Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus, all lived at the same time, they all lived together. [10]
I do know of one possible example concerning Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals in Israel for a short period of time. However, this is considered the exception. Modern Homo Sapiens did not live with any other species of Homo since 35,000 years ago since by then all others were extinct (with the debatable exception of Florensis). Not sure you want to say they all lived together, like in some hippie commune.
Point 25:
They could not have been various degrees of evolving monkeys changing into humans. Pliopithecus was named a hominid because it was a cross between the spider monkey and a gibbon. [11] Proconsul was just an extinct type of an ape. No human characteristics in him. Dryopithecus was based on only a lower jaw and some teeth fragments, but later those bones were known to be just an extinct ape’s bones. [12] Nothing human about him either, he is not a hominid. Oreopithecus was based on only some teeth and the remains of a pelvis, it is also an extinct ape. [13] Australopithecus Africanus was the skull of a baby ape with underdeveloped features, it had no human features. [14] It’s just that baby apes and human babies look similar when very young. Not that it is a hominid. Robustus was based on merely a skull. That skull even had a crest on it, the special feature of only apes. Cro Magnon Man is not in any way non human.
Is this information on human lineage from the fold-out in the 1966 Time-Life publication Early Man? I just ask because I have not seen any discussion of any hominid finds from the last 40 years in your essay. Are you stating that the Taung Child is the only fossil of Australopithecus Africanus contrary to the several examples listed here? Prominent Hominid Fossils
Also, once again, humans are apes.
Point 26:
It was only thought to be a hominid, because of cave drawings that were found and were thought to be something primitive. [15]
Humans are Hominids.
Point 27:
A Homo Erectus, called Rhodesia Man, had tooth decay, this is something that primitive man would not have; and, he had two holes in his skull that look like modern bullet holes. [16]
Are you saying there is absolutely no evidence of tooth decay in primitive humans? While it is true that ”primitive’ humans have less tooth decay than modern humans, I don’t know of anyone stating tooth decay in ”primitive’ humans is absolutely impossible. As to bullet holes, that’s a new one.
Point 28:
Nebraska man was also based on a pig’s tooth, just like Hesperithecus!
False, there is no “like,” Nebraska man is Hesperithecus. From Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man
Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind. Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or human ancestor:
"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."
"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)
Most other scientists were skeptical even of the more 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.
Point 29:
Java man was thought to be a hominid due to a smaller brain size, but that size is still within the range of human brain sizes. His middle ear structure is just like a human’s ear structure. He is human. Same with Peking man, brain size makes evolutionists believe he is a hominid.
Java Man and Peking Man are examples of Homo Erectus, a hominid with brow ridges and an average of 75% of the cranial capacity of modern humans.
Point 30:
Homo Habilis is a mix between two classes of hominids, this is not real, and not valid.
Not real in what way? Are you claiming all the 11 fossils mentioned here Prominent Hominid Fossils are fake?
Point 31:
The plain rocks found by paleontologists are sometimes called the tools of hominids!
For the sake of brevity, I will just refer to this website:
I know you will probably refuse to look, but this post is long enough as it is.
Point 32:
Many human footprints were also called the footprints of hominids. Also, due to such impossible previous dates for hominids, paleontologists have had to change their dates many times. What inaccuracy!
Science changes its findings when better evidence is discovered. YEC changes no conclusion, despite overwhelming evidence, occasionally even to the point of deliberate dishonesty in many cases as shown above under point 15, among others.
Point 33:
Using the dating methods of evolutionists, modern humans were dated as about four and one-half million years old! But this is before the Australopithecines group even existed according to evolutionist dates! That makes all Australopithecines invalid for classification as hominids!
Where does anyone say this? By which dating method? Please elaborate.
Point 34:
Many different evolving “steps” of hominids were found together is the same layers! But this could not be possible, since each “step” of advancing hominids had to take “millions” of years according to evolutionists! Meaning that they should be many layers apart. But they aren’t!
False, in the case of Olduvai Gorge for one example. From
The oldest fossil hominids have been recovered from sites in East Africa, especially in the Great Rift Valley. One of the most important sites there is Olduvai Gorge. It is an approximately 30 mile (48 km.) long, eroded canyon complex cutting into the Serengeti Plain in Northern Tanzania. It is only about 295 feet (90 m.) deep, but its neatly stratified layers of dirt and rock interspersed with easily datable volcanic ash and lava layers cover the last 2.1 million years of geological and evolutionary history. The remains of many australopithecines and early humans have been found at Olduvai. When these ancient hominids lived there, it was a grassland that probably had abundant food sources.
Point 35:
Some skulls of modern humans were found in the same layers as Ramapithecus, a supposed hominid. Which is another good reason to doubt the validity of hominids being real.
I presume you are a hominid. If you doubt your own existence, you may want to brush up on your Descartes.
Point 36:
Also, we have another similar situation, where fossils of modern humans were found in the same layers as Peking and Java man. So, Peking and Java man could not have been transitions from ape to man, if modern man lived in the same time span.
Why not, if Homo Erectus was going extinct while early Homo Sapiens was ascending, would such a small overlap be impossible. How would that preclude one evolving from the other? This may be beside the point anyway, many physical anthropologists today consider Homo Ergaster, not Homo Erectus, the likely direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens.
Point 37:
The Australopithecines fossils are just the same as monkey fossils according to bone structures, they are apes, not hominids.
False, humans are hominids, humans are great apes. Apes are not monkeys (hint: no tail).
Point 38:
As we have seen, most hominid finds were believed to be true for a long time, then the truth came out, and they were known to be false.
Are you stating all the fossils are forgeries? Or do you mean they were misidentified? You do realize that you are saying that most human, Neanderthal, H. Erectus, H. etc. fossils are now “known to be false.” Known to be false by whom? Also, if they are false, then why bother arguing they are all human or not human? See subsequent reply.
Point 39:
There seems to be a pattern going here. First, paleontologists find a tooth or skull or another fossil, and they claim it is from a hominid. They draw pictures of how the hominid would look. The news spreads like wildfire. Books are written; hopes are raised. Then, the truth is found sometime later. The hominid is put down, hopes fall. This pattern may very well continue with any finds now and in the future.
False, how has this been true of any of the following, (type fossil discovery date at end):
Sahelanthropus tchadensis TM 266-01-060-1 Brunet et al. 2002
Orrorin tugenensis BAR 1000'00 Senut et al. 2001
Ardipithecus ramidus ARA-VP 6/1 White et al. 1994
Australopithecus anamensis KP 29281 M. Leakey et al. 1995
Australopithecus afarensis LH 4 Johanson et al. 1978
Australopithecus africanus Taung Dart 1925
Australopithecus garhi BOU-VP-12/130 Asfaw et al. 1999
Australopithecus aethiopicus Omo 18 Arambourg & Coppens 1968
Australopithecus robustus TM 1517 Broom 1938
Australopithecus boisei OH 5 L. Leakey 1959
Homo habilis OH 7 L. Leakey et al. 1964
Homo rudolfensis KNM-ER 1470 Alexeev 1986
Homo ergaster KNM-ER 992 Groves & Mazak 1975
Homo erectus Trinil 2 Dubois 1894
Homo antecessor ATD6-5 Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997
Homo heidelbergensis Mauer 1 Schoetensack 1908
Homo neanderthalensis Neandertal 1 King 1864
Homo sapiens - Linnaeus 1758
Remember, boisei, robustus, and aethiopicus are considered under the genus Paranthropus by many physical anthropologists.
ABE - To contrast, there is Piltdown Man, a forgery, and Hesperithecus/Nebraska Man, a misrepresentation of fact. Your argument here is very weak IMO.
Point 40:
The truth is, fossils finds don’t help evolution. The fossil finds don’t support a pathway to man, they only mess it up and confuse scientists even more.
I’m sorry, the physical anthropologists do not seem anywhere near as confused as you are considering the above statements. They know the difference between a monkey and a hominid.
Edited by anglagard, : completeness

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Nighttrain, posted 10-03-2006 4:21 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 54 by Someone who cares, posted 10-07-2006 1:38 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 55 by Someone who cares, posted 10-16-2006 11:38 PM anglagard 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