quote:
As mammalian omnivores, pig teeth are fairly good models for studying the development and aging of human teeth. Dental enamel is formed by the epithelial cells of the enamel organ including the ameloblasts, the cells that produce enamel matrix proteins.
As with humans, pigs feature molars, premolars (or bicuspids), canines, and incisors and similar to most mammals, pigs and humans are diphyodont or develop and erupt two generations of teeth into their jaws.
I think there is a huge difference between pig teeth being similar and good models for study in relation to man, and mistaking one as an “intermediary” or “missing link” in human evolution. Remember, they werent trying to pass it off as human, but as proof of evoltuion or a common ancestor.
If evolution is such a sound science, why are there so many forgeries?
The frauds I've been mentioning do concern evolution. Any fraud relating to biology or paleontology is fraudulent science, and a false representation of the evolutionary history of life.
That applies equally if it's a fake hominid skull made in England, or fake footprints in Texas.
There's only one science. Your terminology is clumsy when you say "is evolution such a sound science". Biology is the science, and biological evolution a part of it.
Anyone presenting dinosaurs in a false light in a museum is being fraudulent in relation to biology.
I think there is a huge difference between pig teeth being similar and good models for study in relation to man, and mistaking one as an “intermediary” or “missing link” in human evolution.
There is a huge difference. But, this argument was not an attempt to pass them off as the same thing: it was showing you the source of the error. Pig teeth are similar to human teeth, so it's fairly easy to get them confused.
Dont Be a Flea writes:
Remember, they werent trying to pass it off as human, but as proof of evoltuion or a common ancestor.
There is also a very big difference between mistakenly thinking something is a human tooth for understandable reasons and "trying to pass it off as a human tooth." The first is not a lie; the second is. This quote above sounds very much like an attempt at slandering (libeling?) evolutionists as dishonest conspirators. The people who did it honestly thought it was a "common ancestor," they were not "trying to pass it off" as one.
I think there is a huge difference between pig teeth being similar and good models for study in relation to man, and mistaking one as an “intermediary” or “missing link” in human evolution. Remember, they werent trying to pass it off as human, but as proof of evoltuion or a common ancestor.
You say this has nothing to do with creationism, but all the sources that I can find that agree with you are creationist sites. The creationists seem to think this tooth, declared to be a pig's in 1927, is of great relevance to modern biology.
When you find something not written by a flat earth hillbilly, then it's different.
Wiki's no particular authority, but, for example:
quote:
Nebraska Man was the name applied by the popular press to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world" and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Though not a deliberate hoax, the classification proved to be a mistake.
And:
quote:
Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted a decade after its discovery, creationists have promoted this episode as an example of the scientific errors that they allege undermine the credibility of how palaeontology and hominid evolution theories are crafted, and how information is peer reviewed or accepted as mainstream knowledge.
What's interesting is that the creationists seem to desperately want this to be a hoax, whether it was or not. It seems to be an important part of creationist theology, or something.
In reality, you seem to need to believe that there are the many, many hoaxes of your O.P. I think you should list them all. I want you to show that just 1% of the fossils that have been identified by evolutionary paleontologists are frauds.
That means you've got a very, very long list to make out.
I never limited my list to only fossils! Perhaps I should change my OP around to say "mistakes" instead of "forgeries". Perhaps they are not deleberate as you say, but they are still passing off mistakes as facts for a time.
Here are current things online that make me wonder.
“So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found.”
OK, I am totally cool with this statement.
“The Earth is approximately 4.55 billion years old -- an inconceivable age when one considers that the human being we would recognize as modern man has existed for less than 50,000 years.”
This is called a “fact”? I thought they haven’t found a way?
Scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age.”- http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Assuming . . . .
“Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities.”
“Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old.”
Here are two quotes from the same website that differ 10,000 years. Please remember, that proven, written, human society and history is arguably between 6,000 and 20,000 years.
“Usually you can tell the time when the dinosaur lived by the age of the rock it is in. You tell the rock's age by small fossils of plants and little animals that we already know the age of. Sometimes we can tell the age of the rock and the fossils in it within 100,000 years of the actual time, even if it happened 300 million years ago.” (Don Lessem)-Scholastic
Didn’t he just say you find the age of the dinosaur by the rock, and the age of the rock by the fossils that we already know the age of? And the accuracy? 100,000 years? I'm glad I'm not late by 100,000 seconds (over a day) or off in my bank acount by 100,000 cents.
100,000 out of 65,000,000 is 0.15%, DbaF. That is Not Shabby.
"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
Didn’t he just say you find the age of the dinosaur by the rock, and the age of the rock by the fossils that we already know the age of?
But he didn't say, in that one line you quoted, anything about the several independent ways that we know the ages of those fossils - several different radioisotopes with different modes of decay, just for starters.
"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
In reality, you seem to need to believe that there are the many, many hoaxes of your O.P. I think you should list them all. I want you to show that just 1% of the fossils that have been identified by evolutionary paleontologists are frauds.
I've been trying to get five forgeries, while spotting Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor.
Can't even get one additional forgery.
(Do you think creationists might be stretching the truth a little bit with some of their claims?)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
“Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities.”
“Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old.”
Here are two quotes from the same website that differ 10,000 years. Please remember, that proven, written, human society and history is arguably between 6,000 and 20,000 years.
That's an easy one. The author is both right and wrong. The upper limit of radiocarbon dating depends on the equipment you are using! Different laboratories use different equipment, and two different methods for radiocarbon dating. The first, using standard counting, tends to have problem after 40,000 years or so distinguishing the beta decay from the background -- again depending on the equipment. The second, accelerator mass spectroscopy (AMS) does a direct isotope reading, so it doesn't have this problem. With good equipment it can probably get up to 50,000 or 60,000 years if everything works exactly right. But still, at some point the "signal" just starts to get lost.
Using advanced equipment some laboratories are now experimenting with techniques that may be accurate up to about 80,000 years.
But those considerations of upper limit have nothing to do with samples that are, say, 12,000 years old--and that's old enough to disprove the beliefs of young earth creationists any day.
Now, you didn't know all of this but you still felt qualified to nitpick the radiocarbon dating method because it produces results that disagree with your religious beliefs. There is a name for people who speak with authority on subjects about which they know little.
(Do you also practice amateur brain surgery? I hear it can be a profitable hobby.)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
And exactly what is wrong with this assumption? What scenario would you give that would have the rest of the solar system form at one time and the earth form at a radically different time?
my bank acount by 100,000 cents.
If your bank account was 30,000,000,000 cents you might not be in too much trouble if you were out of balance by 100,000 cents which is 0.0003%. I doubt that you've ever measured anything large to an accuracy of 100th of that.
[1s]I'm glad I'm not late by 100,000 seconds (over a day) [/qs]
This is more like being 6 seconds late on something you said would take 2 weeks of solid work to do.
You have never been so accurate in anything and have no idea what the numbers you are throwing around actually mean.
Trolling Trolling Trolling, keep those doggies Trolling
Hello Dont Be a Flea,
I see you didn't take my advice to be more thoughtful in your posting.
I am simply saying that this so called “science” is not so sacred.
In other words you cannot form any logical reason why the bits and pieces you've thrown together here have absolutely no impact on whether evolution is valid or not.
Not a good way to “prove” a theory.
Nor have you learned that no theories are "proven" - ever - in any science - so your objection here is pointless and ignorant.
Then why did it take over 100 years to correct Ernst and over 40 years to remove Piltdown man?
Irrelevant to the point that science, including evolution, discards falsified concepts.
Ah, but we are not discussing Biblical stories on this thread .
That doesn't answer the question of how you can be skeptical of one thing but not something else -- unless you are not really skeptical, but deluded into thinking you can 'cherry-pick' reality:
The question was how YOU test for the truth of concepts. So far I see no evidence that this is done.
Testing for the truth?? Scientist rushed out to find the missing link and wanted it so bad, they lied about things.
Yet you don't want to talk about creationist lies, forgeries and frauds. Especially those that are still posted on creationist websites in spite of being falsified for years.
Evolution started off on the wrong foot! I think people wanted to believe it so badly, that they lost their objective.
And yet you have not established that this is the case in any way. All you've done is presented some well known events, events that don't affect evolution in any way, are not part of the mainstream science of evolution in any way, and which evolution is in no way dependent upon for validity -- hard for that to be a "wrong foot" isn't it?
That's like saying that christianity got off on the wrong foot because Thor doesn't really cause thunder - gosh, we've uncovered that fraud as well eh? Proving that some people can be dishonest does not make all people dishonest ... at least if YOU are being honest ...
My conclusion is that you don't really want to confront the evidence of the objective reality that surrounds you, but want to waste time on petty irrelevant issues. This is congruent with cognitive dissonance and delusion. Let me know when you want to deal with reality.
1. to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit:~Dictionary.com
Your definition is fine as far as it goes, but that is not necessarily the way scientists use assumptions.
The following definition is more nearly correct:
Assumption: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn
See the difference?
Those conclusions are tested, and the accuracy of the assumption is assessed based on the results of those tests.
An example: we assume the rate of beta decay is constant. Test a few thousand times and see what results you get. Same answer every time? Test it under wildly varying conditions. Only slight changes under extreme conditions never found in nature? Looks like that assumption is valid. You certainly would be a fool to bet the rent money against it.
Compare this with the assumptions made by creationists concerning, say the "global" flood, and note the differences.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2