Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 323 (524832)
09-19-2009 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


duplicate post
Edited by RAZD, : deleted

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM Archangel has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 64 of 323 (524833)
09-19-2009 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


What is fraud? Let's review the FACTS
Hi Archangel, still failing to use that skeptic approach to creationist sites eh?
What is overwhelming evidence of major frauds ...
Just so we are working with the same understanding, how do you define fraud and what makes a fraud into a "major fraud"?
In Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes I provided definitions of what constitutes a fraud and a hoax:
fraud -n1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
- a. One that defrauds; a cheat.
- b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2009)
hoax -n
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2009)
GROUND RULES:
  • it must meet the definitions given above
  • to be a "scientific hoax\fraud" it needs to be deliberately perpetuated by a scientist, preferably an evolutionary biological scientist (cold fusion does not qualify)
  • to be a "creationist hoax\fraud" it needs to be deliberately perpetuated by a creationist
Pretty simple criteria.
Would you agree that those definitions apply?
... which have contributed to the acceptance of this false science ...
Can you actually demonstrate that evolution is a "false science" or is this another attempt to defraud people into believing something that isn't true?
Evidence please.
... and even gave it legitimacy ...
I've seen your attempts to justify this with the scopes trial, however the problem you have is that evolution can still be true valid science in spite of having a history that could include hoaxes.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This is observed in the life around us today, in history, in prehistory, in the fossil record and in the genetic record.
Evolution has been observed, it is fact.
The Theory of Evolution is that this is sufficient to explain life as we know it from the life around us today, history, prehistory, the fossil record and the genetic record.
This still remains a valid theory, and the validity of the theory is independent of whether or not some individuals perpetuated a fraud or a hoax for personal gain.
This theory can still be tested against the facts, it can still make predictions and it can still be studied in the field and in the lab with experiments.
This is true no matter whether or not frauds and hoaxes were involved at specific points.
Frauds and hoaxes are weeded out by the scientific process, they are invalidated by science, and then they are discarded, and either ignored or used as examples of frauds and hoaxes.
It is these facts of the science that give it legitimacy.
... where none was deserved ...
You have not demonstrated this, it is just another of your continued assertions of opinion not based on fact. Is this another attempt on your part to defraud people into believing something that isn't true?
Evidence please.
But here's where the true damage has been accomplished, and that is that by the time the frauds were discovered, and the retractions were quietly placed on back pages of scientific journals, compared to the fraudulent discoveries press releases which were widely disseminated, the damage was done since millions upon millions of people saw and heard about the fraudulent evidence on the evening news everywhere; where as around 12 layman saw the retractions on the back page of the scientific journal that common layman never read. Challenge me on this point and I will give details if you like of one "fraud" which established evolution as a valid science in the national psyche.
Again, your one instance so far is the scopes trial. Curiously the scopes trial is not a fraud. Can you show how this resulted in evolution being taught in schools? You do know the result of the trial don't you?
Or is the fact that evolution is taught in schools independent of the scopes trial, and is instead based on the fact that evolution is a valid science, done by the scientific method, with testing of the theory against the predictions?
If you can't establish that the scopes trial led to any increase in the teaching of evolution, then your claim falls flat.
Now let's look at your skeptical evaluation of the evidence for frauds perpetuated by science on the poor uneducated public in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain:
Piltdown man: ...
Predictable well known typical creationist pratt:
CC001: Piltdown Man
quote:
Claim CC001:
In 1912, Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward announced the discovery of a mandible and part of a skull from a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. The mandible was apelike except for humanlike wear on the teeth; the skull was like a modern human. These bones became the basis for Eoanthropus dawsoni, commonly known as Piltdown Man, interpreted as a 500,000-year-old British ape-man. But in the early 1950s, it was found that the jawbone was stained and filed down to give its appearance and that the skull was a recent human fossil. In short, Piltdown Man was a fraud. British scientists believed it because they wanted to. The failure to expose it sooner shows that scientists tend to be guided by their preconceptions.
Source:
Gish, Duane T., 1985. Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, pp. 188-190.
Response:
1. Piltdown man was exposed by scientists. The fact that it took forty years is certainly no shining example of science in action, but it does show that science corrects errors.
Preconceptions are an unavoidable problem in just about any investigation, but they are less so in science because first, different scientists often have different preconceptions, and second, the physical evidence must always be accounted for. Many scientists from America and Europe did not accept Piltdown Man uncritically, and the hoax unraveled when the fossils could not be reconciled with other hominid fossil finds.
2. One hoax cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues.
So we see that this hoax was NOT perpetuated by scientists to promote evolution - your claim - but rather was perpetuated ON science and was eventually uncovered and discarded by scientists - evolutionary scientists - that proved it was false.
Nor was the Piltdown Man used to intentionally deceive the public about evolution, at best it was evidence that was tentatively accepted until proven false, at worst it was dismissed by skeptical scientists.
The creationist contention that the Piltdown Man was instrumental in any way to the theory of evolution is itself a hoax and a fraud, because this just is not so.
So much for your skepticism - this information is EASY to find, you just didn't do it because you failed to be skeptical about it.
Nebraska man:
Another predictable well known typical creationist pratt:
CC002: Nebraska Man
quote:
Claim CC002:
Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was described on the basis of a single tooth that turned out to come from a peccary. This tooth was used to construct an entire species, complete with illustrations of the primitive man and his family.
Source:
Gish, Duane T., 1985. Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, pp. 187-188.
Response:
1. The tooth was never held in high regard by scientists. Osborn, who described it, was unsure whether it came from a hominid or from another kind of ape, and others were skeptical that it even belonged to a primate. The illustration was done for a popular publication and was clearly labeled as highly imaginative.
Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.
So we see that this was NOT hoax at all, nor was it in any way perpetuated by scientists to promote evolution - your claim - but rather was blown out of proportion by the popular press, and was eventually re-evaluated and discarded by scientists - evolutionary scientists - that proved it was not related to primates.
Nor was the Nebraska Man used by scientists to intentionally deceive the public about evolution, at best it was evidence that was tentatively accepted until proven false, at worst it was dismissed by skeptical scientists.
The creationist contention that the Nebraska Man was instrumental in any way to the theory of evolution is itself a hoax and a fraud, because this just is not so.
Again, so much for your claim of skepticism - this information is EASY to find, you just didn't do it because you failed to be skeptical about it.
Orce man:
I had to look this one up, because I had never heard of it before, so it can't have been instrumental to deceiving the public about the reality of evolution. Not surprisingly what I found was that this is just another creationist pratt.
CC021: Orce Man
quote:
Claim CC021:
A skull fragment from the Andalusia region of Spain, originally hailed in 1983 as the oldest human fossil from Europe, was most likely a skull fragment from a four-month-old donkey.
Source:
Gish, Duane T., 1985. Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, p. 190.
Response:
1. There is not enough of the fossil to make its identity clear. It is still uncertain whether the fragment is hominid or equine. It is a misrepresentation to call it misidentified when there was never a consensus on its identification in the first place. If not for its importance as possibly the oldest European human, the fragment would receive little attention.
So we see that this was NOT hoax at all, nor was it in any way perpetuated by scientists to promote evolution - your claim - but rather that there just is not sufficient information to make a clear identification.
Nor has the Orce Man been used by scientists to intentionally deceive the public about evolution, at best it was evidence that was tentatively discussed, at worst it was dismissed by skeptical scientists.
The creationist contention that the Orce Man was instrumental in any way to the theory of evolution is itself a hoax and a fraud, because this just is not so.
Once again we see that your claimed skepticism was not employed in your judgment of this creationist claim - the information is EASY to find, you just didn't do it because you failed to be skeptical about it.
Java man:
This is not a fraud. This is not false. There is no deception here. There is some disagreement about all the original fossils being from the same species, to say nothing of them being from the same specimen, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that the skull and bones belong to a hominid.
Java Man - Wikipedia
quote:
Java Man is the name given to fossils discovered in 1891 at Trinil - Ngawi Regency on the banks of the Solo River in East Java, Indonesia, one of the first known specimens of Homo erectus. Its discoverer, Eugne Dubois, gave it the scientific name Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Dubois' find was not a complete specimen, but consisted of a skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth. There is some dissent as to whether all these bones represent the same species[1]. A second, more complete specimen was later discovered in the village of Sangiran, Central Java, 18 km to the north of Solo. This find, a skullcap of similar size to that found by Dubois, was discovered by Berlin-born paleontologist GHR von Koenigswald in 1936. Many more finds have subsequently been made at the Sangiran site [2][citation needed], although official reports remain critical of the site's "poor" presentation and interpretation [3].
Until older human remains were discovered in the Great Rift Valley in Kenya, Dubois' and Koenigswald's discoveries were the oldest hominid remains ever found. Some scientists of the day suggested[citation needed] Dubois' Java Man as a potential intermediate form between modern humans and the common ancestor we share with the other great apes. The current consensus of anthropologists is that the direct ancestors of modern humans were African populations of Homo erectus (possibly Homo ergaster), rather than the Asian populations exemplified by Java Man and Peking Man.
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote:
To understand what we mean today by "Homo erectus", some history of paleoanthropological thought is needed. The first early human fossil found outside of Europe was the Trinil 2 fossil skullcap from the Solo River in Java, pictured to the right. The fossil was placed in the species Pithecanthropus erectus by its discoverer Eugene Dubois. Almost 40 individuals have been recovered from Java to this day, roughly equivalent to the number of fossils found at the caves of Choukoutien in China. The Choukoutien fossils found were originally assigned the species name Sinanthropus pekinensis. It was not until the 1950's that Ernst Mayr proposed that all of the specimens from these two roughly contemporaneous locales, along with others localities from Europe and Africa, represented a single species, Homo erectus. Since the 1950's, however, the early African populations of what Mayr termed Homo erectus have once again been split into a separate species Homo ergaster.
Homo erectus exhibits many features particular to the species, including a long skull shaped with thick cranial walls. The back of the skull is marked with a protruberance known as a transverse torus. Over the eyes is a large and prominent browridge, or supraorbital torus, which joins the rest of the frontal bone at a depression called the sulcus. Cranial capacities of Homo erectus average around 1000cc, which is far greater than earlier australopiths and even early Homo. The dentition of Homo erectus is nearly identical to modern humans, although the cheek teeth do remain larger, and the mandible is generally more robust.
The species Homo erectus is thought to have diverged from Homo ergaster populations roughly 1.6 million years ago, and then spread into Asia. It was believed that Homo erectus disappeared as other populations of archaic Homo evolved roughly 400,000 years ago. Evidently, this is not the case. Recent studies into the complicated stratigraphy of the Java Homo erectus sites have revealed some surprising information. Researchers have dated the deposits thought to contain the fossils of H. erectus near the Solo River in Java to only 50,000 years ago. This would mean that at least one population of Homo erectus in Java was a contemporary of modern humans (Homo sapiens).
Far from being a hoax, the original Java Man fossil is the type fossil for this species of hominid.
So how is this a fraud or a hoax? At first it was tentatively accepted by some and not by others. More fossils - 40 different individuals from Java and more from other sites - have since been found that conform to it, they validate the find, and there is no deception here: the evidence is available for anyone to evaluate.
This is not a fraud, and the creationist claim that this is a fraud, is just another example of the intentional misinformation promoted by creationists to deceive you as well as the general public.
Your lack of skepticism of this creationist claim is appalling for someone who claims to be skeptical of anything but willing to review the evidence. It is typical of someone who uses confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance instead.
Neanderthal:
Again, this is not a fraud. This is not false. There is no deception here. There is even more evidence for Neanderthals than there is for Java Man.
Neanderthal - Wikipedia
quote:
The Neanderthal (pronounced /ni(ː)ˈndərtɑːl/, /ni(ː)ˈndərθɔːl/), or /neɪˈndərtɑːl/)[1], also spelled Neandertal[2], is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies of humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis).[3] The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000—350,000 years ago.[4] Proto-Neanderthal traits are occasionally grouped to another phenetic 'species', Homo heidelbergensis, or a migrant form, Homo rhodesiensis. By 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics had appeared. These characteristics then disappeared in Asia by 50,000 years ago and in Europe by 30,000 years ago.[5] The youngest Neanderthal finds include Hyaena Den (UK), considered older than 30,000 years ago, while the Vindija (Croatia) Neanderthals have been re-dated to between 32,000 and 33,000 years ago. No definite specimens younger than 30,000 years ago have been found; however, evidence of fire by Neanderthals at Gibraltar indicate that they may have survived there until 24,000 years ago. Modern human skeletal remains with 'Neanderthal traits' were found in Lagar Velho (Portugal), dated to 24,500 years ago and controversially interpreted as indications of extensively admixed populations.[6]
Neanderthal stone tools provide further evidence for their presence where skeletal remains have not been found. The last traces of Mousterian culture, a type of stone tools associated with Neanderthals, were found in Gorham's Cave on the remote south-facing coast of Gibraltar.[7] Other tool cultures sometimes associated with Neanderthal include Chtelperronian, Aurignacian, and Gravettian, with the latter extending to 22,000 years ago, the last indication of Neanderthal presence.
Neanderthal cranial capacity is often thought to have been as large or larger than modern humans, indicating that their brain size may have been the same or greater. In 2008, a group of scientists made a study using three-dimensional computer-assisted reconstructions of Neanderthal infants based on fossils found in Russia and Syria that shows that they had brains as large as ours at birth and larger than ours as adults.[8] On average, the height of Neanderthals was comparable to contemporaneous Homo sapiens. Neanderthal males stood about 165—168 cm (65—66 in) and were heavily built with robust bone structure. They were much stronger, having particularly strong arms and hands.[9] Females stood about 152—156 cm (60—61 in).[10] They were almost exclusively carnivorous[11] and apex predators.[12]
For some time, scientists debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Genetic statistical calculation (2006 results) suggests at least 5% of the modern human gene pool can be attributed to ancient admixture, with the European contribution being from the Neanderthal.[14] Some morphological studies support that Homo neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies.[15] Some suggest inherited admixture. Others, for example University of Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction"[16] and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens.[17] A controversial study of Homo sapiens mtDNA from Australia (Mungo Man 40ky) suggested that its lineage was not part of the recent human genomic pool and mtDNA sequences for temporally comparative African specimens are not yet available.
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote:
The discovery in 1856 of a skullcap and partial skeleton in a cave in the Neander valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, signaled the first recognized fossil human form. While it was later realized that several Neanderthal sites had previously been discovered, their remains were not recognized as those of an archaic form of human until the discovery of "Neanderthal Man." In 1864 a new species was recognized: Homo neanderthalensis.
Neanderthals inhabited Europe and western Asia during the latter part of the Pleistocene. The climate in these regions was much colder than it is today, and several glaciations, or Ice Ages, are known to have occurred during the time of Neanderthal occupation. Neanderthal localities are known today from Spain to Uzbekistan (near Afghanistan). Several important sites in the vicinity of Qafzeh Cave, Israel, suggest that Neanderthals arrived in the region after modern Homo sapiens. This would indicate that the population of modern humans in this area was not descended form Neanderthals, and that there was some period of coexistence, or an alternating series of migrations into this region by the two species. Neanderthals are known from Europe and western Asia from about 200,000 years to about 30,000 years ago, when they disappeared from the fossil record and were replaced in Europe by anatomically modern forms.
The original interpretation of Neanderthal anatomy was one of a primitive early human based on a flawed reconstruction of the nearly complete skeleton of an elderly Neanderthal male found at La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France (second photograph from the top). However, Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and 80's, although many authors today have returned to the previous two-species hypothesis. Either way, Neanderthals represent a very close evolutionary relative of modern humans.
Several features of the skeleton unique to Neanderthals appear to be related to cold climate adaptations. These features include limb-bone proportions and muscle attachments indicative of a broad, slightly short, and strong body; a large, rounded nasal opening; and a suite of anatomical traits of the skull (compare the crania of H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens).
In all, the fossil record for Neanderthals is significantly better than for earlier human species. One reason for this is that Neanderthal fossils are relatively young compared to other early human species, and fossils decay over time. But another very important factor is the purposeful burial of their dead. Many Neanderthal sites include the remains of individuals who were deliberately placed in graves dug into the earth. Some of these burials show evidence that may indicate that these graves were adorned with offerings (such as flowers). This cultural advance, which represents an awareness and recognition of life and death, may have first been practiced by the Neanderthals.
There is no intentional deception using false information here. The original reconstruction was perhaps unfortunate, but it was not an intentionally false portrayal, and the reconstructions have changed as more information has become available. THIS IS HOW REAL SCIENCE WORKS.
Once again, you have failed to provide an example of a fraud intentionally used by scientists to deceive the public into believing in evolution - your claim - and curiously, all you have shown is continued creationist falsehoods, misrepresentations, and deceptions -- creationist fraud.
(source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
Way to keep current with scientific findings Archangel. Why do creationists need to use outdated and superseded information, while ignoring modern information, if not to intentionally deceive you and the common public? Can you answer that?
Instead of Neanderthal being a fraud we see - again - that the creationist claim that there is a fraud here is another creationist fraud.
Demonstrated to be yet another creationist fraud site, thank you for pointing it out and letting me add another creationist hoax to the much longer list of ON-GOING creationist hoaxes on Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes .
You claim to be a skeptic?
Skepticism - Wikipedia
quote:
False claims of skepticism
Advocates of discredited intellectual positions such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial will sometimes seek to characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief.[6] According to Richard Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008), the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".
One can also add Young Earth Creationism to the list of discredited intellectual positions.
If you want to see a fraud intentionally made to deceive the public, deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain, then I suggest you look at:
2800 Bullittsburg Church Rd.
Petersburg, KY 41080
(I think there may be a missing "sh" there ... but that may just be my impression)
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : concision
Edited by RAZD, : no smilies

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM Archangel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-19-2009 12:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 71 of 323 (524870)
09-19-2009 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Lithodid-Man
09-19-2009 5:10 PM


Re: Neanderthals are apes?
Hi Lithodid-Man, it's worse than that ...
Wow arch, wow. Okay, I was just pointing out to you that neanderthals are pretty much human. That is a fact whether or not you can see it. You are the only creationist I have encountered who thinks otherwise. This issue is not about anyone forcing you to explain your worldview through our interpretation.
His position that neanders are not human is contradicted by his own pasted information:
quote:
Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us,
So if it was a fraud to show neanders as not being quite human, then how does this fit with the position that neanders are not human at all?
Cognitive dissonance anyone?
Enjoy
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box (/qs into /quote).

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-19-2009 5:10 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 88 of 323 (524919)
09-20-2009 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Archangel
09-20-2009 7:02 AM


falsehoods, denial and delusions
HI Archangel, still having trouble with common sense, rationality and logic I see.
Really AA? You can read my opening post HERE: EvC Forum: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: - which was quoted as evidence of evolutions frauds, not in agreement with evolution as my argument in that post makes painfully clear. Then you can accept Huntards accusation of my alleged lying, and your own observation that I am promoting falsehoods, then write your post as evidence that you take the truth very seriously? If you are so unable to recognize that I posted that link as evidence against evolutions validity, and the link itself is written to oppose evolutions veracity, then we are from completely different levels of rationale if you will condemn me as dishonest for posting links which defend my position that evolution falsely characterizes Neanderthal as having modern human traits.
The question is why you posted something - copied and pasted not just a link - that you think is false? If it is false, then it is not evidence of truth, no matter what it says, and presenting it as a true argument is false.
What is painfully clear is that you cannot honestly debate your own position, because you intentionally used information you yourself thought was false.
What is painfully clear is that you have dismissed, waved away and denied, mountains of evidence for evolution, made weak claims that creationist have different interpretations, and then failed to show how those different interpretations explain all the actual evidence.
What is painfully clear is that you are now denying the different interpretations from creationists as being valid. Now we can go to all the main creationist sites and document where they talk about neanderthals being human, and compile a list of creationist sites that you are also in denial of.
Curiously that leaves you with no argument other that your personal belief/s.
delusion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
  1. ... a. The act or process of deluding.
    ... b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance are not the tools of an open-mind or honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion.
I see no point in discussing anything with a person who cannot honestly debate their own position.
You have fallen to a level of dishonesty that is not worth replying to, as we cannot tell now when you post something you believe or something else.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Archangel, posted 09-20-2009 7:02 AM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Archangel, posted 09-20-2009 8:59 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 96 of 323 (524935)
09-20-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Archangel
09-20-2009 8:59 AM


Re: falsehoods, denial and delusions
Hi Archangel, it is simple logic.
It was posted as evidence of evolutionists truth RAZD, and in opposition to that perceived truth. How can you people not comprehend that?
It is quite simple Archangel:
(1) Because even that quisling weasel argument fails. The original neanderthal representations are not a fraud - remember what I said in Message 64 about the definition of fraud?
quote:
In Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes I provided definitions of what constitutes a fraud and a hoax:
fraud -n1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
- a. One that defrauds; a cheat.
- b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2009)
hoax -n
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2009)
GROUND RULES:
  • it must meet the definitions given above
  • to be a "scientific hoax\fraud" it needs to be deliberately perpetuated by a scientist, preferably an evolutionary biological scientist (cold fusion does not qualify)
  • to be a "creationist hoax\fraud" it needs to be deliberately perpetuated by a creationist
Pretty simple criteria.
Would you agree that those definitions apply?
To be a fraud it must be an intentional deception for a purpose - what you see instead is increased understanding as more information becomes available, refining the original picture with new details not known before, again as noted in Message 64:
quote:
Neanderthal:
Again, this is not a fraud. This is not false. There is no deception here. There is even more evidence for Neanderthals than there is for Java Man.
Neanderthal - Wikipedia
quote:
The Neanderthal (pronounced /ni(ː)ˈndərtɑːl/, /ni(ː)ˈndərθɔːl/), or /neɪˈndərtɑːl/)[1], also spelled Neandertal[2], is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies of humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis).[3] The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000—350,000 years ago.[4] Proto-Neanderthal traits are occasionally grouped to another phenetic 'species', Homo heidelbergensis, or a migrant form, Homo rhodesiensis. By 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics had appeared. These characteristics then disappeared in Asia by 50,000 years ago and in Europe by 30,000 years ago.[5] The youngest Neanderthal finds include Hyaena Den (UK), considered older than 30,000 years ago, while the Vindija (Croatia) Neanderthals have been re-dated to between 32,000 and 33,000 years ago. No definite specimens younger than 30,000 years ago have been found; however, evidence of fire by Neanderthals at Gibraltar indicate that they may have survived there until 24,000 years ago. Modern human skeletal remains with 'Neanderthal traits' were found in Lagar Velho (Portugal), dated to 24,500 years ago and controversially interpreted as indications of extensively admixed populations.[6]
Neanderthal stone tools provide further evidence for their presence where skeletal remains have not been found. The last traces of Mousterian culture, a type of stone tools associated with Neanderthals, were found in Gorham's Cave on the remote south-facing coast of Gibraltar.[7] Other tool cultures sometimes associated with Neanderthal include Chtelperronian, Aurignacian, and Gravettian, with the latter extending to 22,000 years ago, the last indication of Neanderthal presence.
Neanderthal cranial capacity is often thought to have been as large or larger than modern humans, indicating that their brain size may have been the same or greater. In 2008, a group of scientists made a study using three-dimensional computer-assisted reconstructions of Neanderthal infants based on fossils found in Russia and Syria that shows that they had brains as large as ours at birth and larger than ours as adults.[8] On average, the height of Neanderthals was comparable to contemporaneous Homo sapiens. Neanderthal males stood about 165—168 cm (65—66 in) and were heavily built with robust bone structure. They were much stronger, having particularly strong arms and hands.[9] Females stood about 152—156 cm (60—61 in).[10] They were almost exclusively carnivorous[11] and apex predators.[12]
For some time, scientists debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Genetic statistical calculation (2006 results) suggests at least 5% of the modern human gene pool can be attributed to ancient admixture, with the European contribution being from the Neanderthal.[14] Some morphological studies support that Homo neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies.[15] Some suggest inherited admixture. Others, for example University of Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction"[16] and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens.[17] A controversial study of Homo sapiens mtDNA from Australia (Mungo Man 40ky) suggested that its lineage was not part of the recent human genomic pool and mtDNA sequences for temporally comparative African specimens are not yet available.
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote:
The discovery in 1856 of a skullcap and partial skeleton in a cave in the Neander valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, signaled the first recognized fossil human form. While it was later realized that several Neanderthal sites had previously been discovered, their remains were not recognized as those of an archaic form of human until the discovery of "Neanderthal Man." In 1864 a new species was recognized: Homo neanderthalensis.
Neanderthals inhabited Europe and western Asia during the latter part of the Pleistocene. The climate in these regions was much colder than it is today, and several glaciations, or Ice Ages, are known to have occurred during the time of Neanderthal occupation. Neanderthal localities are known today from Spain to Uzbekistan (near Afghanistan). Several important sites in the vicinity of Qafzeh Cave, Israel, suggest that Neanderthals arrived in the region after modern Homo sapiens. This would indicate that the population of modern humans in this area was not descended form Neanderthals, and that there was some period of coexistence, or an alternating series of migrations into this region by the two species. Neanderthals are known from Europe and western Asia from about 200,000 years to about 30,000 years ago, when they disappeared from the fossil record and were replaced in Europe by anatomically modern forms.
The original interpretation of Neanderthal anatomy was one of a primitive early human based on a flawed reconstruction of the nearly complete skeleton of an elderly Neanderthal male found at La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France (second photograph from the top). However, Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and 80's, although many authors today have returned to the previous two-species hypothesis. Either way, Neanderthals represent a very close evolutionary relative of modern humans.
Several features of the skeleton unique to Neanderthals appear to be related to cold climate adaptations. These features include limb-bone proportions and muscle attachments indicative of a broad, slightly short, and strong body; a large, rounded nasal opening; and a suite of anatomical traits of the skull (compare the crania of H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens).
In all, the fossil record for Neanderthals is significantly better than for earlier human species. One reason for this is that Neanderthal fossils are relatively young compared to other early human species, and fossils decay over time. But another very important factor is the purposeful burial of their dead. Many Neanderthal sites include the remains of individuals who were deliberately placed in graves dug into the earth. Some of these burials show evidence that may indicate that these graves were adorned with offerings (such as flowers). This cultural advance, which represents an awareness and recognition of life and death, may have first been practiced by the Neanderthals.
There is no intentional deception using false information here. The original reconstruction was perhaps unfortunate, but it was not an intentionally false portrayal, and the reconstructions have changed as more information has become available. THIS IS HOW REAL SCIENCE WORKS.
Once again, you have failed to provide an example of a fraud intentionally used by scientists to deceive the public into believing in evolution - your claim - and curiously, all you have shown is continued creationist falsehoods, misrepresentations, and deceptions -- creationist fraud.
(source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
Way to keep current with scientific findings Archangel. Why do creationists need to use outdated and superseded information, while ignoring modern information, if not to intentionally deceive you and the common public? Can you answer that?
Instead of Neanderthal being a fraud we see - again - that the creationist claim that there is a fraud here is another creationist fraud.
(Curiously you have not replied to this message which answers each of your purported frauds and debunked them with the facts.)
Instead of exposing evolutionary lies, your website is a fraud, a hoax, trying to deceive people about the facts.
(2) Because you are still using something you don't believe to try to discredit evolution. This means that any argument you make is of questionable value at best, because you have demonstrated a willingness to use information you think is false.
Is it a valid argument, if I try to tell you that the bible is false because website X says it was written by monkeys, even though I don't believe that it was written by monkey? Of course not.
You don't like evolution? Tough. You want to debunk it? Then use facts, don't hide behind information from others that you don't even believe, as that is dishonest.
(3) Because we can agree with you that the information on the website is invalid - you disagree with it and we disagree with it - so we can discard it. The problem then is that you are left with no support for your argument.
First post the lie the other guy is promoting and then explain why it's a lie. That is what I did, ...
No, that is NOT what you have done. You may think that you posted "the lie" but each one of these examples falls flat from what you have claimed, and you have absolutely and completely FAILED to then explain why it's a lie. All you have done is (mis)use the website.
Curiously you have spent more time saying that what is on that website is a lie according to your belief than in dealing with evolution and the evidence that the website itself is a fraud.
... and if it is beyond you to comprehend that, then I'm sorry for you.
Curiously, I am not the one using false information from websites that I don't believe, I am not the one in massive denial of the plentiful and readily available evidence of reality, and I am not the one claiming that the whole world, if not the universe, is a lie because of my beliefs.
Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance are not the tools of an open-mind or honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added
Edited by RAZD, : no smilies

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Archangel, posted 09-20-2009 8:59 AM Archangel has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 323 (525128)
09-21-2009 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Archangel
09-21-2009 7:58 AM


False standards and Poor analogies
Hi Archangel, trying to play the "big victim" card I see.
Real science which is founded upon a foundation of proven and tested conclusions builds upon that foundation with new technologies, applications and innovations based on new insights which are applied to it. But the foundation upon which the science rests remains unchanged and consistent as it was originally defined and proven to function in the real world.
No, science is a series of approximations of truth, based on what is currently known, making prediction, testing those predictions and then repeating the process with new information derived from the tests.
This is how medicine works, this is how physics works, this is how chemistry works, this is how astronomy works, this is how biology works.
You have completely ignored the examples I gave about the many natural toxins in nature which animals use for self defense, and are currently used in medicine. And I mean Blow Fish toxin, Sea Urchin Toxin and Jelly Fish Toxins for example. They are broken down to their molecular level, chemically separated, refined and tested in combinations to determine which properties have value in various applications as general medicines, vaccines, anti-virals and pain controllers.
Curiously, many modern medicines are based on knowledge from evolutionary biology that predicts cures.
Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs.
Can you provide a single example of such total revamping?
Darwin stated that evolution was descent with modification through natural selection of hereditary traits in populations where those traits provided an advantage for the individual to survive or reproduce.
Can you honestly show that evolution today is different from that founding principle?
Many aspects of how evolution accomplishes this have been uncovered since Darwin's time, including how DNA is the bearer of the hereditary traits during reproduction, but the basic principle remains the same: evolution is still the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation and what we see are added mechanisms, like genetic drift and the founder principle, in addition to validating the process of natural and sexual selection.
Adding to a theory is not a total revamping.
You people are so dishonest that you will call the science which led to these computers we are all using, engineering rather than the pure science they represent. You either forget or just are in denial to the fact that only around 6 or 7 decades ago computer science was completely theoretical.
Engineering generally (good engineering anyway) uses the same principles as science, because those principles work. Many many times engineers will make theoretical approximations of solutions to problems, and then test and refine their models to come closer and closer to an ultimate solution until the point is reached where it is good enough for practical purposes.
Engineers can do this without any knowledge of how a system works through the use of empirical formulations, developing equations from the parametric analysis of existing data and then using those equations to make the next approximations for the next round.
The point of engineering though, is not to understand HOW things work, but to figure out practical solutions to problems, to get close enough, by whatever method is most time and cost effective.
Furthermore, engineers will use approximations that are easy to calculate instead of actual equations of how things really work that are cumbersome and time consuming to calculate. This is why the moon shots, and the robot expeditions to mars used Newton's law of gravity rather than relativity.
In fact, IC engines are the standards ...
Which is why the engine power is measured in Horsepower?
Have you ever heard an auto manufacturer claim that the engines they put in their cars last year were a mistake which new technology proves never should have been offered in the first place?
Yes, they are called "recalls", sometimes they affect minor systems within the vehicle, sometimes the whole vehicle is replaced.
In addition to these problems, you all seem oblivious to the fact that in just determining the age of the earth come numerous theoretical applications which are all determined by our very limited ability to interpret them, and that how one theory affects, or is affected by another is well beyond our ability to judge at this time.
So let's start with a simple and easy to verify measurement first ... and see how we can develop further measurements with a minimum of "theoretical applications" by validating it with other methods.
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Let's explore how limited we are in being able to interpret the information available.
You people will consider we christians to be backward thinking believers in myths, when it is you who are steeped in believing in magical processes which you couldn't prove are real or accurately applied if your life depended on it. ... And you will insist that I am the ignorant one who clings to fairy tales.
Oh boo-hoo.
Just think, you are proposing that around 3.5 billion years ago, life spontaneously appeared on earth from non-life.
Actually, what we know is that some 4.0 billion years ago there was no life on this plant, but that by 3.5 billion years ago life not only had already begun, but that it was fully developed cellular life.
The earliest fossils that show life show life already developed, rock before that are not fossil bearing types of rock.
Now as science is an approximate understanding of reality, honed and refined by repeated testing, we can say that life certainly began somewhere between 3.5 billion years ago and 4.0 billion years ago.
How it began is not recorded in the fossil record, so we have no evidence on which to base even uncertain knowledge of how it began.
That uncertainty does not apply to life existing 3.5 billion years ago, and to the (constant) evolution of life from that point to the present.
Curiously, it just does not matter HOW life began, only that it DID begin, for evolution to explain the diversity of life that we now see in the world today.
Get a clue guys and then come back when you want to seriously discuss the problems with evolution and the fact that it is only by promoting frauds that this scam is called a science at all.
So far you have totally failed to present a single problem with evolution. You proposed a thread based on purported frauds committed by science to further public awareness of evolution, and what you end up with instead is an example of a creationist website that lies about evolution.
If your position is really based on truth then why do you need to use falsehoods to support it? If evolution is really based on lies, then why do you need to use creationist lies when you should have REAMS of data of the real enchilada.
Why can't you show how foraminifera are deposited in organized and sorted layers?
Why can't you back up your position with evidence?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : replaced chopped paragraph
Edited by RAZD, : t

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 7:58 AM Archangel has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 154 of 323 (525303)
09-22-2009 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Archangel
09-22-2009 8:38 PM


Re: define reprobate, then think introspectively
Hi Archangel,
More judgmental criticisms and drivel from the peanut gallery as he offers no evidence at all to the debate. If incessant insistence that you are right was worth anything, you would have won this debate long ago. But alas, all we have is empty lip service...
ROFLOL. The irony is killing me.
Curiously, you have failed to answer:
Message 64 which deconstructs your opening post with factual evidence, showing that your website was an example of creationist fraud rather than documenting any fraud by evolutionary scientists.
Message 96 which deals with your continued failure to acknowledge that this website does not support your thesis because it is false. Rather than demonstrate that evolutionary scientists have committed frauds and hoaxes, you have demonstrated that creationist websites post false information. You can't use a falsehood to prove a truth.
Message 124 which deals with your false analogy of science and engineering, and your false assertions of how good science is done.
These are just the posts on this one thread where you have posted judgmental criticisms and drivel instead of replies, and offer no evidence at all to back up you position once refuted.
I can document more, but you are not interested in reality, as you have ignored all evidence contrary to your pet beliefs. Your absolute failure to deal with foraminifera or age correlations show you are not interested in understanding reality.
If incessant insistence that you are right was worth anything, you would have won this debate long ago. But alas, all we have is empty lip service...
Indeed, and that is why I find it worthless to read your posts or debate with you further. There is no value added.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 8:38 PM Archangel has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 205 of 323 (525572)
09-23-2009 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Archangel
09-23-2009 9:27 AM


Harun Yahya??? More PRATTs???
Hi Archangel, is see you are still making mistakes in sources your THINK are credible because they conform to your beliefs, with no validation to see if they conform to reality.
The truth was very different, however. Since 1938, more than 200 present-day C—lacanths have been caught, after that first one off South Africa. The second came from the Comoro Islands off north-west Madagascar in 1952, and a third in Indonesian Sulawesi in 1998. The evolutionist paleontologist J. L. B. Smith was unable to conceal his amazement at the capture of the first C—lacanth, saying, "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished."20
The tail of the living C—lacanth and that of a 140-million-year-old fossil specimen are identical to one another.
So, is the fossil specimen actually 140 million years old as claimed by evolutionists for so long? You still believe it is, don't you? You will never consider that, well, since we were wrong about it being an extinct transitional fish for so long, maybe our science is also wrong about its dating practices and methods. Here's another example of a living fossil which defies logic since it allegedly survived 50 million years and still has soft tissue attached to it..
They are NOT identical, look at the picture again: the rays on the tails are shorter on the modern fish than on the ancient one, and the central spine (notochord) extends beyond the tail rays in the modern fish, but blends in with the rays in the fossil. You have also excluded scale from the information provided - modern fish are around 4 times bigger than the ancient fossils. What you have are homologous structures that are due to common ancestry.
Curiously this is exactly what evolution predicts you will find between ancestral species and modern species: homologous features that show change over time.
Fascinatingly, evolutionists are not astonished to find modern species of ancient orders of animals living today. We have sharks, crocodiles and alligators that also trace ancestral lines to the times of early dinosaurs.
Shark - Wikipedia
quote:
Evidence for the existence of sharks extends back over 450—420 million years, into the Ordovician period, before land vertebrates existed and before many plants had colonized the continents.[1] Only scales have been recovered from the first sharks and not all paleontologists agree that these are from true sharks.[52] The oldest generally accepted shark scales are from about 420 million years ago, in the Silurian period.[52] The first sharks looked very different from modern sharks.[53] The majority of modern sharks can be traced back to around 100 million years ago.[54]
Crocodile - Wikipedia (and alligators)
quote:
A crocodile is any species belonging to the family Crocodylidae (sometimes classified instead as the subfamily Crocodylinae). The term can also be used more loosely to include all members of the order Crocodilia: i.e. the true crocodiles, the alligators and caimans (family Alligatoridae) and the gharials (family Gavialidae), or even the Crocodylomorpha which includes prehistoric crocodile relatives and ancestors. Crocodiles are large aquatic reptiles that live throughout the tropics in Africa, Asia, the Americas and Australia. Crocodiles tend to congregate in freshwater habitats like rivers, lakes, wetlands and sometimes in brackish water. They feed mostly on vertebrates like fish, reptiles, and mammals, sometimes on invertebrates like mollusks and crustaceans, depending on species. They are an ancient lineage, and are believed to have changed little since the time of the dinosaurs. They are believed to be 200 million years old whereas dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago; crocodiles survived great extinction events.[1]
So having living members of old lineages is absolutely no problem for evolution and science. The only thing different about Coelacanths is that they were absent from intermediate fossil deposits, and what this shows, curiously, is that the absence of fossils can occur for long periods of time but still not interfere with the process of evolution: missing links in the fossil record are of shorter duration than the absence of coelacanth evidence between the fossil record and the present.
http://www.dinofish.com/
quote:
DINOFISH.COM - Weird Bodies Frozen in Time
Classification
The living coelacanths, Latimeria chalumnae,and Latimeria menadoensis are possibly the sole remaining representatives of a once widespread family of Sarcopterygian (fleshy-finned) coelacanth fishes (more than 120 species are known from fossils)all but one of which disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago. The classification of coelacanths is a murky business with more than one vairation in the class category, but we'll give it a shot. Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Pices (fishes), Sub class: Gnathostomata- jawed fishes, Sub class: Teleostei- bony fishes (though cartilaginous, coelacanths are usually classed with the teleosts), Sub class: Sarcopterygii (lobed-finned fishes), Order: Crossopterygii, Family: Actinistia (coelacanths), Gennus: Latimeria, Species: chalumnae and menadoensis.
The coelacanth appears to be a cousin of Eusthenopteron, the fish once credited with growing legs and coming ashore-360 million years ago. Today, scientists prefer to cite the tongue-twisting fossil candidates: icthyostega, panderichthys, acanthotega, and the newly discovered Tiktaalik roseae (2004), as the ancestor(s) of all tetrapods-amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, including ourselves.
Fossils of ancient coelacanths have been found on every continent except Antarctica. They were first identified from an English fossil by naturalist Louis Agassiz in 1839. (Ironically, Agassiz became a firm opponent of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution!) 250 million years ago there were as many as 30 species living at the same time, about a third of them in fresh water. With a couple of exceptions ancient coelacanths were small, seldom exceeding 55 cm.
Today's coelacanths can reach almost six feet (2 meters) in length and weigh up to 150 or more lbs,(the giant Mozambique female shown on this site was 180 centimeters long and 95kg) but they are usually somewhat smaller, particularly the males, which average under 165cm.
http://www.dinofish.com/famtree.html
The current family tree for coelacanths accepted by most scientists. Earlier trees had placed coelacanths closer to land vertebrates than lungfishes or, conversely, had placed them closer to sharks and rays.
Coelacanth - Wikipedia
quote:
Coelacanth (pronounced /ˈsiːləknθ/, adaptation of Modern Latin C—lacanthus: c—l-us + acanth-us from Greek κοῖλ-ος [hollow] + ἄκανθ-α [spine]) is the common name for an order of fish that includes the oldest living lineage of gnathostomata known to date. The coelacanths, which are related to lungfishes and tetrapods, were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period, until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River in 1938. They are, therefore, a Lazarus taxon. Since 1938, Latimeria chalumnae have been found in the Comoros, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Madagascar, and in iSimangaliso Wetland Park, Kwazulu-Natal in South Africa. The second extant species, L. menadoensis, was described from Sulawesi, Indonesia in 1999 by Pouyaud et al.[1] based on a specimen discovered by Erdmann in 1998[2] and deposited in Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).
Kingdom: 	Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Sarcopterygii
Subclass: Actinistia
Infraclass: Coelacanthimorpha
Order: Coelacanthiformes
They first appeared in the fossil record in the Middle Devonian.[4] Prehistoric species of coelacanth lived in many bodies of water in Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic times.
Coelacanths are lobe-finned fish with the pectoral and anal fins on fleshy stalks supported by bones, and the tail or caudal fin diphycercal (divided into three lobes), the middle one of which also includes a continuation of the notochord. Coelacanths have modified cosmoid scales, which are thinner than true cosmoid scales.
Here's a picture of a modern coelacanth from wikipedia:
And when you compare that picture of an entire fossil coelacanth to the modern coelacanth you can see that they are NOT identical.
Here's another example of a living fossil which defies logic since it allegedly survived 50 million years and still has soft tissue attached to it..
This 50-Million-Year-Old Fossil Fish, Genus Priscacara, Dating Back To The Eocene Epoch, Was Also Discovered At Green River In Wyoming, Where Some Of The World’s Best-Known Fossil Discoveries Have Been Made. As With This Fish, Other Fossils Discovered In This Region Have Preserved A Large Portion Of Their Soft Tissues.
Curiously, the fact that there are soft tissues found in fossils only 50 million years old is of no big concern, all that needs to happen is burial under anaerobic conditions. We see this with many fossils, including ones that pre-date the Cambrian era.
This picture is what caught my eye - because of the HY imposed on it.
Do you realize that the original source for this picture is Harun Yahya, and that he is a convicted pedophile and extortionist, a muslim (which you have problems with on another post), and he has been known - documented - to post fake pictures on his website?
http://www.harunyahya.com/
Adnan Oktar - Wikipedia
Adnan Oktar - Wikipedia
The Fishing Lures of Faith
quote:
Volume 1 contains the example of the Caddis Fly. The illustration in the book shows the modern-day fly in the foreground. Circled in red in the background is the fossil analogue, preserved in amber. (No, they don't look similar to me either).
But look again at the modern fly. Skeptics noticed it had a steel hook coming out the bottom of it. In fact, it's not a Caddis fly at all. It's a fishing lure created by Graham Owen. Harun Yahya lifted the image (right) from Owen's site, apparently not realizing it wasn't a living creature, and pasted it into his book. Other fishing lures by Owen are scattered throughout the Atlas of Creation.
This is another example of you posting information that you think (a) is valid (presents true information) and (b) strikes against evolution, and it fails on both counts.
Why do creationists need to use lies and frauds to support creationism? Why aren't the lies and frauds removed from creationist sites when they are pointed out? Why don't creationists use some mechanism for determining the truth of what is on creationist sites before posting false information? Why isn't there an ongoing effort to remove false and misleading information from creationist websites?
Why is it so easy for evolutionists to find and post factual evidence to support evolution if it is a false science?
Not to mention of course the incredible denial of reality which considers that such a thing is possible based on real time observations of how quickly a body decomposes in the real word.
And yet, amusingly, we can also post information about naturally formed mummies from peat bogs in europe and from deserts in Egypt, and Ozi the iceman: mummies that were formed naturally and which are clearly well beyond the time normal for decomposition of bodies. Curiously they also tend to show the same collapsed tissues you see in fossils where soft tissue is preserved. This collapse is due to loss of liquids from the tissue, desication that preserves the soft tissue.
You will never consider that, well, since we were wrong about it being an extinct transitional fish for so long, maybe our science is also wrong about its dating practices and methods.
Interestingly, being wrong about a cryptozooic species has absolutely no bearing on the methods used for dating. If you REALLY want to discuss the problems with dating you need to pay a visit to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
Without addressing the actual evidence of age dating methods and the many ways they are validated by actual scientific testing, then all you are doing is posting an ill-informed opinion based on a lack of information.
I'm betting I can add this to the list of posts that you either (a) ignore or (b) brush off with some snide comment, as can be predicted from your past behavior as documented on Message 154:
quote:
More judgmental criticisms and drivel from the peanut gallery as he offers no evidence at all to the debate. If incessant insistence that you are right was worth anything, you would have won this debate long ago. But alas, all we have is empty lip service...
ROFLOL. The irony is killing me.
Curiously, you have failed to answer:
Message 64 which deconstructs your opening post with factual evidence, showing that your website was an example of creationist fraud rather than documenting any fraud by evolutionary scientists.
Message 96 which deals with your continued failure to acknowledge that this website does not support your thesis because it is false. Rather than demonstrate that evolutionary scientists have committed frauds and hoaxes, you have demonstrated that creationist websites post false information. You can't use a falsehood to prove a truth.
Message 124 which deals with your false analogy of science and engineering, and your false assertions of how good science is done.
These are just the posts on this one thread where you have posted judgmental criticisms and drivel instead of replies, and offer no evidence at all to back up you position once refuted.
Of course you could prove me wrong and actually take up the challenge of defending your position against the contradicting evidence.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 9:27 AM Archangel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2009 9:46 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 254 of 323 (525896)
09-25-2009 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Adminnemooseus
09-25-2009 1:08 AM


Summary Reference
If it's closing time, I would like to reference Message 64 which answers all the false assertions of the website that Archangel copied and pastes, and which Archangel has not responded to.
This post falsifies his position, but he has not seen fit to even try to rebut the evidence that I've presented, content instead to deny that it is evidence and snipe from the sidelines.
This is sufficient to show that he has no argument AND no rebuttal.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-25-2009 1:08 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:32 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 271 of 323 (526067)
09-25-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Archangel
09-25-2009 9:32 AM


Another failure by Archangel
Hi Archangel, let me see if I can help you understand your problem.
But I have already said ad infinitum that I don't reject the observable evidence, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT.
The problem is that you don't offer any alternative interpretation that works, that explains all the evidence to the same degree of completeness or more than the current scientific one.
If you can't do this THEN YOU DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION: YOU HAVE A FAILED EXPLANATION.
The fact that you absolutely FAIL to provide an interpretation that explains, for instance the sorted and ordered structure of foraminifera deposits, leaves you with simply saying that you don't believe that the layers are sorted and ordered, which IS denial, and when you then FAIL to answer when provided with evidence that this is the case, THEN the only thing apparent from your position LEFT is your denial.
References from The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
Message 185
Message 187 (the denial)
Message 217 (no answer)
I have provided evidence contrary to your assertions on several occasions, and in each case you have FAILED to provide any kind of alternative interpretation that explains all the observed evidence.
(hidden portion) Here you also prove my point by posting the photo evidence of Java Man so proudly, as if a skull cap 2 femurs and a tooth is evidence of anything at all that would add up to a life size figure of a primitive man.
Which is denial of the evidence, because this ignores the fact that these fragments match and correlate with many other fossils from the same location found later, AND from similar fossils found in other sites, AS I NOTED IN Message 64:
quote:
So how is this a fraud or a hoax? At first it was tentatively accepted by some and not by others. More fossils - 40 different individuals from Java and more from other sites - have since been found that conform to it, they validate the find, and there is no deception here: the evidence is available for anyone to evaluate.
So, no, it is NOT just a skull fragment, 2 femurs and a tooth that add up to the evidence of Java Man as a type specimen for a hominid in the family tree, it is the correlation of these fossils with the rest of the Homo erectus, the part of my post that you ignored and FAILED to refute. Once again this leaves you with the apparent position of denying the evidence of the fossils, not in denying the interpretation of them OR providing an alternative explanation.
But I have already said ad infinitum that I don't reject the observable evidence, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT.
You also absolutely FAIL to demonstrate how the scientific interpretation is poorly constructed or improperly arrived at, thus you don't challenge the interpretation, you don't provide an alternative, and you deny evidence that is contrary to your assertions.
But I have already said ad infinitum that I don't reject the observable evidence, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT.
Curiously, the points I made in Message 64 still stand, uncontested by any counter argument or by counter evidence or by an "alternative" interpretation that explains the evidence.
Thanks for validating Message 254.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:32 AM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 8:32 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 288 of 323 (526143)
09-26-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Archangel
09-25-2009 8:32 PM


Re: Another failure by RAZD
I've requested that attention be focused on whether Orce man is a fraud, and I'll be hiding all significant content on this and subsequent pages that doesn't deal with that topic. When discussion about Orce man completes we will move on to the Coelacanth. --Admin
Hi Archangel,
If you use [thumb=300]http:⁄⁄upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Pithecanthropus-erectus.jpg[/thumb]
Then it sizes the picture to 300 pixels wide to fit the forum page, allows you to click on it to see the details full size, and automatically centers the image.
You can also find out thinks like this by using the peek function on a post or in the reply copy.
Really RAZD? You mean all of those other bones which you didn't bother to post evidence of?
Curiously I did post links to some of it:
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote:
To understand what we mean today by "Homo erectus", some history of paleoanthropological thought is needed. The first early human fossil found outside of Europe was the Trinil 2 fossil skullcap from the Solo River in Java, pictured to the right. The fossil was placed in the species Pithecanthropus erectus by its discoverer Eugene Dubois. Almost 40 individuals have been recovered from Java to this day, roughly equivalent to the number of fossils found at the caves of Choukoutien in China. The Choukoutien fossils found were originally assigned the species name Sinanthropus pekinensis. It was not until the 1950's that Ernst Mayr proposed that all of the specimens from these two roughly contemporaneous locales, along with others localities from Europe and Africa, represented a single species, Homo erectus. Since the 1950's, however, the early African populations of what Mayr termed Homo erectus have once again been split into a separate species Homo ergaster.
Homo erectus exhibits many features particular to the species, including a long skull shaped with thick cranial walls. The back of the skull is marked with a protruberance known as a transverse torus. Over the eyes is a large and prominent browridge, or supraorbital torus, which joins the rest of the frontal bone at a depression called the sulcus. Cranial capacities of Homo erectus average around 1000cc, which is far greater than earlier australopiths and even early Homo. The dentition of Homo erectus is nearly identical to modern humans, although the cheek teeth do remain larger, and the mandible is generally more robust.
The species Homo erectus is thought to have diverged from Homo ergaster populations roughly 1.6 million years ago, and then spread into Asia. It was believed that Homo erectus disappeared as other populations of archaic Homo evolved roughly 400,000 years ago. Evidently, this is not the case. Recent studies into the complicated stratigraphy of the Java Homo erectus sites have revealed some surprising information. Researchers have dated the deposits thought to contain the fossils of H. erectus near the Solo River in Java to only 50,000 years ago. This would mean that at least one population of Homo erectus in Java was a contemporary of modern humans (Homo sapiens).
Far from being a hoax, the original Java Man fossil is the type fossil for this species of hominid.
Question: do you know what the term "type fossil" means?
Do you have any idea why there is so much description of the minor morphological features that are used to describe the fossils?
Click on the link. You also have several additional names that a true skeptic would use to find more information about the fossils in question.
It also has links to more information.
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
Note the discussion of comparative features between the fossils. You can also go to
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
for a hyperlinked page showing current thinking on hominid lineages, with Homo erectus shown as a cousin species, like neanderthals.
And if the other evidence in the area was more complete than this photo evidence, why didn't you post a photo of it rather than this skimpy example which offers nothing worthy of building a complete specimen of.
First, because your cut and paste link referred specifically to this specimen, second, because it is the type fossil as it was the first one found, and third, because I supplied links to more information that a true skeptic could follow.
That evidence that you never posted and evidently expect me to accept on faith in the honesty and accuracy of your same scientific community which will construct a missing human link from a pigs tooth. So by what standard of evidence do you claim the failure is mine RAZD?
The failure to follow where the evidence leads. If you had you would have found several examples of other fossils. If you are really interested in looking at the evidence then you will need to do what Ernst Mayr did and go to see the actual fossils. Of course you would need some kind of credentials to be allowed to touch these valuable specimens.
By what standard of evidence does your science create this hairless image? Show me the pelvic fossils which show it stood perfectly upright as this projects. Prove it was hairless yet it wore no clothing to keep warm.
It is amusing that creationists always seem to think that scientists regard artistic renderings as evidence or even valid representations of the finds.
My science doesn't create that image. That is an artistic representation. A picture made for media, by media people, not science or scientists. If you look at the journals that present fossil discoveries and discuss them in peer reviewed articles you will not see these pictures.
Rather you will see pictures like this:
and this:
Turkana Boy - Wikipedia
quote:
Turkana Boy or Nariokotome Boy is the designation given to fossil KNM-WT 15000[1], a nearly complete skeleton of an 11- or 12-year-old hominid boy who died 1.5 million[2] years ago in the early Pleistocene. The skeleton was discovered in 1984 by Kamoya Kimeu, a member of a team led by Richard Leakey, at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana in Kenya.
Turkana Boy is classified as either Homo erectus or Homo ergaster. The shape of the pelvis indicates that it was a male. Based on dental eruption and lack of any epiphyseal union of the skull, anthropologists Tim White and Richard Leakey determined the boy to have been about 12 years old.
Note how the age and sex was determined from the bones - something you denied could be done with the Pelycodus fossils. Notice how the bones fit the upright posture without being forced in place. Notice that this is an older fossil than the original find in Java.
And this is still just a fraction of the evidence we have for Homo erectus.
Enjoy.
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 8:32 PM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Archangel, posted 09-26-2009 7:34 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 294 of 323 (526290)
09-26-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Archangel
09-26-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Another failure by Archangel to substantiate his claim
I've requested that attention be focused on whether Orce man is a fraud, and I'll be hiding all significant content on this and subsequent pages that doesn't deal with that topic. When discussion about Orce man completes we will move on to the Coelacanth. --Admin
Let's deal with this first, Archangel:
Now, here we have your skeletal fossil of Turkana boy. A full scale representation which you post as validation for the artist rendition above.
No, sorry, read my post again: it was posted to show you that the hominid species Homo erectus was substantiated by many fossils, all of which demonstrate their hominid ancestry. This and the other pictures that I posted show homologies with the skull fragment, bones and tooth that were in the first find of fossils for this species, the fossil type specimen properly called Trinil-2 in science. "Java man" is the popular name and is often applied to the group of fossils rather than a specific specimen. As noted in Message 64, this validates the original find as being the first find of a new fossil species.
Homo erectus - Wikipedia
quote:
Sites in France, China, Vietnam, and other areas seem to indicate controlled use of fire by H. erectus, some dating back 1.5 million years ago. A presentation at the Paleoanthropology Society annual meeting in Montreal, Canada in March 2004 stated that there is evidence for controlled fires in excavations in northern Israel from about 690,000 to 790,000 years ago. A site called Terra Amata, located on the French Riviera, which lies on an ancient beach, seems to have been occupied by H. erectus. It contains the earliest good evidence of controlled fire dated at around 300,000 years BC. Excavations dating from approximately 790,000 years ago in Israel suggest that H. erectus not only controlled fire but could start fire.[23] Despite these examples, some scholars continue to assert that the controlled use of fire was not typical of Homo erectus, but only of later species of the Homo genus, such as Homo antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis).
...
Homo erectus remains one of the most successful and long-lived species of the Homo genus. It is generally considered to have given rise to a number of descendant species and subspecies. The oldest known specimen of the ancient human was found in southern Africa.
Homo erectus and its progeny
    * Homo erectus
o Homo erectus yuanmouensis
o Homo erectus lantianensis
o Homo erectus wushanensis
o Homo erectus nankinensis
o Homo erectus pekinensis
o Homo erectus palaeojavanicus
o Homo erectus soloensis
...
Some of the major Homo erectus fossils:
    * Indonesia (island of Java): Trinil 2 (holotype),
Sangiran collection,
Sambungmachan collection,
Ngandong collection
* China: Lantian (Gongwangling and Chenjiawo), Yunxian,
Zhoukoudian, Nanjing, Hexian
* India: Narmada (taxonomic status debated!)
* Kenya: WT 15000 (Nariokotome), ER 3883, ER 3733
* Tanzania: OH 9
* Vietnam: Northern, Tham Khuyen, Hoa Binh
* Republic of Georgia: Dmanisi collection
* Turkey: Kocabas fossil[26]

The evidence of evolution is found in the bones, and the evidence of human behavior is found in the artifacts found with the fossils, not in artistic rendering.
Are you actually admitting that this rendering:

is just for propaganda sake in order to humanize these apes for public consumption?
Curiously, I am unable to state anything more about your purported fraud claim in this regard, because you have failed to provide adequate citation of your source and the picture is posted on a personal picture website with no link to actual science.
No journalist sat down and came up with this rendition on his word processor and published it for public consumption. It was created by some paleontologist based on the actual bones from available specimens and released to the media for public consumption.
So you claim, yet it appears that YOU are hiding the source of this picture, as you don't provide links to the original publication of the picture, information of when it was drawn, by whom, when it was published, in what magazine.
Notice that all my pictures are referenced to sources and information about their origin, so I am not hiding anything.
I find it listed in wikimedia's picture library along with several other pictures of fossils for Homo erectus
Search results for "homo erectus" - Wikimedia Commons
and when I click on the link it tells me
quote:
I, Steveoc 86, the copyright holder of this work, has published or hereby publishes it under the following licenses:
As Granny Magda notes Steveoc 86 is an amateur and not a scientist.
I've also made several google searches to find links to the picture and to Homo erectus renderings and have not found any evidence that this picture was published at all. Can you show that it was extensively disseminated as you claim?
Remember - to establish fraud by scientists you need to show (1) that the picture is false, (2) that it is intentionally false (3) that it is done and promoted by scientists rather than media, (4) that there is clear intention to deceive people with the picture into believing something that is not true and finally (5) that someone benefits from the deception.
This has still not been done for a single one of your fraud claims.
Here's another picture that may help you in the discussion of intentional deception:
quote:
The reconstruction was made on the basis of fossils from different places of Homo erectus. / Die Rekonstruktion wurde anhand zahlreicher Fundstcke von Homo erectus aus unterschiedlichen Erdteilen vorgenommen.
Again we have a picture posted by someone of a reconstruction in a museum, and the picture taker is not the author of the reconstruction (likely done by museum staff). The skeleton is a composite that is made up of scaled reproductions of all the fossils available from this single site, and showing how they still fit together in the same basic hominid pattern. Of course you can't have your little argument about the hip joint with this reconstruction as the pelvis is in red - which means that it is assumed (likely from other Homo erectus fossils) rather than modeled on an existing fossil from the site.
Is this fraud? No, for the intention is not to deceive but to show what the latest current thinking is about the fossil skeletons of Homo erectus, including a hip joint similar to the one found in Turkana Boy rather than what you have shown for Modern 21st century humans: if deception was the order of the day, would not the model show a modern hip instead? Remember that Turkana Boy comes from the earliest group of Homo erectus fossils in africa, and the ones in france could show new derived features.
Notice how in your ape skeleton, the pelvis sits directly on top of the hip joint, but not so with the modern human skeleton. So by what standard of accuracy or scientific legitimacy do you claim that evolutionists are seeking to discover the absolute truth rather than manipulating reality in order to serve their agenda? I mean, the rendition above is your sciences propaganda which claims to accurately portray this early ancestor of modern humans. But at every level of scrutiny we see dishonest portrayals of reality and all I get from you allegedly objective scientists are excuses and obfuscations as you continue to defend the lies your science tells at every turn.
Notice that Turkana Boy is 1.5 million years old, belongs to a different species from Homo sapiens that is regarded as being a cousin species rather than an ancestral species.
Notice that the knee joints demonstrate full upright posture and that the hip joints allow this posture as well. Notice that the overall proportions of arms and legs to torso also matches the human pattern rather than the chimpanzee, gorilla or orangutan patterns.
Again, in evolution we expect homologous features to show different derived development in different species, but to show a trend from and ancestral species to an offspring or younger species. If you want we can also discuss chimpanzee pelvic and hip joint arrangements and compare the Homo erectus to them and human and see which is closer. Then we can look an the knee joints of these species to see how they show development for upright posture in Homo but not in Pan (chimp).
Here you have a picture I found posted on Neanderthal Song (cannot find original wikipedia file) to which I have added the previous picture of Turkana Boy, so you have a Neanderthal skeleton on the left and a Cro-Magnon (Homo sapeins) skeleton in the middle and Turkana Boy () on the right (roughly scaled to similar overall height):
Now it seems to these old eyes that the hip joint as seen on the left leg of these skeletons is very similar in position and location, and that it is difficult to compare the right leg due to parts missing from Turkana Boy. The knee joints in all three are very similar as well, and all show the similar arrangement necessary for full upright posture, and alignment that is NOT evident in chimps. It seems to me that there is less difference between these three skeletons than what we saw with the Coelacanth tails, where you claimed the two pictures were identical (Message 180):
The truth was very different, however. Since 1938, more than 200 present-day C—lacanths have been caught, after that first one off South Africa. The second came from the Comoro Islands off north-west Madagascar in 1952, and a third in Indonesian Sulawesi in 1998. The evolutionist paleontologist J. L. B. Smith was unable to conceal his amazement at the capture of the first C—lacanth, saying, "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished."20
The tail of the living C—lacanth and that of a 140-million-year-old fossil specimen are identical to one another.
Note that you have not yet replied to my rebuttal of this claim (Message 205):
They are NOT identical, look at the picture again: the rays on the tails are shorter on the modern fish than on the ancient one, and the central spine (notochord) extends beyond the tail rays in the modern fish, but blends in with the rays in the fossil. You have also excluded scale from the information provided - modern fish are around 4 times bigger than the ancient fossils. What you have are homologous structures that are due to common ancestry.
Any reply to that post in the near future? Or do you agree that your point is invalidated by the facts again?
And why are you replacing an older fossil with the Java man fossil structure we have been discussing? Are these fossils interchangeable now? Just remember that if you can use it as evidence of more complete examples for Java Man, don't you dare come back to me with an argument that using it as evidence that Java couldn't stand upright is unfair since it's an older skeleton. You can't have it both ways and just use these interchangeably as long as they serve your propaganda purposes.
Turkana Boy is older than the original Java Man fossil. Remember that Turkana Boy comes from early Homo erectus while still in africa and is 1.5 million years old, while Java Man come from Java after Homo erectus left africa and is 0.7 to 1.0 million years old:
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote:
Trinil 2
"Pithecanthropus I"

Species: Homo erectus
Age: 1.0-0.7 million years
Date of Discovery: October 1891
Location: Trinil, Java, Indonesia
Discovered by: Eugne Dubois

In 1890, he moved to Java, where his excavations brought him to the Solo River. In 1891, Dubois discovered a heavily mineralized cranium belonging to an early human. Many of the features were worn flat, but the shape of the cranium was distinctively long and the forehead was flat. A heavy browridge was evident, along with a distinct sagittal keel, visible in frontal and three-quarters view as a bony ridge passing lengthwise along the skull.
Because Java Man is younger than Turkana Boy in the evolutionary lineage of the species, it would likely exhibit more derived features for upright walking, and Turkana Boy represents an outer bound for traits comparable to .
And while your at it, explain how they determined that Java Man had less body hair than Robin Williams yet seemingly walked around naked. Who determines this stuff? And if evolution science is a valid discipline, how do they allow this type of crap to be placed in the public domain if honesty and accuracy is their main goal? Rather than doing anything necessary to sell this false interpretation of science to an ignorant and uninformed public at any cost. How do you defend or justify this RAZD?
Curiously, you are still confusing one artistic rendering with the evidence for evolution provided by the fossils. From the fossils we see homologous features that show a clear linear trend in their development from ancient fossils to modern ones. Where soft tissue is preserved we can sometimes detemine fur or scales or feathers, but nowhere in science are these features assumed without evidence.
The fact that Homo sapiens is covered with thin hairs is one of the small mysteries, and I have made my educated guesses regarding when and why this occurred, but I don't claim this opinion as fact, just a concept to be considered.
See Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution if you want to see what I think happened.
Now if you want to discuss how reconstructions are made and by whom, we can discuss the neanderthal child shown previously, and see if this fits the definition of fraud - intentionally false information used to deceive people for a purpose.
Élisabeth Daynès - Wikipedia
quote:
Elisabeth Dayns, born 1960 in Bziers, is a French sculptor. In 1981 she worked with the Thtre de la Salamandre in Lille creating masks for the theatre. In 1984, she founded her own studio, Atelier Dayns, in Paris. Some years later, the Thot Museum in Montignac, close to the Lascaux caves, asked her to sculpt a life size woolly Mammoth with a group of hominids.
She has sinced specialised in reconstructing hominids from remaining bones. Her work is present at museums all over the world, like Muse des Merveilles in Tende, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, Transvaal Museum in Pretoria and Naturhistoriska riksmuseet in Stockholm.[1][2] In 2005 she created a life like model of Pharaoh Tutankhamun in a project with National Geographic. A close resemblance with the real Pharaoh is likely, even though traits like ears, nose tip, and colour of skin and eyes cannot be reliably reconstructed. [3]
I can't read the swedish, but this site has some interesting pictures of the process
http://www.nrm.se/...cf0748000337/FaktaOmElisabethDaynes.pdf
Her website is http://www.daynes.com/en/home.php
This is a similar reconstruction to the child that you have seen a frontal picture of, seen from the side
http://www.daynes.com/en/reconstructions/neanderthal-3.php
quote:
Reconstruction of a child Neanderthal based on the cast of the skull of Roc-de-Marsal discovered in Dordogne, France. He is three- to four-year-old.

This Neanderthal reconstruction can be seen in Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France and in Stockholm, Sweden.
Here is one of the magazines that published pictures of the reconstruction:
ARCHAEOLOGY Table of Contents, November/December 2006 - Archaeology Magazine Archive
On the Cover: This reconstruction of a Neanderthal child was based on finds in Gibraltar, which is believed to be among the last places where Neanderthals survived. ( Philippe Plailly/eurelios, Reconstruction Atelier Daynes)
quote:
Writers' Guidelines
ARCHAEOLOGY magazine is one of two publications of the Archaeological Institute of America, a 125-year-old nonprofit organization. The magazine has been published continuously for more than 50 years. We have a total audience of nearly 700,000, mostly in the United States and Canada. Our readership is a combination of the general public, enthusiastic amateurs, and scholars in the field. Publishing bimonthly, we try to bring our readers all of the exciting aspects of archaeology: adventure, discovery, culture, history, and travel.
Authors include not only professional journalists but professional archaeologists as well. If you are a scientist interested in writing about your research for ARCHAEOLOGY, see below for tips and suggestions on writing for a general audience.
Doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, nor does the reconstruction form part of the articles inside the magazine.
Here is a NEWS article about the reconstruction
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1469607.stm
quote:
Reconstructions of Neanderthal skulls add to growing evidence that the creatures were not close relatives of modern humans.
The distinctive features of the Neanderthal skull were established in early infancy - possibly even in the womb - say researchers in Switzerland.
Their conclusion is based on sophisticated computer graphics charting the cranial development of Neanderthals, from babyhood to adult life.
The findings support the idea that Neanderthals did not interbreed with early modern humans and contributed little or nothing to the present human gene pool.
'Sister' species
Christoph Zollikofer and Marcia Ponce de Len of the University of Zrich used fossils to construct 3D virtual computer images of the skulls of Neanderthals and early modern humans.
Physical differences in skull development - such as the Neanderthal's receding chin and low, sloping forehead - were fixed by the age of two years, said Dr Zollikofer.
A modern human child (left) and the Gibraltar 1 Neanderthal child (right)
"Most of what makes a Neanderthal and what makes a modern human is already present in the infant," he told BBC News Online.
This suggests that Neanderthals were a separate "sister" species from modern humans.
"We don't see any evidence of gene mixing at all," he said. "But we can't prove this."
What we are looking at is the most accurate information we have from the fossils, and there is no intent to deceive, even though these sources are not evolutionary scientists but media magazines.
Your claim that reconstructions are evidence of scientific fraud are not substantiated.
Am I finally getting one of you to admit the dishonesty of your cult in doing any dishonest representation ...
You are being dishonest again RAZD.
It is just more evidence of the dishonesty of this pseudo science ...
But at every level of scrutiny we see dishonest portrayals of reality and all I get from you allegedly objective scientists are excuses and obfuscations as you continue to defend the lies your science tells at every turn.
The facts still demonstrate that your opinion is false. Getting outraged with the evidence and insulting the messenger/s is just another symptom of cognitive dissonance and the futile attempt to make contradictory evidence go away.
Sadly your self-centered childish and biased railing, denigration and continual insult is completely impotent at changing the facts of reality.
And if evolution science is a valid discipline, how do they allow this type of crap to be placed in the public domain if honesty and accuracy is their main goal?
This is hilarious, after you claim a world wide conspiracy to suppress evidence, you now wonder how scientists cannot contain journalists from publishing whatever media-hype article they want to attract customers. How do YOU prevent the media from spreading falsehoods at every turn -- just look at politics and the outright lies that are "news" and ask this question again with a straight face. LOL.
Enjoy.[/hide]
Edited by RAZD, : granny - thanks
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : spling
Edited by RAZD, : fixed a glitch
Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Archangel, posted 09-26-2009 7:34 AM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Archangel, posted 09-27-2009 9:38 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 302 of 323 (526456)
09-27-2009 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Archangel
09-27-2009 9:38 AM


Archangel still grasping at straws for fraud claim
I've requested that attention be focused on whether Orce man is a fraud, and I'll be hiding all significant content on this and subsequent pages that doesn't deal with that topic. When discussion about Orce man completes we will move on to the Coelacanth. --Admin
Hi Archangel,
As you keep adding new material before finishing with the previous examples, this is going to be long. You complained about being ganged up on before, well now you will find that the evidence gangs up on you, demonstrating that your thesis is false.
You still have not substantiated any fraud here on any single example brought up thus far as being promulgated BY science - which is your claim. Remember fraud is:
fraud -n1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
- a. One that defrauds; a cheat.
- b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2009)
You need to demonstrate (a) that it is a deception, ie not based on reality, (b) deliberately practiced, specifically by the person accused of the fraud, which in your case is evolution scientists, and (c) that it results in an unfair or unlawful gain for the perpetrator, and not anyone else.
Here we go again. I point out general examples of widely dispersed inaccurate info which millions of uninformed layman see and just accept as accurate since they assume it is published because it's true, and you respond with excuses, justifications and examples of why your side is innocent of deceit or fraud of any kind.
What you have been shown is that the scientists are presenting what they currently consider the best explanation of the evidence. There is no intent to deceive or perpeturate a fraud.
Pictures created for and published in the media do NOT constitute intentional deceit by scientists.
Well I'm going to show that your own posted evidence is proof of universal fraud which is so matter of factly offered that you don't even see it anymore since you have drank all of the kool-aid and believe this stuff as just a matter of fact anyway. So let's get started, and i'm going to make this as much a pictorial process as possible in order to keep it visual and simple.
Curiously, I gave you the information and told you how you could verify the validity of it.
Well I'm going to show that your own posted evidence is proof of universal fraud ...
And I'm going to answer you in three parts.

PART 1: current cases of asserted fraud

Okay let's look at what you provide for the requirements of fraud for just the last few items discussed here, between you and I from Message 271 to your current post (Message 296):
A. FIRST CRITERIA: Intentional Deceit; intentionally inaccurate, intentionally false.
May I ask how your swedish model maker or the artists rendition which you posted as evidence reflect the massive brow ridge which defined the strong features of the actual Neanderthal skulls, as compared to the softer more human impressions which your artist renditions portray. I realize your renditions are children and will allow for that.
You are correct that the reconstruction and the picture are based on actual skulls of children, and the actual skulls of the children did not have brow ridges. Are you aware that chimpanzee and gorilla children ALSO have no brow ridges?
http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/...s-at-the-zoo/offbeat-news
But to imply that neanderthal children had no brow ridges at all and that they magically appeared only in adults defies common sense.
Let me get this straight: to meet your standard of not being fraudulent, the reconstructions and pictures need to show false information?
Sadly your criteria of "common sense" just means that it does not comply with your uninformed opinion, which as we have seen for many posts now is a poor criteria of truth and reality. Your opinion is completely incompetent at changing reality to comply with it. Instead what we see are people meticulously showing what the evidence shows to the best of their knowledge of reality.
Before going further, I must comment on the empty space in the neanderthal childs skull as they imply that his brain doesn't utilize all of the available space in his brain pan. Can any of you so called scientists produce even one example of any type of animal in reality who's brain doesn't fill its skull?
Let's look at what the media news article says again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1469607.stm
quote:
Reconstructions of Neanderthal skulls add to growing evidence that the creatures were not close relatives of modern humans.
The distinctive features of the Neanderthal skull were established in early infancy - possibly even in the womb - say researchers in Switzerland.
Their conclusion is based on sophisticated computer graphics charting the cranial development of Neanderthals, from babyhood to adult life.
The findings support the idea that Neanderthals did not interbreed with early modern humans and contributed little or nothing to the present human gene pool.
Christoph Zollikofer and Marcia Ponce de Len of the University of Zrich used fossils to construct 3D virtual computer images of the skulls of Neanderthals and early modern humans.
Physical differences in skull development - such as the Neanderthal's receding chin and low, sloping forehead - were fixed by the age of two years, said Dr Zollikofer.
...
Modelling the soft tissue
Virtual and stereolithographic reconstructions of a Neanderthal child
Clinical CT and MRI data were used to construct the face of an adolescent Neanderthal
No mention of any "empty space" inside the skulls or even that the brain is part of the discussion, rather we see they are talking about the physical evidence - the skull BONES. When you look at the reconstructed skull, where parts are mirrored to fill in missing areas as much as possible with actual evidence, we see that what you probably think is "empty space" is really the areas where the bone is missing. Thus, what you are seeing as missing brain, is really missing bone structure, and certainly not intentional deceit.
And doesn't such a rendition cause your common sense bells to go off to the tune of cookoo clock? The fact that it doesn't is what concernes me the most about evolutionists.
Curiously, my "common sense bells" go off whenever someone asserts that their uninformed opinion is more valid than evidence, and that actual evidence should be ignored.
Let's now look at a couple of neanderthal skulls for raw comparisons to just imagine the level of accuracy in the artists renditions of these APES, in my opinion.
Access denied
and here's another one:
http://www.rationalisme.org/photos/neanderthal_skull_big.jpg
So you think the rendition of neanderthal children, based on the actual fossil skulls of neanderthal children, are fraudulent because they are not based on neanderthal adult skulls? Is this how you derive "alternative explanations" of the evidence so that it matches your preconceptions?
No evidence for the first criteria, so your claim fails.
B. SECOND CRITERIA: Deliberately Practiced; specifically by the person accused of the fraud, which in your case is evolution scientists,
We will start with your model of Neanderthal child by your swedish artist:
Correct: artist, NOT evolutionary scientist. Thus anything you demonstrate about the artist reconstruction of a neanderthal child, no matter how well informed and based on current knowledge of forensic science to create possible facial appearances from bare skulls, etc, ... you have already conceded that this is not done by any evolutionary biologist scientist.
and the comparative human/neanderthal child skull drawing:
Correct: a drawing. Generated by a computer program. Lets see what it says in the article again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1469607.stm
quote:
Modelling the soft tissue
Virtual and stereolithographic reconstructions of a Neanderthal child
Clinical CT and MRI data were used to construct the face of an adolescent Neanderthal
All images copyright M Ponce de Len and Ch Zollikofer, MultiMedia Lab, University of Zurich.
Again these images are not made by evolutionary biological scientists.
No evidence for the second criteria, so your claim fails.
C. THIRD CRITERIA: To Scure Unfair or Unlawful Gain; to profit in some way from the deception, specifically by the party responsible for the fraud.
The point I am making here is that much of this info you posted is created for public consumption by common uninformed layman ...
Yes, produced by media people to use in media articles about what science is doing, not produced by scientists. Published in order to sell magazines.
... which never think any deeper than accepting this stuff as evidence ...
Curiously, scientists aren't responsible for the average education and level of understanding reality of the general public. Fascinatingly, I agree that the general level of education in science is rather pathetic, especially in public schools science courses that have been hog-tied by religious concerns rather than scientific ones.
... which is founded in truth and fact when it is nothing of the sort. ...
A point that you have absolutely failed to show any kind of substantiation for. Once again what we have is your opinion, and your opinion has been demonstrated as an extremely fallible measure of validity.
... They are renditions, impressions and assumptions made by people who are in fact selling a product to the public, ...
Yes, media people sell media products. Last time I checked this was a completely legal and fair procedure. People making the reproductions are hired for a purpose and are paid for their effort. The information they use is provided by science, but the scientists don't control the media product or the media outlets in producing and selling their products, especially when it is a legal thing to do, and the productions are fair representations of current knowledge.
...and that product is that evolution is rational and proven science.
Which, amazingly, it IS, but not because these images and reconstructions make it so, rather it is because it is good science. It is repeatable, it is testable, it is subject to falsification, and it has been validated time after time after time.
The fact that you don't accept this as science doesn't mean that the average person has to reject it based on your opinion. If you want to show people that evolution is false you need to provide the evidence that this is so, not just claim that we can't provide information that you don't like. Your claim that evolution is not science needs to be substantiated before you can then use this as proof of fraud.
You have failed to show that the makers of the pictures and reconstructions have benefited in an unfair or illegal way.
There is no Bernie Madoff here.
No evidence for the third criteria, so your claim fails.
Conclusion: Does the argument of Archangel meet the criteria for fraud?
This is fraud and despicable in its inaccuracy as it attempts to portray an image which is no more true or factual than Aesop's fables.
So you are asserting that people using the most up-to-date and accurate information of reality, the solid and validated evidence of evolution and the natural history from fossils and science in a fair and legal manner to sell magazines is fraud committed by scientists.
quote:
Fraud
1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
You failed to establish a single one of the three criteria that ALL need to be present to constitute fraud.
Thus you have failed to support your thesis in the OP in regard to these particular cases.

PART 2: previous cases of asserted fraud

Now a little history of this thread:
You have failed to establish:
    Message 1
  • that "Piltdown man" was a fraud perpetuated by science, rather than on it,
  • that "Nebraska Man" was a fraud, rather than a temporary mistake,
  • that "Java Man" is a fraud instead of valid science,
  • that "Orce Man" is a fraud, rather than an inconclusive find,
  • that "Neanderthal" is a fraud instead of valid science
  • that there was any intentional deception involved in any of these cases
  • that Evolutionary science benefited in any way from this fraud,
    Message 10
  • that the Scopes trial exposed fraud or benefited evolutionary science, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
    Message 31
  • that the skulls in the picture do not show evolutionary trends of changing hereditary traits over time, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
    Message 53
  • that Neanderthals are not human, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
    Message 58
  • that Humans are not related to apes in any way, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
    Message 74
  • that there was a conspiracy to show human behavior and culture in neanderthals, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
    Message 89
  • that there is a preconceived agenda to commit fraud
  • that evolution is a false science
    Message 103
  • that engineering and medical science are different from evolution, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
  • that the earth is not old, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
    Message 114
  • that you are not a creationist, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
  • that you understand planck's time, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
    Message 130
  • that evolution does not use the scientific method
  • that origins challenges the validity of evolution, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
    Message 135
  • that Neanderthals did not bury their dead in some instances, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
    Message 145
  • that origins challenges the validity of evolution, take II, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
    Message 153
  • that evolution is not a true science
  • that no true science can challenge genesis, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
    Message 164
  • that any ONE of the other claims on your link are any more valid than the ones you posted,
    Message 180
  • that the Coelacanth is evidence of fraud,
  • that a fossil fish with soft tissue impressions is evidence of fraud,
    Message 182
  • that your original link is evidence of fraud by science, take II,
  • that "Archaeoraptor" was a fraud perpetuated by science, rather than on it,
    Message 184
  • that DNA evidence does not show we are related to chimps, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
  • that DNA evidence does not show we are related to mice, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
    Message 258(hidden)
  • that the interpretation of fossils by science is wrong, or that this is evidence of fraud by science,
  • that a different interpretation exists that explains all the evidence as well as evolution,
  • that failure to use an unknown hypothesized explanation is evidence of fraud by science, (or even bad science),
Each of these are just assertions, unsupported by evidence of actual fraud, and they have each been responded to, responses that have sometime been ignored by you, such as my posts:
Message 64 regarding your four original claims
Message 96 regarding your claims on Neanderthals
Message 124 regarding your claims about engineering and the age of the earth
Message 205 regarding your claims about Coelecanths and soft tissue fossils
That's all the unsubstantiated claims you have made prior to Message 274, and this doesn't even touch your fantastic claims that using false information from creationist websites and that you consider to be false is any kind of reasonable evidence that what the website says is true.
I post this to show that you cannot claim that any of your points have not been addressed, or that you have even "answered the mail" in responding to the refutations to provide a rebuttal. You claim that you are outnumbered - you are, but that just means you need to focus on the topic and make your point with substantiation, not introduce new topics to the discussion and throw around a bad attitude. Most of your posts are wasted bandwidth devoid of information related to YOUR OP topic.

PART 3: NEW cases of asserted fraud

The ink isn't dry on your undefended previous assertions of fraud, and now you are adding more to the list.
For an additional example, here's a link to an article with an artists rendition of neanderthal man next to the partial skull remains from a bashed in find, evidently. I post it for the creative license it takes and for the massive assumptions it presumes based on the very limited actual evidence it started out with. Here's the image first:
Curiously, it appears that the reconstruction does in fact match the fossil, it shows the same degree of brow ridges, consistent with a young neanderthal, the forward jutting jaw, the sloped forehead and the elongated skull typical of neanderthals that the fossil shows. You claim that there are "massive assumptions" but you don't detail a single one.
For reference, this is what the article says:
quote:
In a new analysis released Monday, anthropologists suggested that the hole in the head of a young adult Neanderthal who died about 36,000 years ago, near what is now the village of St. Cesaire, in southwestern France, was probably made by someone who sliced open the skull with a machete-like knife or sword. Equally important, the victim got enough help from relatives and friends to survive the experience.
The evidence for the thesis in the article (that neanderthals were violent and sometime attacked other neanderthals) is supported by the fact that this skull has a healed bone scar. This evidence is shown by an unbroken part of the skull, where new bone material was deposited over the cut, which only occurs if the individual is living. There is no assumption here: this is what the evidence says.
The picture is just used to show the location and depth of the wound that would result in the bone scar found on the skull.
And here's the article from the Japanese Times which I don't post for its scientific value, but for its exposure to the general uninformed public which believes that if it gets published, it must be founded in FACT, when nothing could be further from the truth. http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news288.htm I realize that you will come back to me and ask how the evolution community is guilty of fraud when it is an independent magazine which prints the story by itself. But the Times didn't just make this stuff up willy nilly, it was spoon fed to them, and I quote: "In a new analysis released Monday, anthropologists suggested" It also says: "Aggression just forms part of human behavior," said Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zurich, leader of the team of researchers from France and Switzerland who examined the skull. Humans "need reconciliation and affection as well, and the experience here suggests a broad spectrum of behaviors."
Curiously, the scientist is quoted by the media article as saying that the evidence suggests that violence was a part of neanderthal life.
The article discusses the evidence in a clear and straightforward way and concludes
quote:
Instead, domestic violence, then as now, was the most likely cause: "You encounter your group members each day," Zollikofer said. "And we think that with the very low population density then, you were highly unlikely to meet somebody else."
Still, he added, "almost anything is possible." A weapon of the type that inflicted the wound to the young Neanderthal was not found at St. Cesaire, but Trinkaus said Neanderthals had the technology to accomplish the job, as do modern humans.
There is no quote of the scientists stating that anything other than the evidence of the wound and the healing of the wound, was fact.
No intent to deceive is shown by this new example.
The relevant point once again is that you can't have it both ways. You can't deny that the evolution community feeds into the fraud of disseminating false and unproven info to the general public as they release this drivel to non scientific magazines while simultaneously claiming that they can't be held responsible for what these magazines print. It isn't as though every one of these articles end with a disclaimer by the scientific community denying any and all responsibility for the truth and accuracy of the information being published.
Nor can you have it both ways and assert that evolution is trying to deceive ill-informed general public people by providing evidence that shows the most current thinking and demonstrating how it is supported by the facts.
Fascinatingly, your repeated assertion of fraud does not make it so.
NOW, here's another example of fraud which occurs with the approval of this so called scientific community. Here is the complete fossil record for Lucy, the once famous so called missing link.
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
And from this skeletal record we get this life size model which is part of the official museum exhibit.
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
Why am I not surprised that you just bring up another example of a reconstruction that is based on numerous fossils, not just the famous Lucy, but others from the same time and location:
Australopithecus afarensis - Wikipedia
quote:
Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. A. afarensis was slenderly built, like the younger Australopithecus africanus. It is thought that A. afarensis was ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo, which includes the modern human species, Homo sapiens. The most famous fossil is the partial skeleton known as Lucy.[1][2]
Cast of the remains of "Lucy"
Compared to the modern and extinct great apes, A. afarensis has reduced canines and molars, although they are still relatively larger than in modern humans. A. afarensis also has a relatively small brain size (~380-430cm) and a prognathic (i.e. projecting anteriorly) face.
The image of a bipedal hominin with a small brain and primitive face was quite a revelation to the paleoanthropological world at the time. This was due to the earlier belief that an increase in brain size was the first major hominin adaptive shift. Before the discoveries of A. afarensis in the 1970s, it was widely thought that an increase in brain size preceded the shift to bipedal locomotion.
However, there are also a number of traits in the A. afarensis skeleton which strongly reflect bipedalism. In overall anatomy, the pelvis is far more human-like than ape-like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and positioned directly behind the hip joint, and there is clear evidence of a strong attachment for the knee extensors. While the pelvis is not wholly human-like (being markedly wide with flared with laterally orientated iliac blades), these features point to a structure that can be considered radically remodeled to accommodate a significant degree of bipedalism in the animals' locomotor repertoire. Importantly, the femur also angles in toward the knee from the hip. This trait would have allowed the foot to have fallen closer to the midline of the body, and is a strong indication of habitual bipedal locomotion. Along with humans, present day orangutans and spider monkeys possess this same feature. The feet also feature adducted big toes, making it difficult if not impossible to grasp branches with the hindlimbs. The loss of a grasping hindlimb also increases the risk of an infant being dropped or falling, as primates typically hold onto their mothers while the mother goes about her daily business. Without the second set of grasping limbs, the infant cannot maintain as strong a grip, and likely had to be held with help from the mother. The problem of holding the infant would be multiplied if the mother also had to climb trees. The ankle joint of A. afarensis is also markedly human-like.
Other finds that are related to Lucy in include:
The well known Hadar knee joint (found before Lucy, NOT part of the Lucy fossil)
... and ...
Page Not Found | Cleveland Museum of Natural History
quote:
The Woranso-Mille site is located in the Central Afar region, about 325 miles northeast of the capital Addis Ababa and 25 miles east of a small town called Mille. The multidisciplinary and multinational team focuses primarily on finding early human fossil remains dating back millions of years. The team has thus far collected more than 40 fossil specimens of early humans, including one partial skeleton and 1,900 fossil specimens of other animals representing more than 30 species useful in reconstructing the ancient environment in which our early ancestors lived.
The fossils collected at Woranso-Mille have been dated to between 3.5 and 3.8 million years ago. Little is known about early human fossils from this time period, sandwiched between two early species of human ancestors known as Australopithecus afarensis (the species of Lucy) and Australopithecus anamensis. New discoveries within this timeframe are critical to understanding both the relationship between these two species and the larger story of human origins. All of the collected fossil specimens from the Woranso-Mille study area are currently being curated for analysis and subsequent publication.
... and more ...
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote:
Inhabiting eastern Africa between four and three million years ago, Australopithecus afarensis was a long-lived species that may have given rise to the several lineages of early human that appeared in both eastern and southern Africa between two and three million years ago. For its antiquity, A. afarensis is one of the better known species of early human, with specimens collected from over 300 individuals. It is a species that exhibits many cranial features which are reminiscent of our ape ancestry, such as a forward protruding (prognathic) face, a "U-shaped" palate (with the cheek teeth parallel in rows to each other similar to an ape) and not the parabolic shape of a modern human, and a small neurocranium (brain case) that averages only 430cc in size (not significantly larger than a modern chimpanzee).
The specimens recovered have given representative examples of almost all of the bones of the A. afarensis skeleton. From this, it is clear that there are many significant difference between A. afarensis and its ape predecessors, one of which is crucial to later human evolution, bipedality.
Putting these many parts all together and mirroring ones missing from one side we obtain this composite Australopithecus afarensis
Notice how few places are not taken by brown (indicates Lucy fossil bones) and white (from other fossils and mirrored parts), and that this shows how complete the composite skeleton is. This then becomes the frame on which a 3-D Full size fleshed out reconstruction is made:
Australopithecus afarensis - Wikipedia
quote:
Computer simulations using dynamic modelling of the skeleton's inertial properties and kinematics have indicated that A. afarensis was able to walk in the same way modern humans walk, with a normal erect gait or with bent hips and knees, but could not walk in the same way as chimpanzees. The upright gait would have been much more efficient than the bent knee and hip walking, which would have taken twice as much energy.[5][6] It appears probable that A. afarensis was quite an efficient bipedal walker over short distances, and the spacing of the footprints at Laetoli indicates that they were walking at 1.0 m/s or above, which matches human small-town walking speeds.[7]
A reconstruction of a female Australopithecus afarensis
Note that this museum display puts the reconstruction with the Laetoli footprints, more fossil evidence of bipedal walking:
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote:
Site G - Laetoli
"The Laetoli Footprints"
Species: 		Australopithecus afarensis
Age: 3.6 million years
Date of Discovery: 1974-1975
Location: Laetoli, Tanzania
Discovered by: Mary Leakey

The gait and length of stride match the fossil reconstruction, the footprint pattern matches the foot bones of A. afarensis.
My only question is, are you kidding me??}
Nope. Evidence does not lie. Multiple bits of evidence makes mistaken interpretations less and less likely. You are the one who is kidding yourself if you think this reconstruction is a gross misrepresentation of reality, when the validity is demonstrated by many multiple and overlapping fossils from many individuals that have already been uncovered. More evidence will only serve to "flesh-out" the skeleton further.

End Conclusions

In the end we can conclude that not a single instance of fraud by evolutionary scientists for the planned purpose of deceiving the public with false information has been demonstrated on this thread.
In Message 81 you said (regarding neanderthals)
As is quite obvious to any reasonable observer, I wasn't posting that info for the truth of it in any way,...
Too bad.
Enjoy
Edited by Admin, : Remove off-topic content.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Archangel, posted 09-27-2009 9:38 AM Archangel has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 315 of 323 (528717)
10-06-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Admin
10-06-2009 9:57 AM


Re: Summation Time - unhide the hidden posts?
Hi Percy,
My summary is supported by evidence presented in Message 64, Message 96, Message 205. Message 288, Message 294 and Message 302. These show, not only that the original posts do not meet the standard of fraud committed by "evolutionists" and that evolution has not benefited from these cases in any way, but that none of the additional "examples" have met the standard of fraud.
What we have is the continued scientific process of refining information as more evidence becomes available. In every case - even Piltdown - the original stance was that the evidence could be possible, and that more information should confirm or invalidate this position.
In Piltdown and Nebraska Man we see that further evidence showed the original information to be false - Pildown because it was a fraud perpetuated by someone outside of science, Nebraska because it was a pig and not human.
In Orce Man we see that the jury is still out, but that evidence seems to point towards the skull fragment being human.
In Java Man we see that this was the beginning of finding many similar specimens of this species of hominid, that is also classified in the Homo genus..
In Neanderthals we see that these are also evidence of another hominid in the Homo genus and that they show evidence of "human-like" behavior.
The sheer number of fossil specimens for Java Man and Neanderthal are all that are necessary to show that these hominids are not frauds nor hoaxes.
These are all discussed in Message 64 and the points made have not been refuted with contradictory evidence, only with denial.
Enjoy.
ps - Can I ask that the hidden messages be made visible? You can leave a message at the top that they were hidden while the Orce Man debate was focused on.
Thanks.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Admin, posted 10-06-2009 9:57 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 322 of 323 (529299)
10-08-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by AdminNosy
10-08-2009 5:12 PM


hidden posts - can they be unhidden now?
If the topic is going to be closed, then I think it is fair to unhide the topics that were hidden in order to force the focus on Orce Man, especially when the posts are not off topic for the general thread.
It is possible to read the hidden posts, but you don't get to see the images, which are a part of the argument/s.
(perhaps Percy could have a "view post" similar to the preview function for hidden posts)
Thanks.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by AdminNosy, posted 10-08-2009 5:12 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by AdminNosy, posted 10-08-2009 7:59 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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