The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

Now, let me see if I can get myself out of this mess once and for all. Accorcing to what I see, it was a mistake, not a fraud. Agreed.
But it is a mistakelol.....alright sorry for that, bad habit.Now, before I get myself in boiling water again. Let me see if the following examples are what you wish to discuss.1.Homo Erectus2.Boxgrove3.Homo HabilisIs this more along your lines?3.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-13-2004 12:40 AMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-13-2004 03:18 PM

I've never heard of boxgrove. If you think you have more "fictional" specimens to discuss by all means pick one.I hope by now you understand that some of your sources might be less than reliable.You also need to understand that no one critisizes these things more than the experts in the field. You need to understand a little just how badly you are misinformed.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-13-2004 02:19 AM

I think NOTHINGNESS is talking about the Homo heidelbergensis specmin found at Boxgrove in Sussex, UK, which is sometimes called Boxgrove Man.See the University College London site on the excavation project.However, the question arises: what problem does NOTHINGNESS see with such a thoroughly researched site?

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

quote:

---

Am I wrong?I believe someone just wanted to hear it again. Must have been a perfect person.

---

I requested that you state it, I must have missed it the first time. My apologies. And no, none of us are perfect which is why we shouldn't rely solely on man's interpretation of God's word when looking at nature.

Would it be fair for me to say that Evolutionists could also be misinformed by the 'experts'?Everybody has their experts, which always seem to come to a differnt conclusion. That's one of the reasons for all the confusion, do you agree?If it's alright with you, let's start with the Homo Heidelbergensis. What is your opinion on this fossil?

quote:

---

Would it be fair for me to say that Evolutionists could also be misinformed by the 'experts'?

---

If you don't mind, I actually work in the sciences and so I have a pretty good idea of how relying on "experts" goes. The bottom line is that every time that a scientist makes a new discovery or puts out a new paper, chances are that his/her ideas are going to be challenged. I don't know for sure, but I am pretty certain that the Boxgrove specimens have been studied by more than one expert in the field, and each of those experts is checking the findings of the others. Within the practice of science there is tons of competition because there is not enough money to go around. Therefore, if you can repetitively show that your competitors are wrong then you have a better chance of getting that money, as well as fame within in your field. Because there is strong competition within the sciences, and each person's finds are also examined by other people, the "expert" opinion can be considered to be reliable. Notice I didn't say that the experts have the final word, but you can rely on their description of the fossils and rely on their placement in the fossil record. It is possible that all of the experts are all misinformed and are missing something important, but that is the exact reason why scientific theories are held tentatively instead of as absolute truth.

quote:

---

Everybody has their experts, which always seem to come to a differnt conclusion. That's one of the reasons for all the confusion, do you agree?

---

But when your 'expert' is an electrical engineer who is a devout fundamentalist christian you would tend to hold that expert's opinion as being suspect. However, when multiple experts, all of which are academically trained in comparative anatomy, physiology, taxonomy, etc. their opinion is much more trustworthy. If experts with this type of expertise are disagreeing on a subject then you indeed have a point of contention. However, if one side is unable to show through objective evidence that the others are wrong, then you really don't have a point of contention.

Well, I will take an experts opinion has having some weight but only to a point and it depends on the particular expertise. I'm used to seeing different experts offering different views on leading edge science. I'm never happy if I only have an article offering the opinion of only one person even if it seems reasonable to me since I can be fooled by someone who is expert in a field which I am not.I prefer to see conflicting opinions voiced and most importantly the reasons for the opinions given. I find that most of the time I can make a judegment of my own even in fields which I don't have much expertise. I just need to have the details digested and presented on both sides of the argument.All of that applies at the more leading edge areas. Often I just decided to wait a bit and see how it settles out. The process goes on for months or years and then a consensus starts to develop. I'm in the wait and see mode with the "out of africa" hypothosis right now. Though my understanding of the data does suggest to me that it is correct.The confusion arises when someone is willing to just take an expert opinion without understanding why the opinion is arrived at. In the case of N-man we saw that the confusion rose because you had been given false information. Not because of a difference of opinion of experts at all. You brought it up. What is your opinion?

I think you're trying to paint a picture of confusion where it doesn't exist.If you were to ask if all scientists agree on everything, the answer would be no, of course they don't all agree on everything, and human origins is an area where there is far more than the average number of disagreements. This field seems to attract scientists who prefer the limelight and have a tendency toward the showman.Nonetheless, regarding Nebraska Man, some scientists may have withheld judgment longer than others, but no scientist accepted it. Regarding Piltdown Man, some accepted it as genuine, some didn't, some withheld judgment, and by the time it was proven a fraud it had almost no supporters at all because of the mass of contrary fossil evidence that had been amassed in the years since 1916.Given the huge accumulation of human fossil data now in the hands of scientists, trying to prove that we only accept human evolution because of fraudulent evidence seems pointless. Are you proposing something like secret factories in the Midwest churning out fake human fossils that scientists can plant at digs before they "discover" them? I don't accept human evolution because of Homo heidelbergensis. I never even heard of it, so I had to look it up on the Internet. Sounds like a European variant of Homo erectus. I have no opinion on the fossil itself. My opinion about human origins is that, just as one would expect given all the fossils discovered of predecessors of other living species, the fossil record also includes antecedent species of Homo sapiens, and that as time goes on paleontologists will gradually build a more accurate and detailed picture.This means I have no idea, nor do I particularly care, whether Homo heidelbergensis is more closely related to Homo erectus or Homo neanderthalensis. Its place in the human panoply may or may not eventually be settled, and it is enough for me to know that theories of human evolution are supported by a wealth of evidence.--Percy

quote:

---

If it's alright with you, let's start with the Homo Heidelbergensis. What is your opinion on this fossil?

---

No, lets start with your opinion.What's the problem with Homo heidelbergensis

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

quote:

---

If it's alright with you, let's start with the Homo Heidelbergensis. What is your opinion on this fossil?

---

The common theory in science is that Homo heidelbergensis is the parent species of both humans and neanderthals.Below is a great site on an overview of the characteristics of H. heidel:Homo Heidelbergensis - Modern Human Origins

Well, I think Percy pretty much hit the nail on the head. Except he kind of got sidetracked a little bit at the end. He must have been distracted by some attractive lady, and made a mistake.Well, in my opinion, the Boxgrove excavation that discovered the-Homo Heidelbergenis-specimen,seems to have come from the Pleisotone era.This obviously consists from the different sources of information, which randomly surface.According to the Dr. Marc Roberts in 1986
(Director, Boxgrove excavations) the discoveries consisted of two teeth, and a chin bone at the time.The estimated age of the fossil was approximately half a million years old.(I differ on the age, but that will be discussed on a new topic.)Dr. Marc Roberts stated the following: "the specimen is not stooped, he's big, strong, and a physical individual. Somewhat hairy. Stooped? No."In regards to the -Neandertal- Dr. Chris Stringer said the following: "They were found to be truly human. Double large brows, and larger brains than average. etc."He also described the fossil as "virtually no chin, big nose(seems to have been pulled out), the body would have been short and wide. Very thick set and muscular. Heavy round worn teeth, and NO SIGNS OF ARMS SCRAPING FLOOR."Dr. Chris Stringer(Natural History Museum-London)
stated the following. "Homo Erectus is true human. The skeleton was much more human in proportions. The brain size is true human."Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer(Paleonthropologist-University Munich)
stated the following:" Homo Erectus belongs to the basic type of humans. You could place it with other like, and truly human."Do you object to any of this?In regards to Homo Habilis. I would like to know just one thing about it. Is Homo Habilis a mixture of many various fossils made into one?
If so, there would not be any line from Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus, correct?To my understanding, Homo Erectus is truly human.Wrong? Control use of fire, locomotive-running, etc. Just like us? I'm asking, What do you think?By the way, the Boxgrove fossil also had signs of -control fire abilities, and other animal fossils buried with it.
What do you think?

Object to it? Why? It was hilarious! Where do you get your material, Comedy Central? I wonder if someone is pulling your leg. Marc Roberts is the Britisher who streaked the Superbowl earlier this year.Let me spend a couple of minutes with Google and see if I can find where you got that stuff...Ah, you meant "Mark Roberts", not "Marc Roberts". Getting the spelling right enabled Google to find it. Somewhat hairy? He finds two teeth and a chin bone and can tell the specimen is somewhat hairy? This quote is a rather transparent fake. Where did you get it?The other quotes are likely fake, too. Hominid paleontologists would not likely be describing a human ancestor as "truly human". These other hominids have classifications that are not Homo sapien, which means that they are of other species, and therefore not "truly human". Homo habilis is a hominid species, not a particular skeleton like Lucy. Perhaps someone here knows what are the most complete Homo habilis skeletons. You're making a mistake if you think you can get an accurate picture of how hominid paleontologists view human ancestry from the caricatures that appear at Creationist sources.I think it would be better to inquire about the degree of similarity or difference that any human predecessor has across a variety of characteristics. The further back you go, the greater the differences will be. But no human predecessor can be considered "truly human". Were that the case, they would not be classified as different species.--Percy

I don't know what is the most complete skeleton but at last count there were over twenty samples.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't know about skeletons, but KNMER 1470 from Turkana is the most complete skull.

---

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

Wanna tell us where you got your info?

---

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