Message 301 of 323 (526438) 09-27-2009 12:45 PM

Reply to: Message 300 by greyseal 09-27-2009 12:34 PM

We'll stick to the Orce findings for now. Thanks.

Message 302 of 323 (526456) 09-27-2009 8:31 PM

Reply to: Message 296 by Archangel 09-27-2009 9:38 AM

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 -n

1. 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.

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.

Curiously, I gave you the information and told you how you could verify the validity of it.

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.

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/newborn-peep.../offbeat-news

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.

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 León of the University of Zürich 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.

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.

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,

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.

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 León 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

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 (~380-430cm³) 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 ...

http://www.cmnh.org/site/AtTheMuseum/OnExhibit/.../Afar.aspx

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 ...

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/afar.html

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

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:

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/laetoli.htm

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.

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)

Too bad.

Enjoy

Edited by Admin, : Remove off-topic content.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Message 303 of 323 (526495) 09-28-2009 4:49 AM

Reply to: Message 301 by AdminNosy 09-27-2009 12:45 PM

RAZD for post of the month!

Message 304 of 323 (526521) 09-28-2009 8:37 AM

I'm also going to begin issuing suspensions for incivility. Each side should regard the other as the esteemed opposition, not the scum of the earth, at least in your public expressions.

If you post in violation of these requests before reading this, fix it quick before I see it.

Please, no replies to this message.

Message 305 of 323 (526525) 09-28-2009 8:44 AM

God, how simple it is to overwhelm you with empty and frivolous content. RAZD is famous for long and expansive posts which do nothing more than bombard me with minutia which of course impresses you sheeple, but is no more true, scientifically verifiable or factual than the last stuff I refuted. Let me give you just one example of how incredibly juvenile and simple it is to deceive you cultists who lack the powers of critical thinking to objectively judge anything a proponent of your pseudo science says since you have already drank all of the kool-aid. Here is his newest example of evidence for Lucy. An alleged cast of the remains of "Lucy" as he puts it.
http://uploa.../Australopithecusafarensis_reconstruction.jpg
Now forgive me for once again asking a common sense question of you, but where are the bones used as a guide to reconstruct this skull apart from the 5 shards shown here of Lucy's skull from this exhibit ?

Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Message 306 of 323 (526534) 09-28-2009 9:15 AM

I'd like to get past Orce man because, quite frankly, the post by RAZD was exhaustive and his work to rebut you deserves to see the light of day.

If you've evidence Orce Man is a fraud (remember, you know what that means now - deliberate malfeasance) then post it.

If not, say "Orce man isn't a fraud, I was wrong" and then concentrate on RAZD's quote which Master Percy will (at that point and no earlier) uncover so you can say "and for my next trick..." and blow evolution out the water.

I think coelacanth is right out until after that.

This is your chance. Don't blow it.

Message 307 of 323 (526738) 09-29-2009 8:26 AM

The Orce skull fragment from southern Spain, dated at 1.6 Myr, has been a subject of heated controversy since it was first discovered in 1982. If it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, AND ALSO: Both teams obtained reactions "characteristic" of human albumin in the Orce skull

Here once again is the abstract of the article Coyote linked to:

Abstract: The Orce skull fragment from southern Spain, dated at 1.6 Myr, has been a subject of heated controversy since it was first discovered in 1982. If it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, it is by far the oldest fossil hominid yet found in western Europe and implies that human populations settled this region much earlier than was previously realized. Numerous stone artifacts found at the Orce sites provide evidence that hominids were indeed present there in the Lower Pleistocene. Some paleontologists maintain that the 8 cm diameter occipital fragment is from a horse, not a hominid. Two independent investigations of the residual proteins in the skull were undertaken, one at the University of Granada in Spain, the other at the University of California, San Francisco. Two immunological methods of comparable sensitivity were employed for detection and species attribution of protein extracted from fossil bone: the Granada team used an enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the UCSF team used a radioimmunoassay (RIA). Both teams obtained reactions characteristic of human albumin in the Orce skull and horse albumin in some of the horse fossils. These results support the lithic evidence that hominids were living in Andalusia 1.6 million years ago.

The relevant issue for the sake of this debate is that even though the scientific community has no confidence in the Orce Man bone fragment as it stands, it was still used as evidence originally of a transitional fossil before any actual evidence either way obviously existed. And that deduction is obvious since red flags have surrounded it since 2 years after its discovery and release for public consumption. What happened with the peer review process with this and every other questionable discovery which has been thrown out into the public domain via world wide press releases? And where are the well documented retractions which reverse those original press releases with the same volume and verve which the announcements received?

And one more thing, how long must I respond to issues just because evolutionists will continue to reject anything I say? Since when do moderators determine for me when I have defended a position enough before moving on to another subject? My posts to RAZD on this page have been in direct response to issues he raised and vice versa. My technique is to point out in any evidentiary direction we go in that these unsupported by evidence claims of human evolution receive world wide promotion when nothing they claim is absolutely proven in any way, shape or form. This is evidence of organized indoctrination and validation of claims which cannot be held up as actual proven evidence at all, but that doesn't stop this pseudo science from promoting it anyway. NUFF SAID!

Message 308 of 323 (526747) 09-29-2009 8:50 AM

Reply to: Message 307 by Archangel 09-29-2009 8:26 AM

I'm just focusing current discussion on Orce man as per your request in Message 278. You're more than welcome to move on to the Coelacanth if that is your wish. The off-topic discussion focused mostly on Neanderthals as fraud, so if you'd like to discuss that next instead then that would be fine (use the peek or edit buttons and copy/paste to reuse your text in new messages). I'm just here to bring some structure to the discussion, and to ensure that incivility doesn't cause the thread to spin out control. I'm not taking sides.

I admire your passion, but if frauds have advanced acceptance of evolution among the public then evidence and rational argument is all you need. Acting antagonistically by doing things like questioning the honesty of the people you're discussing with isn't a very effective method of persuasion (e.g., "You people are so dishonest..." in Message 103 and so forth), plus it's against the Forum Guidelines, see rule 10.

Message 309 of 323 (526751) 09-29-2009 8:52 AM

Reply to: Message 307 by Archangel 09-29-2009 8:26 AM

Could you please highlight the part of your post where a deliberate deception has been committed. For the life of me, I cannot see where fraud has occurred, or where you have pointed it out.

You aren't here to show that Orce man wasn't a transitional, you are here to show where scientists deliberately misled everyone. This has been pointed out so many times now that I'm growing suspicious you are being deliberately myopic.

Mark

Message 310 of 323 (526758) 09-29-2009 9:12 AM

Reply to: Message 307 by Archangel 09-29-2009 8:26 AM

You then proceed to talk about Orce Man.

That sounds a lot like an admission that Orce Man is not used as an argument for evolution. So your argument that it was used to promote evolution is false then?

Please try to understand before one of us dies of old age.

No-one on this board is saying that Orce Man is definitely human. You seem to keep wanting to pigeon hole us into this position, but it is not my position. No-one here has claimed to know either way about this fossil except you.

You claim that it is definitely a donkey skull. How do you know?

You don't. You admit that you have not examined the science. You have not read the papers on it. The only reason you have to suppose the Orce fossil is a donkey is because a creationist site told you so and you simply believed it, without any attempt to examine the evidence.

Now for the N^th time, I do not have an opinion either way on Orce Man. It may be human, it may be donkey. From what little I have seen of the evidence, there is no way to be sure. Anyone making definitive statements about this fossil is wrong to do so.

Now if you were to criticise the original team leader who announced Orce Man as having been guilty of over-egging his discovery, fine. From the sound of it, you could make a case for that. He seems to have been premature in claiming that his find was human. This in itself though, does not constitute fraud. For that, you need to demonstrate both knowledge that the claim was false and deliberate intention to deceive. You have shown neither, nor have you shown any interest in doing so.

They are trying to build up a body of evidence. Sadly, evidence is rarely conclusive. If you have a more effective testing procedure in mind, one which might provide more conclusive results, please do share it with us. I'm sure that the worldwide palaeontological community would be grateful for your insight.

I thought you said "if evolution science had any confidence in it as true evidence, it would be front and center in their lineup of transitional fossil evidence"? You can't have it both ways Angel. Was Orce Man used as evidence of evolution or not? If so, where, when and by whom? That is the relevant issue for this debate. It is the issue you chose and now seem unwilling or unable to defend.

If this were genuinely your complaint I would sympathise. Peer review is an imperfect system, leaving much to be desired. Science reporting is shockingly bad and the problem of retractions and negative findings going under-reported is a serious one. This however is not your real complaint.

Your complaint is that a deliberate fraud has been perpetrated, but you simply can't be bothered to argue your own case. Demonstrate fraud or admit that your claim is unfounded Angel.

Gee, I dunno. Until you back up your claims or withdraw them I suspect.

Mutate and Survive

Message 311 of 323 (526817) 09-29-2009 10:54 AM

Reply to: Message 307 by Archangel 09-29-2009 8:26 AM

Abstract: The Orce skull fragment from southern Spain, dated at 1.6 Myr, has been a subject of heated controversy since it was first discovered in 1982.

An introductory statement, providing a little background to the forthcoming article.

If it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, it is by far the oldest fossil hominid yet found in western Europe and implies that human populations settled this region much earlier than was previously realized.

This is a statement of a problem, and an introductory statement. This is not a conclusion! This sentence clearly sets up the problem that is to be addressed.

Numerous stone artifacts found at the Orce sites provide evidence that hominids were indeed present there in the Lower Pleistocene.

Additional data, providing some background.

Summary to date: There are stone tools of an early age and a skull fragment has been found. There is controversy over that fragment.

Some paleontologists maintain that the 8 cm diameter occipital fragment is from a horse, not a hominid.

A direct statement of the problem that is being investigated in this article.

Two independent investigations of the residual proteins in the skull were undertaken, one at the University of Granada in Spain, the other at the University of California, San Francisco. Two immunological methods of comparable sensitivity were employed for detection and species attribution of protein extracted from fossil bone: the Granada team used an enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the UCSF team used a radioimmunoassay (RIA).

A statement of the methods used.

Both teams obtained reactions characteristic of human albumin in the Orce skull and horse albumin in some of the horse fossils.

A summary of the findings, that the skull fragment has biological materials matching humans, not equines.

These results support the lithic evidence that hominids were living in Andalusia 1.6 million years ago.

A conclusion: this finding supports the human nature of the skull fragment, which, as well, is supported by the presence of early stone tools.

In no case does this article support your position that the skull fragment is a donkey. And in nothing that you have posted have you supported your contention that this skull fragment or its treatment was fraudulent. The initial estimate was that it was human and that is what this current article found. It looks like those paleontologists claiming it might be a donkey were wrong, along with all of the creationists who gleefully jumped on that claim and ran with it. And who won't admit they were wrong.

I've noticed that many creationists act as if their arguments, even those picked up from creationist websites of dubious honesty, are inerrant. Many of those creationists are reluctant to ever admit an error, no matter how much evidence is presented to them that they are wrong.

I hope you aren't among that group.

Message 312 of 323 (526886) 09-29-2009 1:43 PM

Reply to: Message 307 by Archangel 09-29-2009 8:26 AM

Before we (hopefully!) put Orce Man to rest, I wanted to mention something important about this find. I could be misunderstanding you (or your sources, but the following:

Makes me think that you have inflated belief in the significance of this find to evolutionary biology. If validated, the significance of the find is that an early wave of hominids settled Western Europe earlier than than the confirmed dates (780 kya, iirc). In terms of intermediates, the find is not very important at all. We already know that Homo erectus (using the term as an organizational grade more than as a taxon) spread out from Africa at or around this time.

The point is that the ~1.6 my period is not devoid of hominids. What was happening in Spain at that time, while interesting, is likely to be more of a side note. The real 'movers and shakers' in the human story were in Africa at this time (although it seems likely that wave after wave migrated out of Africa to spread far and wide).

I thought this might help your understanding of the Orce issue better. When I read Gish and other creationist descriptions or Orce I see that it is implied that somehow Orce represents some crucial link in human evolution, which is certainly untrue.

Edited by Lithodid-Man, : added 'be' to 'to be more of a side..."

Message 313 of 323 (528491) 10-06-2009 9:57 AM

Please post your summations or final arguments over the next couple days, after that I will close the thread. Please, no replies to other people's summations.

Message 314 of 323 (528506) 10-06-2009 10:29 AM

Ironically, then, the repeated claims of "fraud" made by creationist liars are themselves fraudulent and dishonest.

It is curious that whenever anyone becomes really passionate about Biblical literalism, the first thing they do is to break the commandment against bearing false witness. But such, it seems, is the case.

Message 315 of 323 (528717) 10-06-2009 5:57 PM

Reply to: Message 313 by Admin 10-06-2009 9:57 AM

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.