Can you explain to me how this makes evolution false?
Is your paradigm that anyone that relies for even a miniscule moment of time on something that turns out to be false can't be trusted in the slightest bit at all?
Then you need to abandon all creationist websites that list things like Nebraska Man, Ernst Haeckel's Embryos, and the like. Why are the creationist sites so full of fruads and fakes even after they have been exposed? At least science discards false information when it is shown to be false.
I find it interesting that a whole race of ape-man, for a time, with a complete artist rendering, was created by a single tooth.
But you aren't curious at all about a story that a woman was made out of a rib?
Perhaps you would rather discuss what is true and how you test for truth?
Trolling Trolling Trolling, keep those doggies Trolling
Hello Dont Be a Flea,
I see you didn't take my advice to be more thoughtful in your posting.
I am simply saying that this so called “science” is not so sacred.
In other words you cannot form any logical reason why the bits and pieces you've thrown together here have absolutely no impact on whether evolution is valid or not.
Not a good way to “prove” a theory.
Nor have you learned that no theories are "proven" - ever - in any science - so your objection here is pointless and ignorant.
Then why did it take over 100 years to correct Ernst and over 40 years to remove Piltdown man?
Irrelevant to the point that science, including evolution, discards falsified concepts.
Ah, but we are not discussing Biblical stories on this thread .
That doesn't answer the question of how you can be skeptical of one thing but not something else -- unless you are not really skeptical, but deluded into thinking you can 'cherry-pick' reality:
The question was how YOU test for the truth of concepts. So far I see no evidence that this is done.
Testing for the truth?? Scientist rushed out to find the missing link and wanted it so bad, they lied about things.
Yet you don't want to talk about creationist lies, forgeries and frauds. Especially those that are still posted on creationist websites in spite of being falsified for years.
Evolution started off on the wrong foot! I think people wanted to believe it so badly, that they lost their objective.
And yet you have not established that this is the case in any way. All you've done is presented some well known events, events that don't affect evolution in any way, are not part of the mainstream science of evolution in any way, and which evolution is in no way dependent upon for validity -- hard for that to be a "wrong foot" isn't it?
That's like saying that christianity got off on the wrong foot because Thor doesn't really cause thunder - gosh, we've uncovered that fraud as well eh? Proving that some people can be dishonest does not make all people dishonest ... at least if YOU are being honest ...
My conclusion is that you don't really want to confront the evidence of the objective reality that surrounds you, but want to waste time on petty irrelevant issues. This is congruent with cognitive dissonance and delusion. Let me know when you want to deal with reality.
And in the very next section, the writers argue that "While some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate, others are tendentious."
Now for extra credit, see if you can get Randman to point out those errors from the Haeckel etchings by comparing them to the photos now used in Millers textbook. Specifically any that would make using the etchings a gross misrepresentation of the facts ... especially in those textbooks that show these etchings with the comment that Haeckel's 'recapitulation theory' has been falsified.
This topic seems to be jumping all over the place, and perhaps what we need are some foundations for arguments.
It was discovered in 1922, and used at the Scopes trial in 1925. A nice rendering was done of a one million year old entire race of humanoid by Amedee Forestier who was especially interested in prehistoric man and loved to bring him to life, not by fictitious imaginings but by the most careful reconstructions based on scientific research, and who also drew of all things, Piltdown man.
The same “authorities” who “debunked” the discovery at one time, (even a short time) endorsed an entire race of humanity out of one pig’s tooth.
Surely, there is a lesson here for us concerning the reliability of so-called "expert testimony," which is so often used to manipulate and intimidate the layman.
Several questions:
(1) does the fact that a pigs tooth was misinterpreted as a hominid prove that evolution does not occur? that all the massive evidence for evolution must likewise be fictitious? that all evolutionary biologists are then engaged in a world wide conspiracy to deceive the world (no matter what the private beliefs of the scientists are)?
OR
(2) does the fact that a pigs tooth was misrepresented as a hominid mean (a) some people make mistakes, and some people are dishonest (earthshaking news that) and (b) that the validity of evolution is neither validated nor invalidated? Did the cold fusion fiasco in any way affect the validity of physics?
The question in the OP is Why Lie, and the answer is that you don't need to. The fact remains that frauds, hoaxes and fakes are discovered and discarded in the scientific literature all the time, in all sciences, as disproving concepts that are false is what science is a about.
Can you name a single evolutionary fraud, hoax or fake that is taught as factual truth? If not then what is the big deal here.
ER 1470 was originally thought to have been a representative of the species Homo habilis, apparently vindicating Louis Leakey's long-held belief that large-brained members of the genus Homo existed in eastern African millions of years ago. The specimens cranial capacity of 775cc, is well in excess of earlier australopith brain size. The fossil was shown to Louis only several days before his death. But Richard Leakey, leader of the expedition which uncovered the skull, refused to firmly place ER 1470 into a species, listing it only as "Homo sp." or "genus Homo, but species indeterminate."
In the years that followed, as more examples of Homo habilis emerged, its assignment to the species H. habilis became a subject of debate. When compared with other Homo habilis specimens, such as KNM ER 1813 several morphological features differ from the classic habilis pattern. For example, in ER 1470, there is only a slight supraorbital torus without a depression behind it.
Many researchers now place ER 1470 within the species Homo rudolfensis along with several other early human fossils that had previously been assigned to H. habilis.
Are you implying that this fossil is a fake? a fraud? a hoax?
quote:he species Homo rudolfensis was originally proposed in 1986 by V. P. Alexeev for the specimen to the left, KNM ER 1470. Originally thought to be a member of the species Homo habilis, much debate surrounded the fossil and its species assignment. It was thought that 2 million years ago there existed a single species in the genus Homo, and this species evolved in a linear fashion into modern humans.
But the differences in this skull, when compared to other habilines, are too pronounced, leading to the formulation of the species Homo rudolfensis, contemporary with Homo habilis.
It is not yet certain if H. rudolfensis was ancestral to the later species in Homo, or if H. habilis was.
Does the fact that there is some dispute about possible lineage mean that this is not a hominid?
Or are going to get a argument based on the problems in dating the fossil as "proof" that all dating is fraught with errors?
Discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1972 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1973). Estimated age is 1.9 million years. This is the most complete Homo habilis skull known. Its brain size is 750 cc, large for habilis. It was originally dated at nearly 3 million years old, a figure that caused much confusion as at the time it was older than any known australopithecines, from whom habilis had supposedly descended. A lively debate over the dating of 1470 ensued (Lewin, 1987; Johanson and Edey, 1981; Lubenow, 1992). The skull is surprisingly modern in some respects. The braincase is much larger and less robust than any australopithecine skull, and is also without the large brow ridges typical of Homo erectus. It is however very robust in the face. A number of leg bones were found within a couple of kilometers, and are thought to probably belong to the same species. The most complete, KNM-ER 1481, consisted of a complete left femur, both ends of a left tibia and the lower end of a left fibula (the smaller of the two lower leg bones). These are quite similar to the bones of modern humans.
Are we going to get an argument that because there was uncertainty on the age of the fossil being 3 million years old and that it has now been dated by more accurate procedures to 1.8 million years mean that the earth is 5000 years old?
™ Version 4.2
