Posted on 08/27/2005 9:08:20 AM PDT by bondserv
Paleoanthropology: Start Over? 08/22/2005 
The September issue of National Geographic, featuring the African continent, has arrived in homes. On page 1, Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post wrote about the quest for early man, asking, “Are we looking for bones in all the right places?” The bulk of the article describes the “messy” story of human origins. It used to be clean-cut, he said, but no longer:
Scientists are good at finding logical patterns and turning data into a coherent narrative. But the study of human origins is tricky: The bones tell a complicated story. The cast of characters keeps growing. The plot keeps thickening. It’s a heck of a tale, still unfolding.That represents the bulk of the article: the simple picture is gone, we don’t know who begat whom, we have no fossils of chimpanzees, the family tree is full of dead ends, and we may be trying too hard to tell a story from too few bones. Achenbach quotes Dan Lieberman of Harvard: “We‘re not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don’t know. Sometimes I think we’re trying to squeeze too much blood out of these stones.”
More than half a century ago the great biologist Ernst Mayr surveyed the field of paleoanthropology and saw all sorts of diverse characters: Peking man, Java man, and Homo erectus. He figured out [sic] that they were all the same thing and helped bring coherence to a rambling tale. By the 1960s the textbook version of human origins looked pretty tidy: Humans evolved in Africa; Homo habilis begat Homo erectus, who begat Homo sapiens. (The Neandertals were sort of a fly in the ointment.) Today the field has again become a rather glorious mess. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
Earth doesn’t yield a perfect database. Still, it’s our scientific impulse to impose parsimonious explanations on complex problems in the same way that Newton realized that the fall of the apple and the motion of the planets were governed by the same simple force called gravity. But the process of evolution can’t be observed like the fall of an apple. Life—despite all the efforts of modern science—is messy.One might be tempted to conclude, therefore, that the field is open to alternative explanations. Why, then, does Achenbach put this statement in the middle of his article? “The central fact of human evolution is a given—humans descended from a primate [sic] that lived in Africa six or seven million years [sic] ago—and those who would doubt evolution are arguing against the entire enterprise of science.” The basics are established, he claims; it’s only some key details that are unknown.
Is it any wonder why Achenbach wins Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week? Look at what he did. He demolished everything most of us were taught as evolutionary fact years ago. He admitted that the whole picture is a mess of disconnected, confusing pieces. He admitted that no one can make sense of it. He admitted that paleoanthropology is not in the same ballpark as Newton’s hard science, and why?—because “the process of evolution can’t be observed like the fall of an apple.” There aren’t enough ape bones, there aren’t enough human bones, and there aren’t enough bones of anything in between that is not controversial. On top of all that, we might even just be imposing our own preconceptions on the data! He quotes someone who casts doubt on the honesty of paleoanthropologists. That seasoned veteran of the “science” of paleoanthropology believes the researchers are trying to squeeze too much blood out of their bones.
In short, Achenbach has just shorn paleoanthropology of any claim to legitimate science. Yet in the midst of this doleful tale of ignorance, he commits the most egregious logical fallacy imaginable. (1) First, he bluffs with his made-up story that humans evolved out of Africa six or seven million years ago – how does he know? Did he observe this? On which bones did he base this belief? Ignoring the fact that the out-of-Africa view is controversial, even if the leading candidate for the “thickening plot,” he instructs us that this belief is not open to question: “the central fact [sic] of human evolution [sic] is a given.” (2) Second, like a stingy hyena unable to eat but snapping angrily at anyone approaching the carcass of a dead science, he says, “those who would doubt evolution are arguing against the entire enterprise of science.” So creationists, keep out; this is our storytelling game, he implies. Fine; if your view of science is bluffing, ignorance, open-ended storytelling and authoritarianism, you can have it.
The plot keeps thickening, he says. It’s the enterprise of science, he says. The Science Restaurant used to be a nice place to hang out before Chef Charlie swindled the owners and took over. He replaced everything on the menu with the only thing he knew how to cook, his original Thicken Plot Pie, which has become so thick now it should only be taken with a strong laxative. It’s understandable why Achenbach, moaning in discomfort, is envious of Newton and his—shall we say it?—“regularity.”
I contend that science is entertaining, and occasionally helpful. I enjoy science. Fun stuff, like riding a jet-ski. There are professional jet-skiers who have fun. One might even use his jet-sking prowess as to save a drowning child (Both will eventually die however). Occasionally helpful.
There aren’t enough ape bones, there aren’t enough human bones, and there aren’t enough bones of anything in between that is not controversial. On top of all that, we might even just be imposing our own preconceptions on the data!
He said nothing like that. It's just a terrible interpretation of what he said. The guy is saying that the primate tree of evolution is messy, not that there is no fossil evidence for primate evolution, or that the existance of transitional forms is controversial. In fact he specifically mentions: The central fact of human evolution is a given—humans descended from a primate [sic] that lived in Africa six or seven million years [sic] ago. The critical article of course is stumped at this, and says Why...does Achenbach put this statement in the middle of his article?. Why indeed. Perhaps that odd enigma should have acted as the flashing red bulb that indicated they had interpreted what Achenbach said earlier all wrong.
The article also forgets the very good genetic evidence for primate evolution. "Them bones" are not the only line of evidence.
Oh no - it is just for counting the votes. Thus no one is to throw more than one coconut, and missing the vote counter makes his job more difficult.
Hey it is a taxpayer funded religious/business.
Our school children are the tools used to tap our wallets.
And as to which Biblical interpretation is right ... ?
Are you saying we can non-speculatively discern the genetic progression from apes to man? That a lab has recreated the programming changes that have happened, and can repeatedly demonstrate that the genes exhibit a clear pathway of evolutionary changes that undoubtedly account for the complexity of mankind's current condition?
There are many alternative speculations hitting science journals as we speak (type).
When A.E. Wilder-Smith explained how Huxley's typewriter was not aligned with natural laws, Darwin's death knell was sounded. Nature's typewriter doesn't leave the letters on the page, therefore the equation:
If infinite time,
then probability = 1,
does not apply.
Chemicals never organize into complex entities without the injection of information. Without the injection of more sophisticated information, complexity does not arise by chance because of the nature of chemistry. The food industry has done billions of experiments to prove this out (think jars of peanut butter).
If you can make this host of passages mean something else, have at it.
BEWARE, unleashing the Lion of the Tribe of Judah can be harmful to your worldview! (Red letters indicate words spoken by Jesus)
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.
Isa 40:21-22
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
Isa 64:4 For since the beginning of the world [men] have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, [what] he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 5:1 This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Deu 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth,
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
New Testament references to Adam.
Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul;
Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
That, to me, is the crux of the matter. And it is providing a degree of embarrassment to the science establishment, and is fueling this ridiculous debate ( more like stone chucking ) that can be seen in the crevo-evo threads.
Instead of admitting that there is a lot we don't know, there is this adherence to 'dogma' ( much like 'We are at war with EastAsia, we have always been at war with EastAsia').
Opportunists from both sides, whether its the Jerry Falwell brigade or the Dawkins Kool-Aid cadre cloud the need to do more research.
But hey, I'm just an epistemologist.
No I am not.
The second part of your post concerns origin of life, not primate evolution.
The dumbest Jew shepherd that ever lived would know that the striped stakes did not do that and would not do that to his own flock. It was not a matter of "genetics" or chance But "scientists" are experts at mocking God, whose work it solely was.
Continuing with Gen 31:
7 And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.
8 If he said thus, The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the cattle bare speckled: and if he said thus, The ringstraked shall be thy hire; then bare all the cattle ringstraked.
9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.
We see horizontal and descending evolution only.
Well said!
It is my contention that you can't possibly know that for sure.
Do you say that without an ounce of hesitation (even a millisecond)?
The entirety of archaeological dating and evolution hinges on the accuracy of current fossil and organic sample dating methods. Carbon dating for organic samples assumes the rate of carbon 14 isotope conversion has been constant for all time. Yet living samples of organisms taken from the zones around ocean floor vents carbon date to 20,000 BCE!! This "exception" to the rule does not seem to phase anyone in the field of archaeology. They meander on as though they still had a pair of legs.
For non carbon based samples, various radioactive isope decay rates are applied to different kinds of rock. Again the assumption is that decay rates have been stable for all time. Decay rates can be affected by external conditions. This is a rubber yardstick.
It is also assumed that rates of conversion of sediment to rock are uniform or that thickness of sediment layer is an indication of its rate of formation. Yet wood can be fossillized in your garage and sediment layers can be the product of many floodings in a season OR the turbulence of a single large scale flood event oscillating between barriers.
Ice core samples assume that a layer equates to a year, rather than a single snow fall, many of which occur per year. Layering is assumed to occur at a slow rate, centuries per foot or so, yet a flight of WWII P 38 airplanes that crash landed in Greenland during the war were found 40 years later at a depth of almost 200' beneath the surface.
Science is a mafia, despondent and in denial of the obvious over it's inherent law of hypothesis- new data will ineluctably change the picture and create a new hypothesis.
Walter
/////////////////////////////////////////
walter alter artist - wiseguy - savant
____________________________
PORTFOLIO: http://infojockey.tripod.com/
PSYOPS: www.fortunecity.com/victorian/mill/1189
1Sam.17At least one of those accounts is weong
[12] Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehemjudah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: ...
[14] And David was the youngest:
1Chr.2
13] And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third,
[14] Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth,
[15] Ozem the sixth, David the seventh:
If you've never been quoted in the newspaper, you have no idea how far from the truth reporters can get.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.