Posted on 10/18/2006 12:14:50 PM PDT by JoAnka
|
Not a good idea. Evolution in and of itself is not the only thing that is being taught. Scientific method, research methods, and other valuable scientific skills are taught within the topic of evolution. Whereas the only real lesson taught in ID, at this time, is theological and idealogical. Not very good lessons to build objectivity in the sciences, IMO.
Mainly because the hoaxer engineered a second find, Piltdown II. The problem was that the critics, although correctly claiming that Piltdown I represented not a single species but two -- the jaw from an ape and the skull from a human -- had not seriously considered the possibility of deliberate fraud. Therefore they were effectively arguing that it was a fortuitous association of ape and human materials, misinterpreted as a single creature. Therefore when a separate, second such association was produced, the chance association argument became untenable. (Even though, as the Talk Origins page points out, several important critics persisted.)
Thanks for the ping. BTW, your idiotic posts are easy to find.
Um, No. What you said was:
the biggest names of TOE in England Europe and the USA bought into to it
When in fact (until Piltdown II at least) only a rather small MINORITY of leading evolutionists "bought into it," and its critics included a number of the world's leading anthropologists. (Several of the British scientists supporting it weren't actually experts in human anatomy.)
By the time Sir Arthur Smith Woodward wrote The Earliest Englishman in 1948, he was probably one of the last evolutionists on earth who took Piltdown seriously as a potential human ancestor. (Although some others still accepted it as a genuine hominid, it was dismissed as representing some odd side branch of human evolution at best.)
Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting (correctly) that the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (E.A. Hooton, Up from the Ape, revised edition; The MacMillan Co., 1946).
This is what a 1946 textbook shows, several years before the claims for Piltdown were completely falsified. Your statement is inaccurate.
Kudos to the banned (from FR) Carolina_Guitarman for pointing this out to me today!
That's one more than I thought there were.
So, what's with the claim there are at least 100?
So far, there's at least one, but the one is a historical perspective with full knowledge that Piltdown was a fake. Thus, we still have zero theses which assume Piltdown as a real fossil to be interpreted.
[me] Of course the fact that you can't agree among yourselves about which mutually exclusive slots they belong in hurts your argument! How could it not?It depends on the disagreement. Evolutionists disagreeing whether habilis should be called Australopithecus habilis or Homo habilis actually reinforces the theory that habilis is a transitional between old ape & new human, since a transitional is by definition somewhere between the two, and so it should be expected to have some features that are within the normal range for the old species and/or some that are within the range of the new one. Such a species would be expected to create controversy over which genus it most reasonably belongs under.[you] Then do you also believe that disagreements in the pro-evolution circles damage evolutionists' arguments?
The kind of disagreement that would threaten an evolutionary theory of a species' origins would be something over when the split from the ancestral species occurred. For example, if there was a strong line of evidence that humans & apes split off 20 million years ago (which would contradict the other lines of evidence that point to 4-6 million years) then that would be a serious controversy, because it would have the potential of falsifying the theory that humans came from apes.
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.