Man or Gorilla? Scientist Questions Skull Theory

Reuters ^ | Fri Jul 12,10:29 AM ET | John Chalmers

[Junior]

The "vast array of skeletal and fossil remains of missing links" repeatedly promised to us by the Darwinists have never materialized despite almost a century of intense, well-funded archaeology.

You don't follow these threads much, do you? Archaeopteryx is the link between dinosaurs and birds. A recent post presents the link between aquatic vertibrates and their terrestrial descendents. VadeRetro has a link somewhere to a lovely progression from mammal-like reptiles to mammals. Plenty of "transitional forms" are known.

From The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource (also here on FR):

Macroevolution, Speciation and Transitional Species

• 20 Answers from an Evolutionist {Russell Stewart}

• 29 Evidences for Macroevolution (9 & 10) (2001-03-16)

• 29 Evidences for Macroevolution (11 & 12) (2001-03-20)

• 29 Evidences for Macroevolution (13 & 14) (2001-03-28)

• 29 Evidences for Macroevolution (17 and 18) (2001-04-07)

• 29 Evidences for Macroevolution - #19, 20, 2 (2001-05-20)

• 29 Evidences for Macroevolution - #22, 23, 24 (2001-05-24)

• 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Thread The Next (2001-04-02)

• African Elephants Are Now One of Two Kinds [Elephant Evolution] (2001-08-24)

• All About Archaeopteryx {Chris Nedin, Talk Origins, January 15, 1999}

• Archaeopteryx FAQs, The {Chris Nedin, Talk Origins, 1995-1997}

• Archaeopteryx's Relationship With Modern Birds {Thomas Holtz, Jr., 1995}

• Biologists Uncover Darwin's ‘Missing Evidence’ for Divergence of Species in a Warbler's Song (2001-01-19)

• DNA and Darwin: Research Shows that Evolution Repeats Itself in Caribbean Lizards (2001-04-07)

• Ensatina eschscholtzi: Speciation in Progress

• Evidence for Dinosaur-Bird Transition, The (A Sidebar Thread) (2001-07-09)

• Macroevolution {John Wilkins, Talk Origins, 1997}

• Macro-Evolution versus Moses (Several Parts) (1999-12-14)

• Magic of Evolutionary Speciation, The [Part I] (2000-03-16)

• Magic of Evolutionary Speciation, The [ Part II] (2000-04-02)

• Magic of Evolutionary Speciation, The [ Part III] (2000-04-11)

• Observed Instances of Speciation {Joseph Boxhorn, Talk Origins, September 1, 1995}

• On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"  {Tim Thompson}

• Process of Speciation, The {University of Michigan, 1996}

• Speciation {Kimball's Biology Pages, December 1, 2001}

• Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium {Don Lindsay}

• Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists (2000-05-18)

• Study Hints at How Genetic Mutations Led to Macroevolutionary Change (2002-02-07)

• Ted Holden's "Intermediate Fossil" Quotes from Walter ReMine's "Biotic Message" {Andrew MacRae}

• Transitional Fossils -- Age and Descent {Wesley R. Elsberry}

• Transitional Fossils Leading to Orbulina {April 26, 1998}

• Transitional Fossils FAQ {Kathleen Hunt}

• Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ {Kathleen Hunt, Talk Origins, March 17, 1997}

• Water Lily Study Sheds Light on Evolution of Flowering Plants {Scientific American}

[lews]

-- Yeah - It's so ridiculous to think that species or populations of organisms change over time..... --

Another grossly false statement from a Darwinist. If you would take a little time to understand what the other side actually believes you wouldn't make such errant comments. You won't find a serious IDer or creationist out there who doesn't agree that species can change over time (micro-evolution). What they dispute is that species change into new species over time (macro-evolution). With a little more homework you wouldn't make such mistakes.

[Lost Highway]

Science is not guess work or opinion. Science is fact!<\sarcasm>

[Junior]

Is there a magical cutoff that prevents changes from building up to the point of speciation? Where do new species come from, if not from extant species (mammals aren't mixed in with trilobites, so they obviously weren't around at the same time)?

[Hunble]

"Even if it is a big monkey, it's even more interesting," Coppens said. "Because until now, in the genealogy of monkeys, there is a big missing link stretching over millions of years."

Why of course it would be difficult to classify this 6 million old skull as Human or Gorilla. At that early date, the two species were very closely related, and would share most features.

This is not and argument about which scientist is correct, but more of a demonstration of why humans become more simular to other great apes, the further back in time you go.

[gdani]

With a little more homework you wouldn't make such mistakes.

My reply, which was not to you, was merely a reply to this statement "...just go on giving the Teacher's Unions pernission to brainwash our kids with "evolution" as if it too, was not the hoax that it is".

Where in that statement do you find the word "macro" or "micro"?

And since I'm sure you've done so much homework, maybe you can point me to the "scientific" evidence that shows that the world was created in 6 days, that woman came from man's rib, that Adam & Eve were the first humans, that the Garden of Eden existed and that people once lived to be several hundred years old.

Hint - the Bible does not count as evidence.

[PatrickHenry]

Once again, we see a crowd of posters who are desperately trying to conjure up any excuse to avoid dealing with the concept of a pre-Adamic hominid. How many excuses have we seen so far? (1) it's a fraud; (2) all scientists are idiots; (3) scientists are always changing their minds; (4) it's the devil's work; (5) I hate all you evolutionists!

[billbears]

The evolutionists will believe nothing that doesn't support their theory

bump for later.

[lews]

-- maybe you can point me to the "scientific" evidence that shows that the world was created in 6 days, that woman came from man's rib, that Adam & Eve were the first humans, that the Garden of Eden existed and that people once lived to be several hundred years old. --

So, let me see, when faced the the inherent improbability of your system you try to shift focus to the improbability of the other system. My friend, this little game does nothing to make your theory more likely than it was before.

The ultimate truth is, until much, much, much more information is discovered there will not be a good scientific answer to the issue of origins. Right now, if you would look honestly, you will see that there is evidence the supports both viewpoints. Generally, it is your personal ideology that determines whether you end up a naturalist or a IDer or a Creationist.

However, your assertion that the improbability or your theory is somehow improved by the improbability of the other is nonsense.

[jennyp]

"Creationist," as used here, indicates someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the first six or seven chapters of Genesis (at least up through the Flood) and consequently sees evolution as the Devil's attempt to draw souls away from God.

I define creationist broader than that. "Creationist", to me, is anyone who believes a person of some kind was involved in the origin of the species.

According to my definition, Medved is an outlier subspecies of creationist.

[Junior]

So, let me see, when faced the the inherent improbability of your system

What is so improbable about organisms changing over thousands of generations? Remember, each change is extremely small, but over long periods of time those tiny changes add up to large changes.

[gdani]

Right now, if you would look honestly, you will see that there is evidence the supports both viewpoints.

You didn't answer my question. What scientific evidence is there to support the specific "facts" of Adam & Eve, woman from man's rib, etc?

However, your assertion that the improbability or your theory is somehow improved by the improbability of the other is nonsense.

Well, you worded that wrong. I think you meant the "probability of my theory" but I know what you meant.

And actually, it's what creationists do all the time. They find a few nuggets of information that they think will be able to disprove the entire theory of evolution and then maintain that it proves that evolutionary theory is so flawed it can't be fixed or believed. They then make another leap and say that if evolutionary theory is so flawed, as they maintain, then the logical alternative must be creationism or intelligent design.

[jennyp]

However, your assertion that the improbability or your theory is somehow improved by the improbability of the other is nonsense.

That's true as far as it goes, but as Colin Patterson says...

...But the essence of scientific method ... is to test two (or more) rival theories, like Newton's and Einstein's, and to accept the one that passes more or stricter tests until a better theory turns up. We must look at evolution theory and natural selection theory in terms of performance against the competition.

[The general theory of evolution] has only one main competitor, creation theory.... All creation theories are purely metaphysical. They make no predictions about the activities of the Creator, except that life as we know it is the result of His plan. Since we do not know the plan, no observation can be inconsistent with it. ...
Colin Patterson, Evolution, 2nd Ed. (1999)

[NukeMan]

It depends on whose ox is being gored. In this case Mr. Brunet was challenging the status quo. In the case of Sivapithicus, it served the status quo IIRC, and was thus accepted without much question.

Very perspicacious. Whatever else science is, it is also a social activity, replete with human foibles.

[Virginia-American]

However, your assertion that the improbability or your theory is somehow improved by the improbability of the other is nonsense.

Two-edged sword - pointing out alleged flaws in evolutionary theory does not make any other hypothesis more likely.

[far sider]

Sorry. Wasn't ignoring you. Was in a mtg.

What the hell are you talking about? If anything, this story shows that evolutionists (ONCE AGAIN) test their theories, publish them in peer reviewed journals, and are subject to questions and more testing! That would make them the opposite of "sheeple."

I should have clarified. I really was referring to pro-evolution science writers in the popular press, who may not even have the background to know what they're talking about. They made this "discovery" out to be some kind of quantum leap in science (look at some of the headlines and descriptions they used). Also they imply that non-believers in evolution are once again shown to be fools because "yet another" human ancestor has been found to drive the final nail in the creationist coffin. And of course all the other pro-evolution sheeple on FR climb on the same bandwagon.

The "sheeple" don't wait to see if this really is the holy grail of hominids, they just proclaim it, because a scientist (ooohh!) says it's true. Like many pointed out yesterday, when a guy says "I knew I was going to find it (a major hominid fossil), and I did!" the guy's judgement is already suspect. I think it is reasonable to believe the French scientist who is actually an expert on gorillas, rather that the Donald-Johannson- wannabe who found and has the adacity to give it a name already-before "peer review."

Unlike your (I'm supposing here, but fairly so) childish creationism fairy tale which has yet to have a single theory tested, published in a peer review journal, or subjected to questions or more testing.

Ooh. Name calling. Are you a Democrat?

this "debate" is an embarrassment to me as a conservative American. I'd like to know when being a Conservative meant abandoning science. Ugh.

If you're going to be embarassed, fine. But don't be embarrassed about this "debate." Our side is right on this one, even though you may not be knowledgeable enough to understand it. It is very typical for a major "missing link" to be discovered, anointed by science, and broadcast to the sheeple of the world, then withdrawn (usually quietly) months or years later.

Specifically Sivapithicus was put forward as a human ancestor about 20 years ago, and creationists said that it was very similar to an orangutan. Of course the Creationists were ridiculed. Just over a year later, a more complete Siva was found and the discoverer had to admit that it was nearly identical to Ramapithicus, an extinct species of orangutan. It was officially withdrawn as hominid. Look it up.

I could easily list dozens of these: a fossil was promoted by an anthropolgist (Tim White, I believe) as an ancient hominid clavicle, for about a year until a cetologist proved it was a dolphin's rib. National Geographic published a major story (I think a cover story) with pictures and artist's renderings of a primitive bird with a dinosaur's tail. Creationists were befuddled. This would have been very strong evidence for evolution, and would be hard to explain. A couple of months later in the back of the magazine, NG printed a retraction. Turns out, they had acquired the fossil from a Chinese fossil merchant who had glued a lizard's tail to bird's rear end, and said it was single specimen. NG even admitted they had fallen for an obvious fake. But the discovery seemed so significant they got carried away. This story was on the front page of USA Today about a year ago.

sorry for my anger, but these threads always fire me up.

Me, too.

[NukeMan]

--- Two-edged sword - pointing out alleged flaws in evolutionary theory does not make any other hypothesis more likely. ---

It is also possible that both the strong form of Creationism and NDT could be wrong.

[Taliesan]

Once again, we see a crowd of posters who are desperately trying to conjure up any excuse to avoid dealing with the concept of a pre-Adamic hominid.

And their companion flock, desperately trying to conjure up any excuse to avoid dealing with the fact that scientists commonly make pronouncements to the public which are wrong.

You can try and morph this thread into whatever argument you are most comfortable in, but this specific course of events is thus:

Scientists found a skull.

They said the skull is an A skull.

Apparently, a few days later, the skull is not A, but B.

This sequence of events is presented to us as evidence of the reliability of scientists.

In my business, if I stand up in front of a board of directors and say A, then a few days later say ooops, it was B, I get points for honesty and demerits for competence, simultaneously.

[PatrickHenry]

Scientists found a skull. They said the skull is an A skull. Apparently, a few days later, the skull is not A, but B. This sequence of events is presented to us as evidence of the reliability of scientists.

By golly, you're right! A new fossil is found. There is some initial confusion about how to classify it. Therefore -- ta da! -- Noah's Ark is the one true "scientific" answer.

[Condorman]

And [the anti-evolutionists'] companion flock, desperately trying to conjure up any excuse to avoid dealing with the fact that scientists commonly make pronouncements to the public which are wrong.

Scroll to the top. Junior posted the correction. Please reconcile.