Man or Gorilla? Scientist Questions Skull Theory

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

[lews]

-- What is so improbable about organisms changing over thousands of generations? --

It is not improbable that organisms change with time. What is improbable is that organisms can change as dramatically as required through the mechanism of mutation and selection. If you simply line up the fossils it is possible to imagine a connection between different species. However, it becomes much, much more difficult when you start to deal with the finer details of an organism.

For example, you can imagine how a dinosaur evolved into a bird by looking at fossils. You say, this one looks like a dinosaur, this one looks like a bird, and this one looks like something in between. However, when you start to consider some of the finer details like the heart, the feathers, the bones, the muscular structure and strength, the air foil design of the wings, flight dynamics, etc... it becomes much more difficult. These finer details are things that we still struggle with understanding today, even with our advanced knowledge and computer simulation.

To accomplish this by purely random genetic mutations, that are somehow selected and propagated is to me (and mathematically) highly unlikely. This is why people like Dawkins acknowledge that design is apparent in life. Of course, he seems to think the improbable happened. Personally, I think the information gap that is needed to be filled for evolution to account for speciation cannot be bridged with the mutation / selection mechanism. I know there are many who disagree with my assertion, but, that doesn't eliminate or reduce the improbability of it occuring.

[scouse]

Should you wish to know to which species this skull belongs, the answer is simple. Show the skull to Jane Goodall and watch her reaction. If her eyes turn smokey and her breathing starts to get heavier and heavier, you have a member of some ape family.

[lews]

-- Two-edged sword --

I agree. I used it fully aware of the reverse implications. It still doesn't make evolution any more probable.

[Virginia-American]

..What is improbable is that organisms can change as dramatically as required through the mechanism of mutation and selection..

You really ought to study equid evolution in some detail. It's got very fine detail.

[lews]

-- You didn't answer my question --

Your right, I didn't, because it is irrelevant to the discussion we were having on the improbability of evolution. To follow that line would only be diversionary to the discussion.

Why is it that very time this topic comes up and the improbability of evolution is pointed out the Darwinists always change the subject to creation? The probability or improbability of creation or ID doesn't make your theory any more believeable.

[lews]

-- You really ought to study equid evolution in some detail --

Give me the names of some good books and I will check it out.

[gdani]

Your right, I didn't, because it is irrelevant to the discussion we were having on the improbability of evolution. To follow that line would only be diversionary to the discussion.

So, if I adopt your line of reasoning - that evolution is improbable & should be scrapped - then there needs to be a new theory. That's the relevance of my line of questioning in this discussion.

I assume, based on your past answers, that you think either creationism or ID is the logical alternative.

If that is the case, then you need to point to some scientific evidence or even a good scientific theorem for Garden of Eden, woman created from man's rib, etc - that does not include the Bible.

The other theory - ID - is nothing more than a "good golly, this sure is complex - God must have done it" theory with no possible way to verify or test it.

[lews]

-- 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. --

With all due respect for your author I think that is hog wash. Evolution as a theory should be able to stand on its own. If the only reason you believe it is because you disbelieve creation or ID then it is a failure as a theory.

Your author states that the theory of evolution must be looked at in terms of performance against creationism or ID. I disagree. That is just a cheap way to get around the big problem... the evidence. The scientific method requires a theory must be validated in terms of its performance against the evidence, if it comes up short than you should be free to reject it. To say that one has to accept the nonsense of one theory because you believe it is less nonsensical than the other is ridiculous.

[lews]

-- then there needs to be a new theory --

I disagree. If all the theories are lame then you should be free to reject them.

You see, this is the big problem with Darwinists. You think that if you reject evolution you will be forced to accept creation. There is no middle ground for you. This is why you cling to Darwinism with a religious fervor.

[Taliesan]

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.

"Initial confusion". I like that. It gives us a specimen, a theory, and an opportunity to judge the commitment to reality of one thinking mind in an area where the evidence is equally available to all. I'm no authority on skulls but I am as much an authority on "initial confusion" as you or anybody.

More fully: ..."some initial confusion about how to classify it..."

So: does this bear the mark of “initial confusion”?

"Initial confusion" is when the discoverer and attendant experts see some stigmata they understand along with others they don't. They have to reconcile the signs and that takes time. So, one would think, they would delay any public characterization of the specimen until they had sorted it out. And then, since true science is so certain and self-correcting, when the experts have peer-reviewed each other and winnowed out the confusion, they announce to the hoi polloi what the darn skull is.

Everyone can judge here: does this specimen, not a skull but a sequence of events, bear the marks of "initial confusion", or does it bear the mark of multiple groups of people interpreting the same set of observations by differing sets of criteria? The latter.

Perhaps one group puts more weight on the occiput; the other thinks the brow ridges win the day. In other words, they have no one agreed on algorithm by which to classify the specimen.

Are the people who originally called it classification A now relieved of their confusion? Do they all now agree it is a B? If the confusion was "initial" is it now all gone? Have they had time to sort it out yet?

There's nothing wrong with the lack of a system of classification -- it must be a universal stage in every taxonomic enterprise. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.

So the deeper question: why the unwillingness to admit a specific level of uncertainty? Not only among the researchers, but among their defenders? This phraseology is an intentional minimization of an embarassing turn of events. All minimizations are for a reason; they indicate the speaker's hesitation to consider one or more implications of the observation being minimized. If truth is the goal, why don’t the anthropologists just say WE DON'T YET KNOW HOW TO CLASSIFY THE SKULL?

If truth is the goal, why don’t the anthropologist apologists just say HALF THE EXPERTS ARE WRONG.

One possible answer: because other skulls have already been classified (and, more importantly, presented to the public as enjoying a consensus) by the criteria now under debate.

So, at least in this one data point, the public face of anthropology bears the stigmata of Ego. Not analytical rigor, but ego. Perhaps it’s just an aberrance.

Of course, you can always just re-define your theory -- "initial confusion" -- to include this specimen and not only preserve your theory but know that it is now more verified than it was this morning.

Also, I see no reference to "Noah's Ark" in this conversation. I understand it is convenient shorthand for a body of opinion you disdain.

But, since, all the evolutionists in the world could be wrong and that would say nothing about whether creationism, defined however you like, is right or wrong – Noah’s Ark is a logical irrelevancy, introduced in a rhetorical rush to change the discussion into one you like better than the one you’re in. Your language is inaccurate because your thought is imprecise, because you're trying to win (an imaginary) argument by means of sarcasm, instead of by argument.

Here is the specific argument of this thread: Some scientists were publicly wrong. That error has been touted as evidence of scientists’ reliability, and, further, has been characterized as “initial confusion”. It is, rather, an indication of an underlying disagreement in the interpretive framework of the discipline.

You are embarrassed by it. You shouldn’t be. You are a lover of truth.

[Taliesan]

Your reconciliation: Junior posted the correction, in order to characterize it (the correction) as one specific thing rather than another specific thing.

I have disagreed with the characterization.

[Virginia-American]

-- You really ought to study equid evolution in some detail --

Give me the names of some good books and I will check it out.

Check this talk origins FAQ; it has a big bibliography

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Yes,I knew someone who was alive at the beginning of time and can attest to the fact this skull is the real thing!

[PatrickHenry]

Enjoy the "initial confusion" while it lasts. You're certainly getting a lot of mileage out of it. In due course, professional opinion will converge on one classification or another. And that opinion may indeed get revised later as new skulls are discovered. That's how science works. If you want absolute certainty, you should consult Miss Cleo.

[Mamzelle]

re:French science)))

Perhaps this skull is the missing link between hominids and Frenchinids.

[VRWC_minion]

I guess I asked the right questions on the other thread. While it went unanswered to my satisfaction, my intial thoughts may prove to be correct

---

Maybe I can better state my questions. Apparently in the last 4 million years man has gone through 6 or 7 major species changes while the modern ape has none. Assuming that both us and the apes are experiencing the same environment changes I wonder what factors yield a species that doesn't change much while a similar species changes at least 6 or 7 times that warrants a special name.

If there is a "stability" factor that some species have, what determines it and why doesn't man have the same ? What makes our time line so volatile ? Why didn't one of our types settle down for the long haul like the ape ?

The skeptic in me says that one of the reasons is that professors looking for funding might not be so interested in following ape species and may be more willing to see differences in human species. But skepticism aside these are my honest questions not coming from someone who is best described as an agnostic as far as evolution goes and not one who believes that the world has to be 6,000 years old. (In fact I believe the bible literally says the universe is about 5 1/2 days old but thats another thread. )

94 posted on 7/11/02 5:28 PM Eastern by VRWC_minion

[RightWhale]

the bible literally says the universe is about 5 1/2 days

That's another thread, but it would explain a lot if this all started last Sunday.

[jennyp]

If there is a "stability" factor that some species have, what determines it and why doesn't man have the same ? What makes our time line so volatile ? Why didn't one of our types settle down for the long haul like the ape ?

Good question. We do know that small isolated populations get to evolve quicker than large populations. (The driver of punk eek.) If the original hominids really did migrate out of the forest into the savannah, then they're the ones who moved into the new, challenging environment. Meanwhile the vast majority of the other ancient apes stayed where they were already successful, in the forests, where bones tend to disintegrate before they have a chance to fossilize. (Acidic soils, IIRC.)

The details are still controversial, for sure, but nothing in that scenario seems unlikely.

[Buffalo Head]

Would you (or any other serious creationist) please provide a simple but plausable explaination for the current existance of several distinctly different races of humans that all decended from Adam and Eve?