Re: Tweedy's Turkana Boy

Ray Martinez wrote:
Richard Clayton wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
Richard Clayton wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
Richard:

I do not know anything about your retroviral insertions.

Really? That's odd, because it was one of the points I raised in the
very first post of our debate. If you couldn't be bothered to even read
up on what endogenous retroviral insertions are, then I'm not surprised
you dodged the issue and then eventually fled the debate altogether.

No response?

Why would anyone respond to a absurd charge (fleeing) ?

But you did flee. You quit the debate, remember? It's all publicly
archived here.

I plainly admitted that I knew nothing about retroviral insertions

Which didn't answer the issue, did it? If endogenous retroviral
insertions, genetic scars we carry from our ancestors, are not evidence
of evolution, what are they?

ad
hoc arguments (Googling) are not my style.

So you chose to run away from the argument rather than take ten minutes
to learn something new.

You should have made your
point in support of human evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAH! What do you think ERVIs, transitional human fossils,
shared pseudogenes, and homologous vestigial organs are? First you
tried to change the subject, then you ran away. Actually, first you
declared you quit, then you came back and demanded another chance, then
you threatened to quit unless I allowed you to unilaterally appoint a
judge, then you came back yet again, then you quit for a third time.
You're a three-time loser, Ray, all in a single thread.

I have asked
Dana to post an argument about his boy but it has never materialized.

Another lie. Dana has repeatedly pointed to "Turkana Boy" as an
excellent example of a transitional fossil between humans and non-human
apes.

No response here either?

A BIG negative, Richard. Dana NEVER posted an argument about Turkana.

Another lie. In fact, he's beating you like the village gong right here
in this thread.

All he did was repeatedly bring it up WHILE never actually making a
claim or argument EXCEPT to say that it represented evidence of human
evolution (which, of course, I knew the generic claim). In turn, I
repeatedly told Dana that I did not want to discuss hominid fossils
until my paper was released.

You've been saying "I can't discuss that because it will be in my
paper" for over a year now. How about finishing your paper instead of
hiding behind it?

I am only doing so now to be a good sport.
Did Dana ever start a topic ? No. You have no point. You ought not go
around calling people liars over a (misunderstanding) drop of a hat.
You owe me an apology.

Ray, you ARE a liar, several times over. Remember when you claimed you
could read Greek? But you later admitted you don't, then you lied about
the lie. You're a conspicuously dishonest person, and I owe you nothing
but contempt.

Here is the Creationist position about Turkana Boy:

It does not actually prove anything UNLESS two earth shattering
assumptions are made.

1. Assume special creation is false.

2. Assume design seen in nature does not indicate work of invisible
Designer.

Neither of those assumptions are required to see that many fossils
(including Turkana Boy) show a striking intermediacy between humans and
other apes.

And none here?

Again, there was no reply because your response was SO absurd.

No, it's quite plain. There are numerous hominid fossil remains that
are transitional between humans and other apes. And you're still
dodging the subject.

You make both of those assumptions - its not a matter of opinion.
Anyone who denies is lying, that is why I did not respond. Go ahead and
tell the Group that you do not assume special creation false ?

I don't "assume" anything. The evidence indicates the universe is
considerably older than 6000 years; that falsifies Young Earth
Creationism or any reliance on a literal translation of Genesis. The
evidence also indicates that species can diverge over time, as genetic
drift can result in populations that can no longer interbreed. In turn,
fossil and genetic evidence indicates species have diversified,
branched out, and diversified again in branch-like groupings. So all
primates share an ancestor, and all mammals share and ancestor, and all
vertebrates share an ancestor, et cetera.

This doesn't mean a god or the God wasn't involved, of course. Science
can't make claims about the supernatural, so there could be divine
intervention "behind the scenes." Science just can't tell. But it IS
pretty clear that life wasn't created in its present forms, because the
evidence just isn't consistent with that.

Appearance of genius design, which the human body is = work of
invisible Designer = falsification of claims about Turkana - claims
that require an inadequate amount of "argument from authority" trust.
In other words, the validity of the worldview of the authorities that
make the claim rides on each identification. Also, a skeleton does not
prove that modern humans slowly evolved from an ape ancestor. The claim
requires an assumption that human evolution did happen. Once the
assumption is made it says human evolution IS TRUE. The only thing left
is to interpret evidence in favor of the assumption. The initial
assumption is falisfied by the absurdity of the claim and the
overwhelming evidence of design seen in nature and the human body.

This is the exact same issue you fled in our debate. If ERVIs, shared
pseudogenes, and fossils that appear intermediate between one modern
species and another are not evidence of evolution, of what are they
evidence? What is your scientific, testable theory? You didn't have one
then, and I'm betting you have one now.

In addition, the facts of ultra-intelligence seen in the GP cannot be
hand-waved away. Advanced math and technology and knowledge built
therein, the same which Europeans did not have until after the
Renaisssance falisifies the existence of a Stone Age. What we see and
confirm in the GP is impossible for persons living in 3000 BC. to
accomplish.

I SAID 3000 BC !

The GP is the single piece of physical evidence that destroys the
existence of a Stone Age and everything built on that "fact".

Ultra-advanced built in ultra-primitive era of time and history = proof
of the Biblical claim that man was specially created ultra-intelligent.
And you offer a skeleton - go figure.

Thousands of skeletons, both hominid and otherwise, plus genetic and
geological evidence.

If you took the time to study the
GP you would see physical evidence of the invisible Genesis Creator.

The Great Pyramid has nothing to do with human evolution. Homo sapiens
is no smarter now than it was 5,000 years ago; it's too short a time
span for a long-living, slow-reproducing species like ours.
Furthermore, Great Pyramid-era Egyptians had advanced mathematical
knowledge for the time, as well as an organized society, a massive
labor pool... and a whole culture obsessed with making monuments to the
afterlife.

One COULD potentially find physical evidence that suggests the Pyramid
of Khufu was not actually built by a bronze-age culture. Finding steel
in the construction would be a big step, since steel is a comparatively
recent invention. Plastic would be even better! But instead the pyramid
and its construction techniques are consistent with a society that can
divide twelve by four but cannot yet refine iron.

What kind of persons would make such assumptions (atheists) ?
Regardless though, assumptions are not evidence.

Another lie. Many biologists, paleontologists, and other scientists are
strongly religious, ranging from Christians to Hindus to Unitarians. So
once again you're back to claiming that everybody who disagrees with
you is an atheist with a secret agenda.

There is no lie, except by so called "Christians" who support the fraud
of Darwinian evolution. Darwin was an apostate as early as 1837. How is
it that an apostate is right about origins and the source for God and
Christianity is not ? True Christians support the Bible, logical litmus
test wouldn't you say ?

Religion has nothing to do with science. Science is truly agnostic; it
not only DOESN'T know the nature of the divine, it CANNOT know the
nature of the divine. Science doesn't claim to have "the source for
God," but it has some powerful evidence on human origins.

And, of course, plenty of Christians "support the Bible" without
insisting on a literal translation. Apparently including you, since
you're an Old Earth Creationist. Why is your interpretation more valid
than Ken Miller's?

The only issue is, if these persons are Christians, then why are they
supporting the atheist version of origins ?

Answer: Because they are atheists.

How do we explain their belief about themselves ("we are Christians") ?

Judas kissing Jesus explains it perfectly. Christians are still
betraying Christ = Bible corresponds to reality.

In John chapter 6 Jesus said He chose Judas knowing that he was a son
of the devil from the beginning. Everything is now explained.

So in other words, yes, you ARE back to claiming that everybody who
disagrees with you on evolution is secretly an atheist.

Your silence is deafening, Ray. So I'll just skip down to the part you
actually DID answer.

A skeleton, does not, in itself, prove that apes are in the human
lineage because apes bones and anatomy are very similar from the
get-go. If a person rejects special creation and design then you have
no other alternative and the view loses all objectivity, much like a
third world country going to the polls with only one person on the
ballot.

So what's YOUR scientific explanation? Oh, wait, I asked you THAT in
our debate too-- and you fled.

The next reason: extreme credulity.

The next reason: Dr. Scott: "Only morons would even consider such
obvious nonsense."

Quotes are not evidence-- particularly not quotes from a flake like
Doctor Scott. Have you ever considered citing primary sources instead?


Stanford Ph.Ds are not flakes.

Why not? Having a Ph. D. doesn't stop people from being wrong, or
making mistakes, or even being a kook, especially on subjects unrelated
to one's Ph. D. And if one Stanford doctorate is so important to you,
why don't you give equal weight to the THOUSANDS of people with
doctorates in biology from Stanford and other prestigious schools who
think evolution is the cornerstone of biology?

Dr. Scott's fact is the official
position of Creationists.

Answers in Genesis, Kent Hovind, and most organizations that
self-identify as creationists disagree with OEC. Dr. Scott doesn't have
the "official" position of anything.

Thats how absurd your foot locker full of
bones is. Can't you see how absurd apes morphing into men is ? What the
hell is wrong with you ? Since you are an atheist it is understandable.

Apes didn't "morph into men." Over thousands of generations, and
millions of years of time, a hominid line arose which had progressively
larger brains and a more upright stance. There were also a lot of dead
ends that didn't go anywhere; they lived for a while, but they didn't
compete effectively, or their environment changed, and they died out.
It's not a case of an orangutan birthing a human.

Listen carefully: On outward appearance Dr. Scott's fact looks like an
insult (primarily). But it is an insult secondarily, that is, my paper
will prove that it is an objective fact describing the true state of
all Darwinists.

Save this post for future reference. Dr. Scott is NEVER wrong.

Never? Not ever? Not even once?

All of the above is physically supported by the amount of CLAIMED
fossil evidence, which we know is so scarce that it is held in bank
vaullts. If human evolution was true, then there would be a
commensurate amount of evidence for this extraordinary claim.

Another lie. You can walk into any major museum and take a look at the
fossils. I've been to LA, and it has some great museums-- you're
cheating yourself if you don't check them out.

I've been to them more times than I can remember. What I actually saw
were fake plaster casts and reproductions.

Why ?

Because the total amount of genuine hominid fossils that Darwinists
claim to actually support human evolution is very low in volume and
numbers.

Why the paucity ?

Because the claim is not true ?

Ahh, so you're back to the "obscure scraps" and "all human fossil
remains can fit in a small box" claims? Perhaps you've forgotten that
you were soundly spanked on that one, as well.


Pure evasion. Again, tell the Group why there is a paucity of physical
evidence purporting to demonstrate the extraordinary claim of human
evolution, and tell the Group why jaw and teeth scraps are enough to
identify a transitional monster.

What "jaw and teeth scraps"? We've found nearly-complete skeletons...
like good old Turkana Boy. Answer Dana's challenge on that, and either
he or I will be happy to toss you another.

How do we know that Turkana is not a young gibbon or fully human ?

Because the skeleton ISN'T a young gibbon, or fully human! Do you think
all hominid skeletons are identical? Even an amateur can tell the
difference between a gibbon skull and a human skull-- even if the huge
canines aren't a dead giveaway, a gibbon skull is also much flatter and
lower than a human skull, with a protruding jaw. Meanwhile, KNM-WT
15000 is decidedly intermediate between humans and other apes.

Why
haven't you volunteered the answers to these obvious questions ? Why
haven't you made an argument that exceeded 2 or 3 sentences ?

Because nothing you say takes more than two or three sentences.
Besides, I don't feel like writing more long posts when you'll just
declare it an "atheist rant" or run away again. Answer the issues on
the table and I'll serve up plenty more.

Answer: Because your "argument" is pure assumption based on veiled
coercion.

Coercion? How am I coercing anybody?

Richard: How did ape-men escape extreme sickness after eating fresh
animal kills ?

Surely there must have been a stage where the carcass was not roasted
and ate immediately like animals do ?

The evidence indicates the adoption and mastery of fire was gradual. An
ancestral hominid didn't simply wake up one morning, build a grill, and
toss a pig on top of it. Example: A million and a half years ago Homo
ergaster was cooking some of his meat (but not all of it). We've found
charred animal bones associated with ergaster remains.

Incidentally, humans today can and do eat raw meat without problem. I
adore sushi, for example. (It's the only way I'll eat most types of
fish.) And steak tartare is essentially raw beef with seasoning.

The number of fossils found is not as large as paleologists and
anthropologists would like, but certainly enough to demonstrate the
evolution of species beyond a reasonable doubt. (I'd remind you of the
cetacean fossil lineage, but your strange amnesia regarding past
threads has probably swallowed that as well.) Given this ample
demonstration of macroevolution, is there any scientific reason to
doubt that Homo erectus and other hominds are exactly what they seem to
be-- a link between humans and other apes?

I got ahead of this and my answers are above.

No, your evasions are above. You still don't have any answers.

While I have you, what do you make of these bones ?

http://paranormal.about.com/od/mysteriousremains/a/aa060605.htm

The Mica Giant

"In 1879, a burial mound in Brewersville, Indiana yielded another giant
skeleton, according to the November, 1975 edition of The Indianapolis
News. This one reached 9 feet 8 inches tall! It wore a necklace of mica
stone, and a crude human effigy of clay was found standing at his feet.
The giant skeleton was examined by scientists from Indiana and New
York, and it remained in the possession of Mr. Robinson, who owned the
land on which the mound stood. Unfortunately, the curious bones were
washed away in a flood in 1937."

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/giantsb.html

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/PhysicalAnthropology/AbnormalStatures/ThereWereGiants/ThereWereGiants.htm

Gigantism, like dwarfism, has multiple genetic causes. Nobody denies
that some people grow to huge size; unfortunately this tends to be
maladaptive, since the human body just isn't designed to support a
person who towers eight feet high and weighs 500 pounds. But please
note also that documented cases of gigantism are single individuals,
not entire species such as H. habilis or erectus.

I'm skeptical of ufology and paranormal websites, though; why don't you
cite some primary literature?

.