Re: paleontology
- From: Zucadragon <Zuca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:22:45 +0100
fcj3@xxxxxxxxxxx schreef:
On Feb 21, 7:04 pm, Zucadragon <Z...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:So I've been discussing with a creationist on a forum.. And he has been
very insistent on a webpage of his which explains why the fossil
evidence is against evolution and how it shows that evolutionists are
wrong. I thought I'd give it a go and figure all this out but my strong
point was never in paleontology and I figure someone else would have a
better refutation of his stuff.
The best I can see is his false reasoning.. Basically going:
evolutionists thought it was this: A
It turned out to be this: B
Oops, evolutionists had it wrong.
I'm thinking that in all those cases it happened like this:
Evolutionists thought it was this: A
Evolutionists discovered it was this: B
Where were the creation scientists, oh right, they didn't do any
science, so nothing got corrected by them.
Though at the same time, I'm sure there's something wrong with the
fossil data that he's showing, I just don't know where to look to get it
though.
http://www.airysdomain.com/writings/ManApeFossils.html
(I'm sorry the follow looks so clustered, but that's really how it's
written down)
Here's the text from the website:
Evolution Oops! A Lack of Ape-Man Transitional Fossils
Looking at the man-ape fossils, which [Evolution defender], calls "solid
science", what do we see?
Piltdown Man:
--------------------------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
The "Piltdown Man" is a famous hoax consisting of fragments of a skull
and jawbone collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, a village
near Uckfield, East Sussex. The fragments were thought by many experts
of the day to be the fossilised remains of a hitherto unknown form of
early human. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man",
after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen.
The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy
until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower
jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed,
modern man.
The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous archaeological hoax in
history. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to
the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40
years) that elapsed from its discovery to its exposure as a forgery.
---------------------------------------------------
Quotes fromhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
The hoax [of Piltdown Man] illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the
scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining
and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific
interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends to
be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further reconsideration.
It is a black mark on science that it took 40 years to expose a hoax
that bore directly on human ancestry. Creationists have not been slow in
pointing to the hoax, the erroneous reconstructions based on the hoax,
and the long time it took to expose the hoax.
-----------------------
How evolutionists interpreted the fossil: Man-ape ancestor
How the fossil is now viewed: hoax
Ramapithecus:
-------------------------------------------------http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html
"On the Evolution of the Human"
Some controversy exists on the time of this common ancestor to both ape
and human, but it is believed to be about 5.5 million years ago. A key
fossil record near that time is Ramapithecus, which was believed to be
an early hominid for many years, but is now considered an ancient ape
that lived near the fork in our common lineage. Ramapithecus is now
thought to be an ancestor of the modern apes.
---------------------------------------------------http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-E-Ramapith.html
"FREE Ramapithecus Information"
Ramapithecus , an extinct group of primates that lived from about 12 to
14 million years ago, for a time regarded as a possible ancestor of
Australopithecus and, therefore, of modern humans. Fossils of
Ramapithecus were discovered in N India and in E Africa, beginning in
1932. Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was
considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed
jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw
discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is
now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to
be an ancestor of the orangutan.
---------------------------------------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivapithecus
"Sivapithecus"
The first incomplete specimens of Ramapithecus were found in Nepal on
the bank of Tenau River western part of the country in 1932. The finder
(G. Edward Lewis) claimed that the jaw was more like a human's than any
other fossil ape then known. [1] In the 1960s this claim was revived. At
that time, it was believed that the ancestors of humans had diverged
from other apes 15 million years ago. Biochemical studies upset this
view, suggesting that there was an early split between orangutan
ancestors and the common ancestors of chimps, gorillas and humans.
Humans had separated from African apes about five million years ago, not
15 million or 25 million.[2]
Meanwhile, more complete specimens of Ramapithecus were found in 1975
and 1976, which showed that it was less human-like than had been
thought. It began to look more and more like Sivapithecus - meaning that
the older name must take priority. It could be that Ramapithecus was
just the female form of Sivapithecus. [3] They were definitely members
of the same genus. It is also likely that they were already separate
from the common ancestor of chimps, gorillas and humans, though fossils
of this presumed ancestor have not yet been found.
-----------------------------------
How evolutionists first interpreted the fossil:man-ape ancestor
How the fossil is now viewed: extinct ape
KNM-ER 1470:
---------------------------------------
Discovered in 1972 by Ngeneo and Leaky
When first publicized, Skull 1470 attracted enormous interest because of
five apparent ‘humanlike’ traits in the initial reconstruction:
1. Its alleged large endocranial volume (ECV) of 810+ cm3.
2. The remarkably flat face of the specimen as compared with the
prognathous (protruding jaw) face of all other known australopithecines,
especially the gracile, and to a lesser extent, robust specimens.
3. The high-domed cranial vault, as compared with the flat forehead of
extinct australopithecines and modern-day apes.
4. The lack of pronounced supraorbital tori (brow ridges).
5. The more rounded braincase, similar to that of some Australopithecus
africanus specimens.
but...
continuing on, Bromage then pointed out that when first reconstructed,
the face of skull 1470 was fitted to the cranium almost vertically.15,16
Yet subsequent studies demonstrated that the face jutted out
considerably, like australopithecines.17,18 Bromage also found that with
this new perspective, ER Skull 1470 bore a resemblance (albeit
superficial) to the hyper-robust and extremely gorilla-like fossil
australopithecine KNM-WT 17000 (the so-called ‘Black Skull’ or A.
ethiopicus).19
From the Smithsonian:http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/habdebate.html
It was once thought that the evolution of the genus Homo was an example
of anagenesis, the continual and gradual change of one parent species
into its daughter species in a linear fashion. As the fossil record
began to expand and more early human fossils were found dating to the
period between 2 million and 1 million years ago, some questions as to
the validity of this hypothesis were raised.
Below are two fossils, shown to scale. KNM ER 1813 is to the left, and
KNM ER 1470 is to the right.
Originally, both were assigned to the species Homo habilis, with ER 1470
thought of as male and the smaller ER 1813 a female in a strongly
dimorphic species. However, the anatomies of the two skulls differ
considerably.
Note that there is a strong supraorbital torus (horizontal bar of bone
above the eye sockets) on 1813, whereas the supraorbital torus of 1470
is slight at best, and does not have the depression behind it that is
seen in 1813. The face of 1470 is longer than 1813's and 1470's upper
jaw is square instead of rounded-off. There is a great discrepancy
between the cranial capacities of the two individuals as well. ER 1470
has a cranial capacity of 775cc, where ER 1813 has a cranial capacity of
only 510cc (which is above the australopith average, but well below the
accepted 600cc cutoff for Homo)
One debate in paleoanthropology today is whether or not ER 1470, and
several other fossils previously identified as H. habilis, should be
grouped into a new species, Homo rudolfensis. This classification would
acknowledge that ER 1470 and the other members of Homo rudolfensis
differ more from Homo habilis, sensu stricto ("in the strict sense,"
meaning: as originally defined), than could possibly be accounted for by
variation within a population or between sexes. This would place two
species of the genus Homo in Africa during the same time period in
addition to two members of the genus Paranthropus, and, possibly, late
surviving members of the species Australopithecus africanus. Far more
complicated than the original neat, linear model.
Most, but not all researchers are convinced that 1470 should be placed
in a separate species. Some, such as Richard Leakey, claim that 1470
should be placed within H. habilis, while excluding 1813 from H.
habilis. As yet, the debate is not satisfactorily settled.
In addition, it is not yet entirely clear which of the two species Homo
habilis and Homo rudolfensis led to the later species in Homo. The
larger cranial capacities of the H. rudolfensis individuals lead some to
think that later humans evolved from this species. Morphology of the
facial bones of H. habilis, such as the shape of the cheekbones and the
browridges, suggests that this species was the ancestor of later humans.
---------------------------------
(And look... even some new information!)
http://www.livescience.com/health/070329_rudolf_reconstruct.html
In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New
York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new
construction looks very ape-like and the cranial capacity based on the
new construction is downsized from 752 cubic centimeters to about 526
cc. Bromage said his team’s reconstruction includes biological
principles not known at the time of the skull’s discovery, which state
that a mammal’s eyes, ears and mouth must be in precise relationships
relative to one another.
-------------------------------
How evolutionists interpreted the fossil: Man-ape ancestor
How the fossil is now more likely to be interpreted: extinct ape.
Lucy:
------------------------------------http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_/ai_62052382
Anthropologists generally regard an upright gait as essential for
membership in the human evolutionary family. However, some of our
earliest ancestors may have favored knuckle-walking on all fours, much
as chimpanzees and gorillas do, according to a study in the March 23 NATURE.
advertisement
Brian G. Richmond and David S. Strait, both anthropologists at George
Washington University in Washington, D.C., examined previously found
wrist bones from several Australopithecus species. A. anamensis and A.
afarensis--the latter represented by the famous skeleton known as
Lucy--had wrists capable of locking the hands in place during
knuckle-walking, the scientists say. A. anamensis lived just prior to 4
million years ago; A. afarensis existed from 4 million to 3 million
years ago.
-------------------------------------http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/687341.stm
"We saw something that talked about special knuckle walking adaptations
in modern African apes," Dr Richmond said.
SAJS
The hand will give us new insight into Australopithecus behaviour
"I could not remember ever seeing anything about wrists in fossil
hominids. I thought 'Oh my god, I don't think anyone's looked at this.'
"Across the hall was a cast of the famous fossil Lucy. We ran across and
looked at it and bingo, it was clear as night and day. It was a eureka
moment."
Lucy's stiff wrists suggest that her ancestors - and ours - walked on
their knuckles.
"We have found evidence in the wrist joint that sheds new light on
arguably the most fundamental adaptation in humans ... which is why did
humans start walking upright?" Dr Richmond said.
--------------------------------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
There is considerable debate regarding the locomotor behaviour of A.
afarensis. Some believe that A. afarensis was almost exclusively
bipedal, while others believe that the creatures were partly arboreal.
--------------------------------------------
How evolutionists interpreted the evidence: ape-man ancestor that walked
upright
Another way to interpret the evidence: extinct species of ape
Turkana Boy:
---------------------------------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy
Image:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TurkanaboyV.jpg
(This is a skeleton that is classified as Homo erectus. Does "homo
erectus" then look like a ape-man, or does it look like a man?)
"I think [the Turkana Boy] is remarkable because it's so complete, but
perhaps another aspect that is often overlooked is that many people who
don't like the idea of human evolution have been able to discount much
of the work that we've done on the basis that it's built on fragmentary
evidence. There have just been bits and pieces, and who knows, those
little bits of bone could belong to anything. To confront some of these
people with a complete skeleton that is human and is so obviously
related to us in a context where it's definitely one and a half million
years or even more is fairly convincing evidence, and I think many of
the people who are fence-sitters on this discussion about creationism
vs. evolution are going to have to get off the fence in the light of
this discovery.
Richard Leakey- 1988 video Mysteries of Mankind, produced by National
Geographic
source -http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
-------------------------------------
(And I've already discussed many problems with dating fossils.)Note: I
did here.
How evolutionists interpret the evidence: ape-man ancestor
Another way to interpret the evidence: man
NEANDERTHAL:
---------------------------------------http://www.worldmuseumofman.org/neanderthallechapelle1.htm
Typical for the Homo neanderthalensis species , the skull of La
Chapelle-aux-Saints had a pronounced browridge and receding forehead.
Many of the teeth were missing and their respective sockets were in
various states of closure from healing after the loss of the teeth when
the man was alive. These missing teeth comprise all of the right side
cheek teeth of the lower jaw, the molars on the left and at least the
molars of the upper jaw. It is probable that this individual was cared
for by others in his elder years. The evidence of this would suggest
that Neanderthals possessed a communal mindset and cared for their
injured and infirmed.
As previously mentioned, "The Old Man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints" was the
first nearly complete skeleton of a Neanderthal individual ever
discovered. The original incorrect reconstruction done by the noted
paleontologist Marcellin Boule overlooked the fact that the skeleton was
quite elderly when deceased. The bones were in such a degenerative stage
because of the advanced age of the individual that the reconstruction of
the skeleton depicted the Neanderthal in a stooped-over pose and
possessing a frame that would have had an ape-like gait. This wrongly
influenced our perception of Neanderthals in both science and popular
culture for so many years despite other discoveries of skeletons that
disprove this early belief. These misconception of the primitiveness of
Neanderthals has remained with us even today.
------------------------------------
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980317-2,00.html
In his scientific papers, Boule described the "brutish appearance of
this muscular and clumsy body." This almost simian image persisted
largely unchallenged for decades. Indeed, vestiges of it remain today in
such manifestations as textbook illustrations, the Alley Oop cartoon
strip, and in the pejorative use of "Neanderthal."
But the image was wrong. In 1957 American and British researchers re-
examined the skeleton that Boule had studied and concluded that
Neanderthals stood upright; the stooped posture of Boule's specimen was
attributable to arthritis. Also the feet were not prehensile, nor was
the | spine curved. They further noted that the Neanderthal's brain was
as large as that of early modern humans, a fact that Boule ignored in
his publications.
In the past few decades, the perception of Neanderthals has undergone
still more changes. Evidence from various digs has revealed that they
wielded simple tools, wore body ornaments, had religious rites and
ceremoniously buried their dead.
--------------------------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Neanderthal
For some time, professionals debated whether Neanderthals should be
classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis,
the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Recent
genetic simulations suggested that 5% of human DNA can only be accounted
for by assuming a substantial contribution of Neanderthaler to the
European gene pool of up to 25%.[10] Some scientists, for example
Milford Wolpoff, claim that fossil evidence suggests that the two
species interbred. This would support the argument that the two were the
same biological species. Others, for example Cambridge Professor Paul
Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction"[11]
and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as
evidence that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens.[12]
-----------------------------------------
How Evolutionists interpreted the fossil: ape-man ancestor
How the fossil is now interpreted: man
--------------------------------------
Several things are clear from looking at this information
1) What scientists claimed about the fossils showing evidence of
evolution from ape to man has been shown wrong again and again and again.
2) How the desire of scientists to find ape-man ancestors has affected
their interpretation of the evidence.
3) The "best" fossil evidence in showing evolution from ape to man is
subject to questions and contraversy.
4) Showing man decended from apes from fossil evidence is not solid science.
5) There will be "new evidence" in the future that will challenge
scientists views of evolution for years to come.
To claim that the fossil evidence shows strong evidence that man
decended from apes is ignorant at best. What this shows clearly is that
scientific evidence is subject to interpretation, and how this causes
error. This is clearly a weakness of the scientific method.
Written May 2008
I just skimmed your long post so I may have missed something.
The first question I have when I see "creationist" is whether he/she
is a YEC, OE(young life)C, progressive OEC? Does he accept common
descent in the form of "saltation" or "front loading" etc.?
Whether they know what they are doing or just learn it by rote, you
have noticed the games they play, and how they always try to keep the
ball in evolution's court instead of theirs, where it belongs.
Anyway, in case you missed it, make sure he says which of these
*creationists*:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
...he agrees with as to which fossils are human "kinds" and which are
"ape kinds". They can't all be right. Similarly, YECs and OECs can't
all be right, and they might all still be wrong even if some new
information somehow falsifies evolution.
Get him to say as much as possible about his "theory" - when key
events occurred, whether non-evolutionary changes occured in-vivo or
required new origin-of-life events. And get him to support it on it's
own merits, independent of his perceived "weaknesses" of evolution. If
he needs to contrast it with a "failed" explanation, he has plenty of
other creationist "theories" to choose from.
The ball is in his court. Keep it there.
Thats a wonderfull point, he's easy on criticizing how evolutionary scientists had it wrong (but still corrected it themselves) but at the same time the creationists themselves can't make up their mind on what is right or wrong.
Thanks.
I know he's a YEC but to what degree I'm not sure, we haven't been talking for that long, but I joined the forum and saw the evolution discussion and simply jumped in.. He claimed there still was never an answer to his "essay" on the site I linked to and I figured "well lets go for it".
Thanks for the help.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: paleontology
- From: fcj3
- Re: paleontology
- References:
- paleontology
- From: Zucadragon
- Re: paleontology
- From: fcj3
- paleontology
- Prev by Date: Re: paleontology
- Next by Date: Re: this is a test.
- Previous by thread: Re: paleontology
- Next by thread: Re: paleontology
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
