Was Nebraska Man a fraud?

if you're a secret snicker snacker you have something to snicker about snacking secretly.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

A similar chart is available athttp://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
again each species is hyperlinked to a description
the Australopithicus afarensis (of Lucy fame - her knee joint is shown (I think - not identified)) also shows the Laetoli footprint with a link to that.it is always instructive to compare such trees from different sources.enjoy.{{edit in pink -- added}}[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 04-03-2004]

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

If you have your text size set large it can cause scrambling. I had no trouble with the site.(I do note that the sites listing of what evolution predicts is wrong, and I would dispute the "sudden appearance of modern man" in the creation version ... and some other things struck me as not too consistent.)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

From Homo habilis: is it an invalid taxon? the actual full quote from Dr. Spoor is: Split into two hominid species is a lot different than the implication of "invalid category" (but typical for creatortionistas).This is followed in the talkorigins article by a transcript of a telephone interview: (bold in the original)It looks like your sources are not scrupulous about providing accurate information.Please post links that you {copy \ obtain} material from for your posts so that they can be checked as well.enjoy.

Each hominid category is known by sets of fossils, and could also be called "a mixture of creatures" and with as much justification. Whether you call them one species or two or 15, those specimens still exist and still form a bridge from the past to the future. Your claim would imply that the fossils just vanish or magically transform into something else if the naming is in doubt, clearly a case of wishful thinking. Another example of wishful thinking. He said it was valid, and then went on to say that whether habilis is Australopithicus or Homo or something else it is still a valid class of fossils, eg - still an ancestor. It could well be that early specimens should be "Australopithicus habilis" and the later specimens should be "Homo habilis" for there is some point where one Genus becomes the next in a lineage. Ultimately the separation of species in the past come down to arbitrary divisions in groups and subgroups. As more information becomes available those divisions are likely to change, what will not change is the fossil evidence, what will change is our understanding of the evidence. Do you have a web link for this? It would be useful in determining their preconceptions and seeing the level of validity of their information. Let me parse the sentence for you: "used by creationists to suggest that they have science on their side." And " used by creationists to suggest that they have actual evidence on their side." In other words, in Dr. Spoor's opinion anyway, creationists have neither science nor evidence on their side, zero, zilch, nada.The link is the talkorigins one that you have so much trouble with (your problem). I guess you are more comfortable with sites that continue to post lies and misrepresentations even after they have been shown to be lies and misrepresentations. Personally I prefer sites that correct mistakes. Providing accurate information but misrepresenting the result means the website is still "not scrupulous about providing accurate information." I will bet that your website will not be correcting their misrepresenting of Dr. Spoor's material even if contacted directly by Dr. Spoor. The old "god of the gaps" end run of the creationist. More of a failure to {understand \ see} than a problem of evidence. Shall we make a prediction? New fossils found in the appropriate age strata will fit into the "gaps" and further support the evolution of man from ape-like ancestor to modern human.For the absence of evidence to be a problem, creationists need to explain the total absence of {fossil \ skeletal} evidence for the Coelacanth between 65 million years ago and 1938 ... surely there should be some "transitionals" between the prehistoric and the historic specimens eh?The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just of not yet being found.((added by edit))Finally, how does this relate to "Nebraska man" being the result of some exuberant sensationalism that was later found to be erroneous -- by the scientists? All "Nebraska man" shows is the ability of science to correct mistakes, rather than become embedded in dogma the way it has in the creatortianista manifestoes ... the ones seemingly unable or unwilling to correct their errors.Enjoy.[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-16-2004]

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}