The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

If "this" is Nebraska man then you are simply remembering wrong. You did not have such things. You will have to support what you say with references. You have this very, very wrong.

Didn't the orginial examiner think that it could be homonid? Since pig and homonid teeth are quite similar this mistake can be made. There is a case to be made that a mistake got blown up by the popular press (and it wasn't the last time that happened).There was no real "fraud" in the sense we use that word: On anyone's part.A mistake was made (unofficially and the originator corrected it shortly thereafter), the press did a poor job (again), that's about it.The only fraud that is associated with this is the misrepresentation of the facts of the case by creationist organizations. That's why our new friend is so sure of what happened. He's been lied to.

Yes, as they have been.No, those are not the steps. Birds and monkeys are not on the human ancestral lineage. There are so many steps that it is misleading to pick just a few. cell/multicellulr/chordate/fish/amphibian/reptile/mammal-like reptile/mammal/primate/higher primate/man.At the species level it would be surprising to see fossil evidence for the change.There are fossil linkages for all of the above transitions.(added by edit)Ooops Charles is right let's finish one.Also this is getting a long way of topic isn't it?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-11-2004 08:21 PM

Well, Charles, that only takes care of N-man. Nothing might have something else he wishes to discuss.Nothingness, you might want to consider the veracity of some of your sources. It seems you've been lied to. This might be a lesson.

No one acknowledged it as a fraud. Some of us did think it was a mistake. We've learned it was much less of a mistake than we thought.When the tabloid press gets something wrong I don't call them fraudulent. I guess I just have very low expectations of them getting things right. But even they did, it turns out, admit that what they were saying was very speculative.As I think I noted, the only fraud that you've found here is the creationist sites that still use this as an example of anything meaningful.

I've never heard of boxgrove. If you think you have more "fictional" specimens to discuss by all means pick one.I hope by now you understand that some of your sources might be less than reliable.You also need to understand that no one critisizes these things more than the experts in the field. You need to understand a little just how badly you are misinformed.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-13-2004 02:19 AM

Well, I will take an experts opinion has having some weight but only to a point and it depends on the particular expertise. I'm used to seeing different experts offering different views on leading edge science. I'm never happy if I only have an article offering the opinion of only one person even if it seems reasonable to me since I can be fooled by someone who is expert in a field which I am not.I prefer to see conflicting opinions voiced and most importantly the reasons for the opinions given. I find that most of the time I can make a judegment of my own even in fields which I don't have much expertise. I just need to have the details digested and presented on both sides of the argument.All of that applies at the more leading edge areas. Often I just decided to wait a bit and see how it settles out. The process goes on for months or years and then a consensus starts to develop. I'm in the wait and see mode with the "out of africa" hypothosis right now. Though my understanding of the data does suggest to me that it is correct.The confusion arises when someone is willing to just take an expert opinion without understanding why the opinion is arrived at. In the case of N-man we saw that the confusion rose because you had been given false information. Not because of a difference of opinion of experts at all. You brought it up. What is your opinion?

It might also be helpful to Nothingness to review the quotes.I recall one or two using phrases like "fully human" but I don't think that that is understood in the context they are lifted from.

Nothingness, could you tell us what you think, in considerable detail, these two quotes mean? What is the significance of them? Why they contribute to this thread?That is, in your own words tell us what these are all about.

Unfortunately your information regarding Lucy is also wrong. Would you care to give the source of this information?You make these statements without backing and it appears you are using creationsist sources even though they have been shown to be wrong already. How many more will it take?

It matters not if one walks upright, it matters how they walk upright.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-18-2004 12:07 AM