Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,150 Year: 5,407/9,624 Month: 432/323 Week: 72/204 Day: 14/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 601 of 1075 (622413)
07-03-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 593 by Mazzy
07-02-2011 10:23 PM


Ignorance
It is only the ignorant that calls the support for TOE a science.
Oh really.
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision.
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
These people are, then "ignorant", according to you?
Well, I guess you'd be ignorant according to them. And I know who I'd listen to when it comes to science. 'Cos they've actually achieved something in science, whereas all you seem to have achieved is to make yourself an object of pity and contempt on the internet. Perhaps you could take a lofty tone towards them when you've won a Nobel Prize or two. Or at least learned to write grammatical English.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 593 by Mazzy, posted 07-02-2011 10:23 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 618 by Mazzy, posted 07-03-2011 4:46 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 602 of 1075 (622414)
07-03-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 600 by Mazzy
07-03-2011 1:38 AM


Re: More evolved?
Evolution boils down to chance which is not very scientific, nor predictive.
Did you actually expect to deceive me by saying that?
You are a funny little man.
Now, instead of posting random falsehoods, perhaps you could tell us with 100% certainty why the Neanderthals disappeared.
I'm not holding my breath.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 600 by Mazzy, posted 07-03-2011 1:38 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2602 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 603 of 1075 (622417)
07-03-2011 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 598 by Portillo
07-02-2011 11:29 PM


Re: More evolved?
Just because animals are intelligent does not mean they are as advanced as humans. The very thing we are discussing, science, is precisely the difference between humans and other animals.
Why is it that Christians simply can't debate in good faith? Seriously, is there some secret part of your religion that requires dishonesty.
You made the claim that NO OTHER ANIMALS were capable of reason, assessment, invention, etc.
I gave you an example of a bird who did ALL the things you claimed animals could not do.
So, NOW your story is that they aren't "as good at it".
Do you know the difference between ZERO and SOME?
Do you know what the phrase "Moving the goal posts" means?
Are you intentionally dishonest, or is this just some dark blight on your soul that you can't help?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by Portillo, posted 07-02-2011 11:29 PM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by Mazzy, posted 07-03-2011 2:31 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 608 by Portillo, posted 07-03-2011 2:47 AM Nuggin has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4700 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 604 of 1075 (622419)
07-03-2011 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 596 by Percy
07-02-2011 11:09 PM


Re: Apes have ventured into space and animals that have built automatons.
Firstly Percy let's remember that the skull chosen by your researchers to demonstrate comparisons is the most rounded and non similar human skull they could find. In fact human skulls come in many sizes and shapes, with varying skull caps and jaw lines as well as some eyebrow ridging.
Here is some info about Turkan Boy.
"Turkana Boy has a skull marked by thick brows, a sloping forehead, constricted temples, and a very small chin. However, all of these cranial shapes *** within the normal variation of humans living today. Vij Sodera, a prominent UK surgeon, published a couple of x-ray photographs of contemporary human skulls with prominent brow ridges and backward sloping foreheads.6 In addition, one of his pictures shows a contemporary human with distinct constriction at the temples."
"Sodera also makes the very important point that these modern humans looked completely normal despite possessing Homo erectus cranial features. In other words, the appearance of bare bones can look significantly different to the appearance of the human being in real life, with all of the soft tissues in place.6 Therefore, the popular science shows and magazines that depict Homo erectus as possessing an ape-like head are not based on observational evidence, but overt evolutionary bias."
Turkana Boy: getting past the propaganda - creation.com
So as you know, I hope, only humans have a chin. Turkana boy had a chin as did Neanderthal.
The picture of the other erectus is just an ape and quite clearly it is not the same as Turkana Boy...or are you going to say you cannot see it kinda like you can't see the difference between chimps and humans?????
Holobaramins are based on discontinuity. Turkana Boy is discontinuous with apes.
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
Although baraminology is in its' infancy I'd say these creationist researchers will have creationists models to rival TOE in the not too distant future.
So there you have why I consider Turkana Boy disctinct from other representations in Homo Erectus. Unfortunately, your researchers cannot see the difference and have lumped them all together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by Percy, posted 07-02-2011 11:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by Nuggin, posted 07-03-2011 2:43 AM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 621 by Percy, posted 07-03-2011 9:02 AM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 622 by Percy, posted 07-03-2011 9:13 AM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 631 by DBlevins, posted 07-04-2011 7:23 PM Mazzy has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4700 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(2)
Message 605 of 1075 (622420)
07-03-2011 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 603 by Nuggin
07-03-2011 2:00 AM


Re: More evolved?
Listen here to me...when you have evidence of a non human anything being able to percieve the idea of afterlife I will entertain your straw grabbing assertions.
You evos are a huge laugh in your continual holy grail of turning humans into animals by any desperation you can allude to.
Are you suggesting birds are intelligent therefore humans evolved from birds?
What you are actually highlighting is intelligence has nothing to do with evolution or ancestry as it arises independently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by Nuggin, posted 07-03-2011 2:00 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 606 by Nuggin, posted 07-03-2011 2:42 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2602 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 606 of 1075 (622421)
07-03-2011 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 605 by Mazzy
07-03-2011 2:31 AM


Re: More evolved?
Listen here to me...when you have evidence of a non human anything being able to percieve the idea of afterlife I will entertain your straw grabbing assertions.
So, you want evidence that animals play make believe. Just when I think you couldn't get dumber, you take out a drill and poke another hole in your skull.
Are you suggesting birds are intelligent therefore humans evolved from birds?
Well, given that you haven't understood a single thing that anyone has written so far, what difference would it make if I was?
So far a dozen posters have provided with with 10-20 posts EACH explaining why you've been wrong in all aspects of every post you've made. It hasn't stopped you from repeating those errors.
So, either you are profoundly *** or just a typically dishonest Christian.
This is the part where you swear you are telling the truth, but it's a fools charade. The sad truth is you know you are ***, we know you are ***. It's all a waste of time.
If we were wrong about evolution, then we would necessarily have to be wrong about all aspects of science, in which case nothing science has ever produced would actually exist.
The fact that you are using a computer to post your drivel is evidence in and of itself that you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by Mazzy, posted 07-03-2011 2:31 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2602 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 607 of 1075 (622422)
07-03-2011 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by Mazzy
07-03-2011 2:24 AM


Re: Apes have ventured into space and animals that have built automatons.
So as you know, I hope, only humans have a chin. Turkana boy had a chin as did Neanderthal.
Wrong again. So very wrong, so very often.
Seriously, I'm starting to suspect that you are actually just trying to make Creationists look bad with these posts.
Just on AVERAGE you should get SOMETHING right at least once.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by Mazzy, posted 07-03-2011 2:24 AM Mazzy has not replied

Portillo
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 608 of 1075 (622423)
07-03-2011 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 603 by Nuggin
07-03-2011 2:00 AM


Re: More evolved?
I never said that animals are stupid. They are magnificent and marvelous. Just because a Raven cracks a nut or a monkey uses a tool does not prove that they have the self awareness that humans do. Come back to me when an animal besides a human builds a rocketship, builds pyramids like the Egyptians or ancient wonders like the Babylonians, art and philosophy like the Greeks, merchant fleets like the Venetians, the scientific revolution of modern science. Look around you and wonder at the marvel of evolution in human affairs. It is truly remarkable.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by Nuggin, posted 07-03-2011 2:00 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by hooah212002, posted 07-03-2011 2:54 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 611 by anglagard, posted 07-03-2011 3:01 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 612 by Nuggin, posted 07-03-2011 3:09 AM Portillo has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 911 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 609 of 1075 (622424)
07-03-2011 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 608 by Portillo
07-03-2011 2:47 AM


Re: More evolved?
Get back to ME when a human can build a dam with their teeth.....

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 608 by Portillo, posted 07-03-2011 2:47 AM Portillo has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3885 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 610 of 1075 (622425)
07-03-2011 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Mazzy
07-01-2011 4:05 PM


Re: What it means to be a hominid
You have also learned that brain size has little to do with intelligence.
Wrong. If that were the case, then there would have been no need for humans to evolve a larger brain. What is important, though, is allometry and morphology.
Many of your so called fossil evidence are fragments with the rest made up to suit.
Fragments can be just as important as having the whole thing. They can tell us a lot about the lifestyle, age, gender, and diet, etc. of the species. For example, teeth can tell us the age of death of the individual, sometimes the gender, what their diet consisted of and/or whether they were omnivore, carnivore, insectivore, frugivore; what region they lived in, something about lifestyle (ie. did they use their teeth to hold onto things, and perhaps what those things were), etc.
Other fragments might reveal if they were habitually bipedal or arboreal.
The control and use of fire is a complex task that apes cannot understand nor perform. Where you have found a hearth, you have found a fully human being. Do you think an ape can think to use flint or stick rubbing. Not on your life. ...and they did not have matches.
You told me before that H. erectus was just another gorilla or ape and H. ergaster was human. Are you now recanting you assertion now that H. erectus is not human or capable of complex tasks?
Do you think an ape can think to use flint or stick rubbing. Not on your life. ...and they did not have matches.
Did you ever just stop and think that perhaps one of the reasons we place in the genus Homo is that they show behavior comperable to us Homo sapiens? They make stone tools from unformed core rocks, sometimes they even use...gasp...flint...and hammer off flakes to use. They use fire hearths for cooking meat and staying warm. They might be apes, like us, but they are something more than just gorillas.
Its' brain is around 850(early)-1100(late). Look at the skull diagram. Now I tell you that common sense needs to leave the room if you think this skull belonged to a fire contolling ape.
Their average brain size is well below ours. Their skull morphology is outside of what we consider to be H. sapiens, but if you want to lump (get it ) them in with us, you'd be following in other anthropologists footsteps (a minority no doubt but ones who support their hypothesis with more than just their opinion).
As far as a fire-controlling ape, you're the one who suggested that erectus was more akin to a gorilla.
"Much of the debate about the place of H. floresiensis in the primate tree is centered around its small size, in particular the small brain size. The argument raised has been that the evolution of such a small brain does not fit with what we know about primate brain evolution.
"Our analysis, together with studies of brain size in island populations of living primates, suggests we should perhaps not be surprised by the evolution of a small brained, small bodied early human species."
The findings also deepen our understanding of how our brains and bodies have evolved and the selection pressures that may have been responsible. The results show that selection has acted in both directions, usually resulting in evolution of bigger brains but also producing smaller ones."
The surprise is not that our evolutionary line can be affected by evolution, obviously. It is a unique surprise that dwarfism has been found effecting a species so close to us. What is also surprising is that brain morphology can allow for a significant reduction in brain size, and still allow for the conservation of behavior.
In fact bigger brains may be a reflection of better smell. Neanderthal had a larger brain than homo sapiens. So we have devolved..have we?!!!!!! Does this also mean that Neanderthals were smarter than Homo Sapiens? No.
You might be surprised to learn that our brain size has actually declined from what it was some 50 kya. (as a side note: We have become more gracile than our ancestors as well: 20-30% reduction in skeletal/muscle mass since 30 kya, and 10% from just the last 10 kya.) Decreasing brain size does not mean devolving. I thought you were smarter than that.
Neanderthals might have had larger brains, but remember what else is important: allometry and morphology.
Researchers cannot understand the muddle around recent species like florensisensis and neanderthal. They have no hope of getting it right for anything older.
All this nonsense about increasing intelligence and increasing brain sizes is mythical support for human evolution from ape to mankind. It only makes sense when there is no sense involved.
It’s a fabulous muddle isn’t it. Evolution is a remarkable thing, that’s for sure.
I’m here to try to help it make sense for you and others. I also hope you realize that I am not trying to convert you to anything. You would have plenty of company. Lot’s of biologists who understand and study evolution are still people of faith. They choose to look at God’s work not deny it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Mazzy, posted 07-01-2011 4:05 PM Mazzy has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 611 of 1075 (622427)
07-03-2011 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 608 by Portillo
07-03-2011 2:47 AM


Of Chickens and Pyramids
Portillo writes:
I never said that animals are stupid. They are magnificent and marvelous. Just because a Raven cracks a nut or a monkey uses a tool does not prove that they have the self awareness that humans do. Come back to me when an animal besides a human builds a rocketship, builds pyramids like the Egyptians or ancient wonders like the Babylonians, art and philosophy like the Greeks, merchant fleets, the scientific revolution of modern science. Look around you and wander at the marvel of evolution in human affairs. It is truly remarkable.
Do you, personally as an individual, know how to build a rocketship, pyramids, understand Greek art and philosophy, build a merchant fleet, actually engage in the scientific revolution.
You could, with a complex language and communication with the knowledge of others, that is of course if you largely took the experts at their word.
After all, which came first? the chicken or the egg?
Or did they co-evolve? Evidently a stumbling block for some.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
Please contribute to my apprenticeship in the gadfly society by rating all my messages as low as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 608 by Portillo, posted 07-03-2011 2:47 AM Portillo has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2602 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 612 of 1075 (622428)
07-03-2011 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 608 by Portillo
07-03-2011 2:47 AM


Re: More evolved?
Come back to me when an animal besides a human builds a rocketship...
I asked you if you understood the term "moving the goal post" and you respond by moving the goal post.
This sort of dishonesty is frankly all we can expect from you people.
In all seriousness, are you *** on purpose because you think you'll trick people who are MORE educated than yourself into pretending to be ***? Or is it that you are just too *** to realize you are ***?
I know I'm going to hear from the admins about "debating the subject not the poster" but frankly I don't see the point.
I debated the subject. You lied. I pointed it out. You lied. I pointed that out too. You lied.
It seems that no matter what I post, you simply respond with lies.
So, frankly, the subject is: Why do Christians feel the need to *** all the time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 608 by Portillo, posted 07-03-2011 2:47 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 624 by Portillo, posted 07-04-2011 3:01 AM Nuggin has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3885 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 613 of 1075 (622430)
07-03-2011 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by Mazzy
07-01-2011 4:28 PM


Re: What it means to be a hominid
"Wood and Harrison cautioned that history has shown how uncritical reliance on a few similarities between fossil apes and humans can lead to incorrect assumptions about evolutionary relationships.
They pointed out the cases of the Ramapithecus discovery in south Asia, which was touted in the 1960s and '70s as a human ancestor, and Oreopithecus bambolii discovered in Italy, which was assumed to be a human ancestor because of some of its skeletal features.
After more detailed research was done on both of them, both were found to be fossil apes instead."
This is how science works. Nothing is 100% certain. Over time scientists might reach a consensus on the likelihood of something being true, but it could change. If it stands up to future data, then it can be considered the best theory, but that doesn’t mean it is absolutely, beyond a doubt, 100% certain. Scientists will defend their theories and offer up the strongest arguments and data they can find in support but that doesn’t mean they don’t leave room for doubt (they’re human though and it is hard to give up a long cherished, or personal theory). Science advances slowly, to slowly for some, but there is a reason for it. We make mistakes.
Anyways, debating whether an ancient species is ancestral or not is going to be tough. We are, after all, related very closely to the other great apes.
In relation to the thread topic, there is no good reason for a half hairy, apey creature to no have survived in Africa somehwere.
The greatest distinction in organisms and the one that would stand out as evidence for TOE is such a creature. You do not have one around over the last 1000 years or so. You must invent a plethora of reasonings as to why NONE survived.
H. floresiensis existed up until about 18 kya. H. neanderthalensis existed until perhaps 25 kya and mixed with us on a limited basis before going extinct. Denisovians were around until roughly 40 kya and also interbred with us on a limited basis. They were around the same time as we were, so I’m not sure how it matter that they are still not around. Nobody ever said that if extinctions happen evolution is false. It’s just a fact of life.
I’d like to also point out that nobody is suggesting that a species directly related to us is going to be some half-ape half-human hybrid. We do expect to find certain derived features that it would share with us, though the farther in the past the more ancestral features it should have. Of course, it isn’t even that easy, because we have to deal with convergence and parallel evolutionary paths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Mazzy, posted 07-01-2011 4:28 PM Mazzy has not replied

DrJeffrey
Junior Member (Idle past 4762 days)
Posts: 1
From: Brighton
Joined: 07-03-2011


(1)
Message 614 of 1075 (622431)
07-03-2011 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:06 AM


Despite the passionate desires and efforts of many highly qualified people over many decades to find real real evidence of ape men the hard scientific facts are clearly against the existence of such. Notice this quote from Science Digest May 1982 p. 44 : " Modern apes seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans-of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings-is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter". Regarding the impressive pictures, documentaries etc that the public are subjected to I find this quote revealing from the book The Biology of Race 1971 p. 135,171 : "The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. Skin colour; the colour, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face -of these characteristics we know absoulutely nothing for any prehistoric men". The above quotes are the real situation and very little has changed since this material was published . I find it disturbing that our 21st. Century scientists seem increasingly unaware that human evolution is still highly speculative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doubletime, posted 06-18-2009 6:06 AM Doubletime has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2011 3:41 AM DrJeffrey has not replied
 Message 616 by anglagard, posted 07-03-2011 3:49 AM DrJeffrey has not replied
 Message 625 by Portillo, posted 07-04-2011 3:04 AM DrJeffrey has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 615 of 1075 (622432)
07-03-2011 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 614 by DrJeffrey
07-03-2011 3:30 AM


Despite the passionate desires and efforts of many highly qualified people over many decades to find real real evidence of ape men the hard scientific facts are clearly against the existence of such.
Wrong. Fossils are hard. They're famous for it.
Notice this quote from Science Digest May 1982 p. 44 : " Modern apes seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans-of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings-is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter".
Science Digest, eh?
Science Digest was a monthly American magazine published by the Hearst Corporation from 1937 through 1986. It initially had an 8 x 5 inch format with about 100 pages, and was targeted at persons with a high school education level. It contained short articles about general science often excerpted from other publications in the style of Reader's Digest. [...] At first it tended to favor breathless cover lines, and often turned to pseudoscience topics, including spontaneous human combustion and UFOs.
And that was your argument from authority?
Regarding the impressive pictures, documentaries etc that the public are subjected to I find this quote revealing from the book The Biology of Race 1971 p. 135,171 : "The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. Skin colour; the colour, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face -of these characteristics we know absoulutely nothing for any prehistoric men".
Well of course artists' renditions aren't science. This is why no-one ever said they were.
By the way, since you find The Biology of Race so "revealing", perhaps it would interest you to know that (a) the second sentence you quote is absent from later editions of the book; (b) the author thinks that there is what you describe as "real real evidence of ape men".
I find it disturbing that our 21st. Century scientists seem increasingly unaware that human evolution is still highly speculative.
Ooh yes, very disturbing. How did scientists come to know so little about science? Perhaps it's 'cos they've been frittering away their time looking at fossils instead of reading about UFOs in Science Digest.
Or perhaps it is scientists who are knowledgeable about science and you who are ignorant. Just a thought.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by DrJeffrey, posted 07-03-2011 3:30 AM DrJeffrey has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024