Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was Nebraska Man a fraud?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 46 (100368)
04-16-2004 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tiny man
04-16-2004 9:42 AM


It has been shown pretty much by many scientists that the Australopithecines are not "half ape, half Human".
That would be sort of impossible, considering that humans are apes.
That's like asking for the organism that's "half mammal, half dog."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tiny man, posted 04-16-2004 9:42 AM Tiny man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tiny man, posted 04-16-2004 6:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 32 of 46 (100370)
04-16-2004 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tiny man
04-16-2004 9:42 AM


Re: Human Evolution?
Why don't we read Dr. Fred Spoor et al.'s own words on the subject of "The Implications of early homonid morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion", and see how the actual work differs from your presentation of it: ftp://pc74.anat.ucl.ac.uk/pub/fred/Nature94.pdf or the rather longer (and less specific) paper ftp://pc74.anat.ucl.ac.uk/pub/fred/YB98-lab.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tiny man, posted 04-16-2004 9:42 AM Tiny man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2004 10:43 AM Dr Jack has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 46 (100371)
04-16-2004 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Jack
04-16-2004 10:37 AM


Re: Human Evolution?
Mr J. This is a bit close to 'bare links'. Could you make it easier for everyone and pull the contrasting pieces out of the links. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Jack, posted 04-16-2004 10:37 AM Dr Jack has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 46 (100389)
04-16-2004 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tiny man
04-16-2004 9:42 AM


Re: Human Evolution?
The next main one in line is Homo Hablis. This is now regarded as a "waste bin" of two or more unrelated species and hence, is an "invalid category".
From Homo habilis: is it an invalid taxon? the actual full quote from Dr. Spoor is:
"I guess a majority of researchers now feel that what we used to call Homo habilis is not a single species but is a kind of wastebin of various fossils that are grouped together and kind of intermediate between australopithecines and Homo erectus and lets all call it one name and we don't know ... but more and more people recognize that there's at least two species and maybe even more." (Fred Spoor, on The Image of God video) included in the genus Homo, Australopithecus or any other.
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:
I contacted Fred Spoor to ask him whether the AIG claim fairly represented his views.
Q: For the record: do you believe H. habilis is an invalid taxon?
Spoor: The species name "habilis" is a valid taxon, whether it is included in the genus Homo, Australopithecus or any other
Q: Or, as I suspect, do you consider it a valid species to which specimens from other species have been mistakenly attributed?
Spoor: Correct. The question is simply figuring out which fossils represent the same species as the type specimen of H. habilis (a mandible from Olduvai, Tanzania). Over time, when more fossils will be found, we will get an increasingly good idea about morphological variation of this species, and what type of cranium exactly fits with the type mandible.
Q: If you don't have the video in question, I do, and can tell you exactly what you said if you are interested.
Spoor: I don't have the video myself (only polite journalists send copies to the people they interview; this interview was conducted without disclosing the creationists' agenda). In any case, at the time I must have discussed the status of Stw 53 from Sterkfontein. I thought and think that it is unlikely to be H. habilis, and colleagues increasingly support that view. In fact, officially Philip Tobias only preliminarily referred this specimen to Homo cf habilis, i.e. it was never formally assigned to that taxon.
Keep up the good work disclosing the creationists' nonsense. I am very much aware that any arguments and disagreements in scientific debates between palaeoanthropologists will be taken out of context and used by creationists to suggest that they have science and actual evidence on their side. Once we get into further debate about the status and implications of Kenyanthropus platyops, I am sure they will (ab)use that too....
(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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tiny man, posted 04-16-2004 9:42 AM Tiny man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tiny man, posted 04-16-2004 6:44 PM RAZD has replied

Tiny man
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 46 (100460)
04-16-2004 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
04-16-2004 1:06 PM


Skeptical of talkorigins.com
"Split into two hominid species is a lot different than the implication of "invalid category"" Posted by RAZD.
Well, here is how I see it. Since Hablis is not a single creature - but a mixture of creatures - it can't be an ancestor and therefore is an invalid category for transitional status. With Hablis gone, there is no clear cut transmission between the Australopithecines and Homo Erectus.
And yes, most of my information came from "The Image of God".
Q: For the record: do you believe H. habilis is an invalid taxon?
His response is basically saying that Habilis is not an ancsetor.
From your article with the telephone transcript, Dr Spoor states:
"Keep up the good work disclosing the creationists' nonsense. I am very much aware that any arguments and disagreements in scientific debates between palaeoanthropologists will be taken out of context and used by creationists to suggest that they have science and actual evidence on their side."
This doesn't make any sense! Also note: the transcript stops here. Is there anymore to it? He doesn't refute the creationist "evidence on their side". Could we have a link for this transcript? He was not, or didn't appear to be hostile towards the creationists in "The Image of God". If he knew that the evidence he would show on "The Image of God" the creationists would use, then why go on there in the first place? The evidence that he displayed is in no way false, even if Habilis was an ancestor (ignoring the multiple species point) than it is even less bipedal than Australopihecines which is in the wrong direction towards Humans. There is no taking the "evidence out of contrast" - as he said the evidence himself as crystal clear and I and heard it with my ears.
Also, I am - by past experiences - very skeptical of talkorigins.com as they lie and change the evidence to support their theory. A classic example of this is the fact that there are no 3rd Stage SNRs in our galaxy - they say that there are a tonne of them. A total lie and contradictory to the real evidence. So I don't really trust that "sceintific" site.
You state:
"It looks like your sources are not scrupulous about providing accurate information."
Actually they were providing rather accurate information - some of which came from Dr Fred Spoors mouth. They said that many evolutionists feel that Australopithecines are just an extinct ape like creature, while Hablis is a waste bin and various species and even if it wasn't, "it is less evolved in the way of what we see in Humans" ~ Dr Spoor. They then went on to talk about Homo Erectus, Neandertals, Box Grove man and stated that they are truely Human (after describing eivdence). So where are the transitionals?

"Do not be afraid of anyone, and do not worry. But have reverence for Christ in your hearts, and honor him as Lord. Be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have in you but do it with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2004 1:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2004 7:01 PM Tiny man has not replied
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2004 7:04 PM Tiny man has not replied
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2004 7:07 PM Tiny man has not replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2004 9:41 PM Tiny man has not replied
 Message 45 by Sylas, posted 04-20-2004 1:08 PM Tiny man has not replied

Tiny man
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 46 (100463)
04-16-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
04-16-2004 10:31 AM


Depending on how you look at it
"That would be sort of impossible, considering that humans are apes." This was quoted by crashfrog
In your opinion. The evidence doesn't show it. I know that I would rather be made in the Image of God than a "naked ape".

"Do not be afraid of anyone, and do not worry. But have reverence for Christ in your hearts, and honor him as Lord. Be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have in you but do it with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2004 10:31 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2004 7:02 PM Tiny man has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 37 of 46 (100466)
04-16-2004 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tiny man
04-16-2004 6:44 PM


logic?
Well, here is how I see it. Since Hablis is not a single creature - but a mixture of creatures - it can't be an ancestor and therefore is an invalid category for transitional status. With Hablis gone, there is no clear cut transmission between the Australopithecines and Homo Erectus.
You say, "since ... not a single ..." "it can't be..."
How is that? If the current list of species included in hablis are, in fact, a mix of species how does that mean that one of them can not be an ancestor to H. sapiens? I don't see your logic there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tiny man, posted 04-16-2004 6:44 PM Tiny man has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 38 of 46 (100467)
04-16-2004 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tiny man
04-16-2004 6:48 PM


ape human
In your opinion. The evidence doesn't show it.
This is getting off topic. I will propose a new thread for this if you agree that you want to discuss the "evidence" that you have. I won't bother if you don't care to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tiny man, posted 04-16-2004 6:48 PM Tiny man has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 46 (100468)
04-16-2004 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tiny man
04-16-2004 6:44 PM


SNR
Also, I am - by past experiences - very skeptical of talkorigins.com as they lie and change the evidence to support their theory. A classic example of this is the fact that there are no 3rd Stage SNRs in our galaxy - they say that there are a tonne of them. A total lie and contradictory to the real evidence. So I don't really trust that "sceintific" site.
This is also another thread. Would you like me to propose a topic on it?
In this case your source has been misleading you. One thing that you must understand is that it just might not be talkorigins that is lieing to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tiny man, posted 04-16-2004 6:44 PM Tiny man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2004 6:19 AM NosyNed has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 40 of 46 (100469)
04-16-2004 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tiny man
04-16-2004 6:44 PM


Re: Skeptical of talkorigins.com
Well, here is how I see it. Since Hablis is not a single creature - but a mixture of creatures - it can't be an ancestor and therefore is an
invalid category for transitional status. With Hablis gone, there is no clear cut transmission between the Australopithecines and Homo Erectus.
That makes no sense at all. If the specimens assigned to Homo Habilis in fact belong to two different species then one - or possibly more - of thenm still could be our ancestors. A dispute over classification in no way changes the fact of the specimens existence. And if you had read you would see that habilis is NOT gone - it is simply proposed that some of the fossils currently assigned to habilis are assigned to other species instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tiny man, posted 04-16-2004 6:44 PM Tiny man has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 46 (100502)
04-16-2004 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tiny man
04-16-2004 6:44 PM


Re: Skeptical of talkorigins.com
Well, here is how I see it. Since Hablis is not a single creature - but a mixture of creatures - it can't be an ancestor and therefore is an invalid category for transitional status. With Hablis gone, there is no clear cut transmission between the Australopithecines and Homo Erectus.
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.
Q: For the record: do you believe H. habilis is an invalid taxon?
His response is basically saying that Habilis is not an ancsetor.
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.
yes, most of my information came from "The Image of God".
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.
used by creationists to suggest that they have science and actual evidence on their side."
This doesn't make any sense! Also note: the transcript stops here. Is there anymore to it? He doesn't refute the creationist "evidence on their side"
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.
Actually they were providing rather accurate information - some of which came from Dr Fred Spoors mouth.
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.
So where are the transitionals?
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tiny man, posted 04-16-2004 6:44 PM Tiny man has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 42 of 46 (100539)
04-17-2004 2:19 AM


Bad topic drift
I think message one and the topic title well define the topics intent - Was the forwarding of "Nebraska Man" a fraud or just an error?
Please keep future messages somewhere in the area of this question, or it's time to close this one down.
Adminnemooseus

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 43 of 46 (101145)
04-20-2004 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
04-16-2004 7:04 PM


Re: SNR
The claim that talkorigins.org is lying over the existence of 3rd stage SNRs is raised in the current feedback.
TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for March 2004
The person issuing the accusation clearly had not even read the main FAQ on the issue ( Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ ) and relied on what can only be decribed as circumstantial evidence (and that without a clearly-reasoned rationale).
The accusation may be dismissed as groundless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2004 7:04 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by JonF, posted 04-20-2004 9:31 AM PaulK has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 44 of 46 (101152)
04-20-2004 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
04-20-2004 6:19 AM


OT: linking directly to TO feedback items
The claim that talkorigins.org is lying over the existence of 3rd stage SNRs is raised in the current feedback.
TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for March 2004
FYI, you can link directly to the feedback item by looking at the source and noting the "name" attribute on the "Feedback Letter" line of the item of interest then appending that to the URL:
TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for March 2004

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2004 6:19 AM PaulK has not replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 45 of 46 (101198)
04-20-2004 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tiny man
04-16-2004 6:44 PM


Re: Skeptical of talkorigins.com
Tiny man writes:
Also, I am - by past experiences - very skeptical of talkorigins.com as they lie and change the evidence to support their theory. A classic example of this is the fact that there are no 3rd Stage SNRs in our galaxy - they say that there are a tonne of them. A total lie and contradictory to the real evidence. So I don't really trust that "sceintific" site.
Hi Tiny man,
I am the author of the talkorigins feedback item on SNRs which NosyNed has mentioned. I write feedback responses under my real name. Sylas is my pseudonym for most other on-line contexts.
Do you mind my asking are you the person who sent us that feedback? If so, thanks. We are always glad to have feedback, critical or supportive.
One difficulty with feedback, of course, is that there is no real scope for an ongoing exchange. A feedback response has to try and give a reasonably concise response that helps address any issues; but this is still not as good as a dialogue.
I'll be happy to address any outstanding concerns you may have. I assure you, we are not lying about the existence of 3rd stage SNRs. I am genuinely concerned with accuracy in the archive, and have on a number of occasions helped facilitate changes to the archive to correct errors.
In this case, however, I am pretty sure of the facts of the matter. There several 3rd stage SNRs known in the galaxy. (This is also called the snowplow, or radiative phase.) However, this is not something that is immediately clear. Highly evolved SNRs are very hard to detect, and even if seen it is not always immediately obvious what phase it is in. The Cygnus loop SNR, for example, was considered at one time to be in the radiative phase, but is now considered in the adiabatic or Sedov phase (2nd phase). It is also possible for different parts of an SNR to be in different stages. The full details of how an SNR changes over time are very much a matter of ongoing research.
Here are two images of two 3rd stage SNRs in our galaxy, with links to further discussion.
Semis Loop
Vela SNR
Cheers -- Sylas
PS. The URL is TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy, not talkorigins.com
PPS. Thanks JonF! I did not know it was possible to link to a specific feedback response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tiny man, posted 04-16-2004 6:44 PM Tiny man 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