The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

quote:

---

But, my main point I really wanted to make was that it was a fraud, and along with the ones I already mentioned.

---

And it was a fraud perpetrated by a smut rag of a newspaper. Nebraska man was NEVER accepted as a viable hominid fossil by the scientific community. It was SCIENTISTS that claimed it was not a hominid fossil. The only people proclaiming that it was a hominid fossil was the person who dug it up and an Enquirerer-esque rag. How is this a smudge on the face of evolution? In fact, it should be a stain on creationists because they are more likely to believe trumped up stories in newspapers than listen to the scientists themselves.

em.. that's not what you said at all - you said that science at one time taught it as the real thing - you have failed to produce any evidence to back this claim. Well because that's true - you can prove that is not the case by producing the name of a science text book or research paper that said it was. Entirely faulty, science was never caught with it's hand in the cookie jar - it never believed in Nman to start with, popular magazines did - do you understand the difference. How many more times do you have to be told this?I ask again - produce a science textbook that claimed this fraud was real. Total strawman as this myth was shot down by the scientific community at the first post.PRODUCE A TEXTBOOK THAT SAYS THIS WAS REAL.

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.

Much of your post appears to be from http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/universe.shtml. Not only is the subject off-topic, as others have already noted, but the posting of material not your own without attribution is a serious violation of the Forum Guidelines.Interestingly, it doesn't appear to be a cut-n-paste because although it is word-for-word identical, it contains typos that do not appear in the original. Either you did a cut-n-paste and then inserted typos, or you typed it in from scratch, either from the webpage or perhaps, not realizing it was available on-line, from an off-line source.You noted that other forums do not enforce staying on topic. We enforce it here because it is a frequently used ploy to avoid a discussion one is losing by changing the subject. One of the goals of EvC Forum is to provide an environment more conducive than other forums to carrying discussions to a productive conclusion.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You're not attacking the foundation, though. Modern theories on human origins do not include Nebraska Man or Piltdown Man. I'm glad to hear your standards are so high. I assume this means that you deplore your recent dabbling with plagiarism. All human endeavors are affected by human frailities, and science is a human endeavor. If scientific frauds invalidate science, then what do religious frauds, such as those of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert, to mention just two famous religious con-artists, do to religion? If the planting of fake fossils in a dig invalidates evolution, then does fraud in the name of Jesus invalidate Christianity?The answer on both counts is "Of course not!" You need to find more objective criteria for judging theories on human origins.Current theories about man's origins are not based upon Nebraska Man or Piltdown Man, and even Piltdown Man has had no influence for more than half a century. When the Piltdown fossils were finally submitted to chemical analysis several years after Woodward's death, scientists were pretty certain what they would find. No other hominid fossils were ever found in Great Britain after 1916, and all other fossil finds had small, not large, braincases. Woodward, the scientist responsible for the Piltdown fossils, kept them locked up for years and would not often permit them to be examined. By the time Piltdown Man was proved to be a fraud, it had already been suspected a fraud for a considerable time, because among all hominid fossil finds it was the odd man out, both geographically and morphologically. The background assumption for all discussions at EvC Forum is that viewpoints on both sides are biased, and that the only an objective review of the evidence can lead to valid conclusions.I'm not going to reply to the rest of your objections about human fossils because it turns out that they, too, are plagiarized, this time from http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/ape_men.shtml. Please write something in your own words next time.--Percy

quote:

---

And it was a fraud perpetrated by a smut rag of a newspaper.

---

Do you ever get the feeling that some creationists cannot tell the difference between a peer reviewed scientific journal and a tabloid?

Can I ask a question? I really do not understand the reason behind that. I 'research' that information that I see, and then reaffirm their conclusions.What is the difference if you find a site, which comes to a conclusive answer, and looking it up on your own personal library or college?Check the numbers out, calculate the formula, and see if the answer is wrong.Example:
Two plus two =4 in the book. Three plus one =4 in subscribed magazines. Four plus zero=4 in web sites. What is the difference?I thought the important factor is to get information to facts.
If I understand the explanation, whether it was the professors at the University that I attended, or the archives of a library or a website?For example: UC Berkeley contains a lot of information on Evolution, which I use to see which arguments exists. Are you telling me that the information they have is also wrong?Why then, wouldn't you want to receive information by any means which supports a claim? We do that all the time, whether we acknowledge it or not.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-11-2004 03:44 PM

with relevent citations to say where the material has gone from? or just straight cut'n'paste or copy out like a robot? em.. yes but when we just copy something word for work and don't acknowledge the source it is called plagiarism - it is considered a dishonest practice.I take it you never went to university?Take this test - might help you understand what we are talking about -http://www.essex.ac.uk/plagiarism/Test.htm Can I ask you a question - are you presenting any material of your own or are most of your posts in this "format"?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-11-2004 03:54 PM

quote:

---

I thought the important factor is to get information to facts.
If I understand the explanation, whether it was the professors at the University that I attended, or the archives of a library or a website?

---

First, as others have mentioned plagarism is a big no-no. If you want to, go ahead and quote someone but also give them credit for the hard work that went into creating the material to begin with. Also, we also prefer that people also give a summary of the quote which lets us know that the poster understands the material that they are quoting.

quote:

---

Why then, wouldn't you want to receive information by any means which supports a claim? We do that all the time, whether we acknowledge it or not.

---

We don't mind information, but we all have xeroxes and google if we want to copy information. What we want is a discussion, not a quote war. Also, chances are that you would not be able to back up arguments made by your source if you are incapable of summarizing the author's arguments.

quote:

---

Do you ever get the feeling that some creationists cannot tell the difference between a peer reviewed scientific journal and a tabloid?

---

They know the difference. Primary literature is stuff they can't understand, and tabloids uses language that they can understand. This isn't meant to be patronizing (or maybe it is), but I really doubt that most creationists on this website can understand even 10% of the arguments and evidence presented in most peer reviewed journals, or the implications of the evidence within the biological sciences.

First, posting the words of others as if they were your own is simply dishonest, though in your case the irony of a plagiarist accusing others of fraud was precious. This is a serious discussion site, and plagiarism isn't tolerated.Second, and the biggest problem with it at EvC Forum, is that the cut-n-paste tactic is most often used by those who don't actually understand the arguments being made, and so they are unable to respond intelligently to any replies, thereby wasting everyone's time and causing much frustration.Accepted practice here is to make the argument in your own words and to provide links to the websites where you got the ideas. There is no need to provide attribution for things you just happen to know, or for things that everyone knows, or for things that are described in many different places. For instance, if I wanted to state the value of pi to 10 decimal places I could look it up on the web, but providing a link to where I found it isn't necessary (though it might be nice to provide a reference anyway) because this value can be looked up in literally hundreds of places.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Sounds fair.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-11-2004 07:49 PM

1. Did Darwin believe that with time, the gaps would be filled with the "missing links?"2. Are these the steps of Evolution which are claimed as the origins of man?
Steps: Cell/Fish/Reptile/Bird/Monkey/Man3. Is there any fossil evidence which shows any of the previous species transforming into another species?

no no no.Come on Nothing, you started the thread - you still have failed to back your assumption that a) N-man was taught in schools as fact as evidenced by b) a source such as a textbook.You need to answer those claims first before you go off and try to discuss something else.Do you think that we are going to allow you to do that?remember your own words: If you can't support this claim you just need to say "I can provide no evidence to support this claim".This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-11-2004 08:20 PM

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