The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

Let me ask you a question first.Where do people go to get their information? Everything that has been embedded into our brain has come from some source, or another. While at the Universities, I recieved information from the text books,films,personal interpretations from the Professors.In regards to the source that I quoted, it was their personal interviews. If I can hear a paleontologist own words, who is heading the actual excavation site (Boxgrove excavation) wouldn't you agree that is a much greater source than a text book?If anybody would like to see it for themselves, just send me your p.o. box, and I will send it on its way to you.It would be absurd to think that "anyone" heading an excavation, while claiming that a fossil was approximately half a million years old, would then think he was just like us-human.You must see the full video in order to see the complete meaning of what he meant, and why he said it.
He was bascially stating that it wasn't ape, rather human. Can you imagine seeing a half million year old prehistoric man riding on skates? If you have any quarrels with the answers given, blame the professionals that gave it, not the messenger.Again, if you would like to hear/see it for yourselves, I would be more than happy to send it.Now, one of my questions was not answered. Do you know if Homo Habilis turned out to be a combination of many fossils put together? Yes? No?

Ok - just as a general point - we don't tend to take too much notice of what people say on videos and the like. Those can be off the cuff remarks or editted to be taken out of context.The best source for information is generally peer-reviewed journals. Producing a decent paper is a difficult process and the author will try as best as possible to make a very strong case for their claims or viewpoints. For an article to get into a peer-reviewed journal, an article will have been checked and critiqued by a number of experts in that field before it is printed. If it's not upto scratch, then it will be send back for corrections/alterations or out and out rejected.It is one of the reasons that creationists are not taken seriously, most don't even attempt to get their material printed in peer-reviewed journals. Ask yourself why.

I can only respond to what you posted. In the case of the Roberts quote, I can only guess he was responding to a naive question about whether or not Homo heidelbergensis was stoop shouldered.You would be better served to read serious books on human origins instead of mainstream media or Creationist videos. Some of the mainstream stuff available on the Discovery channel and the like are fine, such as Walter Cronkite's program on human evolution or National Geographic's on Leakey, to name just two, but there's probably a lot of garbage out there, too. Where did you get your video? If you can't find the views represented in your video in books in the public library then I suggest you consider it skeptically. Your video, not the library. The title of this thread, The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?, reflects the same naivete. In scientific terms there was never any such thing as an "Ape man". This term sprang from the popular press, not from scientists.What you find when you examine the fossil record is that in general the older the fossil the more different from modern man. It isn't possible to say that fossils older than a certain age are ape while those younger are hominids because the transition is gradual. Any firm set of criteria drawing a line of demarcation will be arbitrary. This is the same naive question you asked before. Most hypothesized human ancestors are represented by many fossils from multiple sites. Jar said there are over twenty Homo habilis fossils, but I don't know how many individuals that represents, or what parts of the skeleton they represent, but most are probably skull and teeth since they survive better than other parts of the skeleton.I can answer the question posed by your thread title. The "ape man" is a fiction created by the popular press. Scientifically, he doesn't exist.--Percy

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.

Whether genuine or not, I don't think either quote has any scientific merit. To me the quotes seem either made up, or they derive from extreme oversimplifications, to the point of being wrong or at least misleading. While Homo erectus is our closest known relative in the fossil record, the differences in morphology (as represented by fossil remains) and behavior (as interpreted from artifacts found at Homo erectus sites) leads scientists to give them a different species designation.What led me to conclude that the quotes were possible fakes is that the one from Roberts had him concluding Homo heidelbergensis was "somewhat hairy" based upon a couple teeth and a chin bone. If the Homo erectus quotes you're focusing on derive from the same source then I'd consider them very suspect.That being said, perhaps the quotes were responses to a question about what Homo erectus looked like. The concensus opinion is that they wouldn't have stood out in a crowd of modern humans, perhaps a bit taller and more gracile on average, and with a brow ridge that nonetheless is within human norms.If Nothing is seeking a hominid that has the appearance of something midway between a human and a modern ape such as a gorilla or chimp, then Homo erectus isn't it. I don't he's going to find anything in science that will fit his imagination.--Percy

I absolutely agree with you about the hairy part, and I disagree with Dr. Roberts about it being hairy-(NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT WAS HAIRY). But don't you agree that most scientsts and evolutionists , do not OBJECT to such actios when it comes to painting prehistoric men with as HAIRY APE MEN? Is it because it makes them look more like monkeys?For example, just because the fossil is buried lower, and makes it older, that does not make it hairier does it? That same question has crossed my mind in reference to the historic men, which are displayed hairier, and hairier, the older they seem to be.Why don't scienctist object to that? Why would they allow museums, and text books to project historical men as hairy(Ape like) individuals.This is not specifically done by the scientists, however, they do not seem to object to this. Why not? Walter Cronkite perspective is solely based on his own interpretation.Ironically, My main point was to show that there are others who actually agree with Evolution.(One of the paleontologist actually believed in Evolution, but then couldn't back it up in regards to these subjects- so he reluctantly agreed, without really agreeing if that is possible).I wanted to demonstrate that the line from point A, to point B(Homo Erectus) wasn't Ape Men swinging on trees.Alright, let's talk about Lucy.
What is the average width of strata? Let's just say that these layers(strata) of dirt determines the age of the fossil.So, the lower we find a fossil, the older it is, correct? I do not really agree with this, but I will use it to make a point. If you go down in a vertical path for approximately 200 feet below, you would pass through layers of strata.What is the average strata size(thickness/width)? Let's just use an imaginary number, and say one foot. So now we would have one foot layers of strata, all the way down to two hundred feet.That would mean 200 layers of strata, which embodies fossils within it's dirt. Now, imagine this scenario:The discovery of 'Lucys' KNEE JOINT was found in the 200th layer of strata(200 feet below) and then, one mile and a half away from the original discovery, this KNEE JOINT was found.This KNEE JOINT(human like) proved that it was able to walk upright.
How can a knee joint that was found one and a half miles away, and 200 feet BELOW in layers of strata be linked to Lucy?This just doesn't add up. What do you think?This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-15-2004 09:50 PMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-15-2004 09:53 PMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-15-2004 09:58 PM

You're moving down the right path, but the geological column is really getting OT.Can I suggest that you to start with these? One look at the columnIt's not short, afterall, you're dealing with about 15,000 feet.It may help you with the next few steps. It's worth spending the time with it because there are at least 25 spots around the world where you can find the whole column in one place.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks for the site. I'll check it out. But it still does not add up even without the strata example.

Reconstructions of the external appearance of extinct hominids involves much speculation. Regarding the amount, location and coloration of body hair, since it doesn't fossilize, we can only surmise that perhaps our evolutionary ancesters had less than chimps and more than us, with a gradual progression toward less and less over time. Walter Cronkite's program on evolution was 90% interviews with paleontologists, the rest being interspersals of explanations and some graphics. The program was a platform for current paleontological views, not Walter Cronkite's. He's not a paleontologist, so a program on his views of human origins wouldn't merit any attention. Did you feel you needed to demonstrate this because you thought that evolutionists accept the popular Ape Man myth? Most Americans can't find Europe on a globe, so don't put much stock in what is commonly accepted. Don't you think there's something wrong with the picture of a paleontologist who doesn't accept the theory of evolution? Don't you think that would be rather like a priest who didn't accept Christ? What makes you believe that there are people out there entering fields of study which they believe are bunk? Where did you say you got this video? Oh, that's right, you didn't say. Yes, what you've been told doesn't add up. I know the unearthing of Lucy was a complicated task, and it's a bit too late for me start familiarizing myself with the details. Perhaps someone else will take this on.--Percy

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?

NOTHINGNESS

quote:

---

The discovery of 'Lucys' KNEE JOINT was found in the 200th layer of strata(200 feet below) and then, one mile and a half away from the original discovery, this KNEE JOINT was found.

---

Lucy's knee was NOT found at a distance from the rest of the skeleton. The knee in question is a different fossil from the same (or very similar) species.The bones from Lucy were all found at a single location and, as can be seen, there are no knees: This myth, which has been circulating in creationists circles for ages derives from a lecture given by Lucy's discoverer Donald Johanson and the University of Missouri, where, in the question and answer session the following happened:Q. How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?
A. Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away.Perhaps the questioner meant Lucy's knee, perhaps not, but Johanson clearly though it meant earlier (1973 as opposed to 1974) find, and answered accordingly.Johansons' knee (AL129): for a fuller account see here.This knee is almost as important as Lucy herself, since it was the first clear evidence for bipedalism. I've read the popular account of the finds, and the discoverer's awe at what the find signifies comes over very clearly.Edited to add picture of knee.This message has been edited by MarkAustin, 08-16-2004 08:42 AM

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

NOTHINGNESS, could you tell us where you got these info?

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Now that you confirmed that it wasn't Lucy's knee, I can put things in a better perspective. About it being a similar species, it cannot be confirmed.The knee joint was significance because it would have proven that it was bipedal. As far as I can see, Lucy was a chimpanzee or similar type, which are "temporarily" able to walk upright. And that is due to the hip joint,and even that is pure speculation.I admit, that if Johanson's remark was true, It would have been a plus in my favor. However,considering I cannot prove otherwise at this time, I have to give you the benefit of the doubt(only to Johanson's remark about the knee joint NOT BEING THEIR WITH LUCY).The important thing for me is the fact that the 'knee joint' which seems to be bipedal, was NOT at the site with Lucy. You cannot add lib anything about being similar just to associate the bipedal knee joint with Lucy.It still comes down to proving Lucy was able to walk upright,without the knee joint. Everything else added is just speculation.How many times do I need to explain about where I get my stuff? In this case, I went to the microfilms to confirm a lot of my information (see if the "quotes" were properly stated......etc.)In this case I searched TIME Magazine to see Johanson's specific quote. I've already known about Lucy disputed claim for years.
I'll give you the date and year once I get home. It's in my computer files.In regards to creationists not being scientists, well, I'm sure you know of many famous scientists who were here before your time, others that presently still exists. If you do not admit to that, you must be living in another world.

quote:

---

It still comes down to proving Lucy was able to walk upright,without the knee joint.

---

There is the pelvis, which shows that Lucy probably walked upright.There are the arms which, although longer than in modern humans, are shorter than in the non-bipedal apes.There are other speciems of the same species as Lucy, which have both knee joints, pelvises, and foot bones.