Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[Thermos aquaticus]

And there always will be some "gaps". Of course that does not mean there are not intermediates. I simply do not understand the "logic" of creationists. I think it has to be largely desperation on their part.

You can always ask them how they determined where the gaps are. They will immediately go to the evolutionary model to determine where those gaps are. In many ways, the gaps are some of the best evidence for the theory of evolution because we shouldn't be able to identify any gaps if evolution were not true.

 

[Neb]

Yeah, strange that.




Hominids are classified by having adaptations for bipedal walking which is exactly what we see in the Australopithecine pelvis. Australopithecines have human-like physical features not seen in other apes and ape-like features not seen in modern humans. This is what makes Australopithecines a transitional species, the mixture of physical features from humans and non-human apes. This is the scientific evidence.

Reconstructions of broken fossils and bones of a chimp with some alteration on the hip area to make it look like a bipedal hominid and called it "transitional species" and make a "grand pronouncement" that "This is the scientific evidence". Really?

Nebraska man was rejected by the scientific community immediately after publication. It was never considered to be a valid hominid fossil by the scientific community.

In 1917, Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: 'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'" (Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, "Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America," American Museum Novitates, 37, p. 2 ). One month later, Osborn announced that Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was the first anthropoid ape from America; a missing link in human evolution.

Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, England, supported Osborn saying, "I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" (Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reconstructions of broken fossils and bones of a chimp with some alteration on the hip area to make it look like a bipedal hominid and called it "transitional species" and make a "grand pronouncement" that "This is the scientific evidence". Really?

Seriously, did you not look at the hips? Lucy's hip is not a chimp's hip. It is far far closer to your hip. The hip was reconstructed because being buried under thousands of pounds of sediment flattened it a bit. Why is that surprising?

In 1917, Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: 'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'" (Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, "Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America," American Museum Novitates, 37, p. 2 ). One month later, Osborn announced that Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was the first anthropoid ape from America; a missing link in human evolution.

Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, England, supported Osborn saying, "I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" (Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927).

Right, an amateur misidentified a tooth. He found one person that supported him. The story was picked up by the popular press. One scientist supporting an amateur does not mean that most scientists supported an amateur.

You need to start to link your sources. Are you ashamed of them? If you are ashamed of them why use them?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Reconstructions of broken fossils and bones of a chimp with some alteration on the hip area to make it look like a bipedal hominid and called it "transitional species" and make a "grand pronouncement" that "This is the scientific evidence". Really?

If all you can do is falsely claim that the evidence has been altered then you really don't have an argument. All you have done is show that you will never accept the fossil evidence.

In 1917, Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: 'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'" (Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, "Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America," American Museum Novitates, 37, p. 2 ). One month later, Osborn announced that Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was the first anthropoid ape from America; a missing link in human evolution.

Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, England, supported Osborn saying, "I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" (Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927).

And the rest of the scientific community disagreed. There is only a single peer reviewed paper that ever put forward the idea that the tooth was from a hominid.

Do you really think Nebraska Man somehow makes all of these other fossils disappear? Really?

 

[Neb]

First off "missing link" is a bogus creationist term. I suggest that you avoid it.


Second there is no doubt that Lucy was a biped.


And your claim about Nebraska Man is one hundred percent wrong. I warned you about using lying sites, why do you still go to them? Nebraska Man was never accepted by scientists.

“Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man.”

Guess what’s goin on back then? The Brits got their own missing link, Piltdown man, while the American, for 10 years, was still looking for one and found a PIG tooth and created its first MISSING LINK. Why are they racing to get their own MISSING LINK?

Darwin’s Descent of Man which argued that some races of men were more highly evolved than others. If fossils of Modern Man appeared very early in Britain, then this could be proof that the British Race was the most highly evolved.

 

[Neb]

Seriously, did you not look at the hips? Lucy's hip is not a chimp's hip. It is far far closer to your hip. The hip was reconstructed because being buried under thousands of pounds of sediment flattened it a bit. Why is that surprising?




Right, an amateur misidentified a tooth. He found one person that supported him.

The story was picked up by the popular press. One scientist supporting an amateur does not mean that most scientists supported an amateur.

You need to start to link your sources. Are you ashamed of them? If you are ashamed of them why use them?

“Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History" was NOT just an ordinary man during that time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man.”

Guess what’s goin on back then? The Brits got their own missing link, Piltdown man, while the American, for 10 years, was still looking for one and found a PIG tooth and created its first MISSING LINK. Why are they racing to get their own MISSING LINK?

Darwin’s Descent of Man which argued that some races of men were more highly evolved than others. If fossils of Modern Man appeared very early in Britain, then this could be proof that the British Race was the most highly evolved.

.
Please, you need to stop this dishonest tactic. By this tactic David Koresh and other loons "disprove" Christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History" was NOT just an ordinary man during that time.

So you admit that Christianity is false. I am fine with that.

 

[Neb]

The Smithsonian does.

And we know that the geologic record is imperfect. There are gaps of millions of years between many deposits. Darwin was right.

meaning NO INTERMEDIATE LINKS, right?

 

[Neb]

.
Please, you need to stop this dishonest tactic. By this tactic David Koresh and other loons "disprove" Christianity.

attacking a strawman.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

meaning NO INTERMEDIATE LINKS, right?

I just showed you the intermediate links. You falsely claim that they are fakes so you don't have to address them.

 

[Neb]

So you admit that Christianity is false. I am fine with that.

attacking a strawman again. you are unresponsive.

 

[Neb]

I just showed you the intermediate links. You falsely claim that they are fakes so you don't have to address them.

And you call this plasters "scientific evidence"

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And you call this plasters "scientific evidence"

They are fossils, and you refuse to address them. We will take that as your tacit admission that they are transitional. If these fossils weren't transitional then you wouldn't have to falsely accuse scientists of faking them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

attacking a strawman.

You don't know what a strawman is. If anything that is your "sin" and I am merely repeating it. If you can see the error in my argument against Christianity using your standards then you should be able to see the error in your argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

attacking a strawman again. you are unresponsive.

Just because you lack the ability to understand does not mean that someone is being unresponsive. Once again by your twisted "logic" Christianity is false. You need to change tactics.

 

[Neb]

are you familiar with the Scope Monkey trial?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you call this plasters "scientific evidence"

Yes, they are. Your inability to deal with them does not make them go away.

Look at the side view of a chimp's hip and that of Lucy and a human. The biggest difference between a human hip and that of an Australopithecus afarensis is size.

 

[Subduction Zone]

are you familiar with the Scope Monkey trial?

Yep, I even know how to spell "Scopes" correctly. A biased judge found for the state. Do you have a point? The judge also gave Scopes only a slap on the wrist and he did not wish to go through the pains of a trial again so even though he had backing refused to appeal the verdict.

Once again, what point do you hope to make? Later trials in effect reversed that ruling.

 

[Neb]

You don't know what a strawman is. If anything that is your "sin" and I am merely repeating it. If you can see the error in my argument against Christianity using your standards then you should be able to see the error in your argument.

Didn't you say, "Bible are morality tales at best"? But here you said my "sin".

Bible are morality tales at best?