Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?

Yopu asked: "What exactly did you find in the article to be inaccurate?"

Reply:
'Inaccurate' covers a range. Let's consider
"This attitudinal shift has connotations for the whole topic of alleged evolution of human beings."

hmm--"alleged". Not inaccurate, but sounds like cop-speak. Is there evidence of an "attitudinal shift"? Is there evidence over the last 12 years that such a change in 'perspective' has actually occurred within the scientific community?

curious, quoting: "In a previous article I demonstrated the lack of suitable primitive ancestors for the australopithecines, for 'habilis' and for Homo erectus. In this paper I hope to have shown that the erectus-archaic-Neanderthal-modern man 'chain' is non-evolutionary; that is, that all these forms are simply varieties of human beings [citations omitted in this reply]. The question of time is irrelevant - it makes no difference whether the time involved is millions of years or only a few thousand. The morphological distinctions are very much insufficient to warrant placing these forms in separate categories which only serves the purpose of evolution - a theory to which so many scientists are committed as dogma. Once evolution is accepted as dogma, all evidence is interpreted in a subjective, rather than objective, manner. Creationists will continue to expose the weaknesses in the theory and to encourage further research and study into the origins of man. It is not simply a matter of blind adherence to religion; the evidence is available to all who honestly wish to study and evaluate it."

I consider this inaccurate in the following ways:
a. Scientific papers do not usually use the first person pronoun: "I demonstrated..., I hope...." Smacks of self-promotion.
b. An assertion that "The question of time is irrelevant - it makes no difference whether the time involved is millions of years or only a few thousand." Most scientists would think that time is a relevant parameter. Dismissing time is a very odd statement.

c. "...which only serves the purpose of evolution - a theory to which so many scientists are committed as dogma. Once evolution is accepted as dogma, all evidence is interpreted in a subjective, rather than objective, manner." Instead of evidence, the author uses argumentative words--"serving the purpose of evolution"; "evolution...as dogma"; objective contrasted with subjective.

It is inaccurate to say 'objective' when the author seems to mean "my interpretation of what objective means and if you disagree it is 'subjective' ".

" all radiometric and geological dating methods. The estimates made may be correct, partially correct, or totally wrong, and therefore almost all of geology, time and fossils are exposed to subjectivity, no matter how carefully the experts tackle their tasks."

Here you go into interesting territory. Religionists do not admit that they may be "correct, partially correct, or totally wrong". From the point of view of "I believe..." there is no room for "I think maybe, or I may be wrong." Scientists admit that what we know today may be overturned tomorrow, based on new evidence. Faith does not want new evidence--it actively opposes it. As evidence: the splintering of Christian groups into 200 or more church groups owing to doctrinal differences.

"and therefore almost all of geology, time and fossils are exposed to subjectivity, no matter how carefully the experts tackle their tasks." Here you make a serious error. An individual scientist may be subjective, but science is far from what an individual scientist is or isn't. Science is the distilled and combined understanding of thousands who seek to understand the world--it is not a matter of celebrity status, some ancient text or someone who claims to have the revealed truth that says "it is this and so". Science is objective, and all claims have to succeed on the basis of examination, observation, and evidence. Science equally rejects--until compelling evidence turns up--all claims as to psychics, witch doctors/faith healing, spiritualism, dowsing, faeries, appearances of the Virgin Mary--even on cheese sandwiches!--stone statues that burst into tears, exorcism, ghosts, alien abductions, feng shui, magnetic bracelets, crop circles, etc.

My question to you is, where does your faith-conviction against evolution differ from what a 'psychic' would say? 'Psychics' say all the time, "I know..., I see..., this is the truth". Priests, pastors, etc. often say about the same.

"not every scientist agrees with the placement of ape/human"

Again, a meaningless dichotomy. Every scientist agrees that, biologically, humans are apes; humans are mammals; humans are vertebrates. We are surely on the ape branch of the tree.

What's the alternative? That humans are some star on the top disconnected from other animals? This makes no sense--we share so many characteristics with other mammals--including the placement of our internal organs, and a similar development during the embryo stages. Humans have blood types that are remarkably parallel to those of chimps and close cousins amongst apes.

This is exactly what one predicts from evolution. Otherwise, each event requires "God did it" and has no explanation.

"God did it" does not satisfy minimal requirements as to an explanation, since it can be used anywhere and everywhere. And the sheer number of claims to a god makes any particular one doubtful.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.