Posted on 06/01/2006 1:12:18 PM PDT by Sopater
"Australopithocines evolved into Homo erectus around 1.5 million years ago and Homo erectus, in turn, evolved into Homo sapiens around 400,000 years ago." This is presented to school children as no less certain than Washington's crossing of the Delaware. The statement makes dual claims: (1) there are fundamental anatomical differences between these three categories, and (2) each occurs in the right time frame. Let us examine these claims.
The anatomical differences between these three groups must be very substantial for the statement to have any meaning. Any anthropologist should be able to spot a Homo erectus on a crowded subway train, even clean-shaven and in a business suit, as different from modern humans. Not so. In fact, leading anthropologists Milford H. Wolpoff (University of Michigan), William S. Laughlin (U. of Connecticut), Gabriel Ward Lasker (Wayne State U.), Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (Cornell), Jerome Cybulski (National Museum of Man, Ottawa), and Donald Johanson (Institute of Human Origins) find the differences between these fossil categories to be so small that they have wondered in print if H. sapiens and H. erectus are one and the same. Fossils classified as H. erectus all share a set of "primitive" traits including a sloping forehead and large brow ridges, yet these all fall comfortably within the range of what are called normal humans today. For example, the very same traits are found in some modern people groups, including Eskimos! Eskimos might not like being referred to as "primitive" humans, yet evolutionists must do so if they are to be consistent. There are a lot of problems with the continued use of this taxon, yet it is essential to the evolution story.
The second truth claim embedded within the statement given to school kids has to do with these fossils occurring in the right time frame. For example, fossils with a H. erectus anatomy should be found exclusively in rocks that are older than those with its youthful descendents, "anatomically-modern" humans. This is decidedly not the case. Putting aside the validity of age-dates for a moment, the range for H. erectus is usually given at between about 1.5 million years and 400,000 years. Studiously avoided in most museum depictions is the fact that fossils with a H. erectus anatomy that are younger than 400,000 years number well over 100, including some as young as 6000 years. Even more amazing is this: fossil humans that are easily interpreted as "anatomically modern" (i.e., non-H. erectus) have been found in rocks that are much older than 1.5 million years. From a dozen different sites have come cranial fragments, including one good skull, teeth, several arm and leg bones, a fossil trackway, and stone structure that each screams out "modern human." The trackways at Laetoli, Tanzania, dated at 3.6 million years, and tibia (leg bone) and humerus (arm bone) from Kanapoi, Kenya, dated at 3.5 million, are especially significant for these pre-date even "Lucy," the celebrated upright-walking ape. These embarrassments have been revised, reinterpreted, and re-dated, but will not go away.
Keep these things in mind the next time you hear of a "missing link" being reported, for example, between H. erectus and modern man (as has been in the recent popular press). God made His creatures to reproduce "after their own kind," and it appears from the fossils that they have done just that.
* William A. Hoesch, M.S. geology, is an ICR Research Assistant in Geology.
I'm sorry...I had a misunderstanding of the cause of the seasons.I mean winter, spring, summer and fall. I forgot how I got on the subject actually. But does it shows a precision that had to be set up by someone.
<< I'm sorry...I had a misunderstanding of the cause of the seasons.I mean winter, spring, summer and fall. >>
Do you KNOW what causes those seasons? Do you KNOW that not everywhere on earth has those seasons? Do you KNOW what any of this has to do with evolution -- you know, the topic of the thread?
<< I forgot how I got on the subject actually. But does it shows a precision that had to be set up by someone. >>
What precision? You still have not explained anything. All you have done is repeat what you said -- what I asked you to explain. Repeating an assertion is not explaining it, nor is it supporting it. It's a waste of time.
What precision are you talking about? Why does that "precision" point to "someone" setting it up? Again -- do you KNOW what causes the seasons?
Are you going to explain your assertion, or are you going to just repeat it again? Or are you going to just leave it there, unsupported, and muddled?
Yeah, I'm glad I'm out of liberal colleges .... moving on to more interesting things like flying .... no liberals up there ....
I'm glad I could make your day/night .... :)
It would have made more sense coming from you, since you are always posting those creation stories you obviously don't believe in.
My apologies, But that's only one duck out of line. You are 9 for 19, under 50% rude posts, but just barely.
And as Dave's allegation showed, you can be rude, but you aren't vulgar about it. And I appreciate that.
Danny, are you referring to me or Coyoteman?
Coyoteman, the "one duck out of line" was for you.
NO, no, not why there are still monkey, thanks to the insults and attacks on this board, we've resolved that eternal question for eternity (yeah, uhm, shore!), but why are there still stoopid peeple who don't believe in 19th century science? Should they of become, like, extinct?!
We all make mistakes. No problem.
It would have made more sense coming from you, since you are always posting those creation stories you obviously don't believe in.
There is actually wisdom in some of those stories I post.
Perhaps "Old Man Coyote" is more than a myth.
The wilderness can sometimes change one's perspective. Everyone should try it; but, not everyone can handle isolation.
Read the last chapter of Origin of Species and you will find Darwin himself concedes that anyone who rejects his theory on the basis of the fossil records (lack of transitional forms), they will "rightly reject my theory".
If you spend a little time studying the history of the theory rather than the theory itself, incl. Darwin's forerunners like Erasmus Darwin, Comte Buffon, etc., you will find a common thread regarding the mens' characters, preferences, and philosophies. Many great scientists - Linnaeus and Pasteur to name a couple - rejected evolution (which theory you are doubtless aware did not begin with C. Darwin).
You are correct in noting that Creationism does not attempt to explain the how. It does, however, impose a different a prioiri than evolution in that it presupposes an ultimate Cause of all that is and of truth itself. Ever ponder the why behind pi, or e, or the Pythagorean Theorum? Can these truths (and I will concede it is not known whether e is transcendent) stand on their own in a meaningless, purposeless, and ultimately hopeless universe? Not trying to argue with you (don't really have time for that), but consider these things.
No, I'm not ... and thanks for the due respect. I will do my best to return it. The Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. It's scientific.
Read the last chapter of Origin of Species and you will find Darwin himself concedes that anyone who rejects his theory on the basis of the fossil records (lack of transitional forms), they will "rightly reject my theory".
I've read it. Darwin was discussing possible disproofs of his theory, which is one of the things that make it science, and was predicting that more transitionals would be found, which is another. They have been. Or are you implying we have no more examples of the fossil record than we did in 1859?
Additionally, Darwin knew nothing of a number of things that could have disproved his theory -- DNA particularly. Everything we've learned about DNA has served to confirm the Theory of Evolution (with the caveat that in the past we've had a few details wrong -- exact relationships between certain species, for instance).
If you spend a little time studying the history of the theory rather than the theory itself, incl. Darwin's forerunners like Erasmus Darwin, Comte Buffon, etc., you will find a common thread regarding the mens' characters, preferences, and philosophies.
I've done that, too. It's all interesting, but all of it is irrelevant as to the accuracy of the TOE itself. This argument is like saying Einstein's silly hairdo invalidates his Theory of Relativity.
Many great scientists - Linnaeus and Pasteur to name a couple - rejected evolution (which theory you are doubtless aware did not begin with C. Darwin).
You're citing Linnaeus, who died in 1778, as an authority who rejected evolution? Plato was an great philosopher -- he rejected Christianity.
It doesn't matter how many pre-20th century scientists rejected evolution. They didn't have the evidence we do now. (Some here have tried to use Pasteur's famous demonstration that maggots don't spontaneously generate in meat as some sort of proof that evolution couldn't have happened. I hope that's not why you're citing Pasteur).
You are correct in noting that Creationism does not attempt to explain the how.
Then why an objection to a theory that does attempt to explain how? They would seem to be addressing different areas.
It does, however, impose a different a prioiri than evolution in that it presupposes an ultimate Cause of all that is and of truth itself.
The TOE has nothing whatever to say about creation, ultimate truth, or whether God or any other entity had anything to do with it.
Consider that the Catholic Church does not consider the Theory of Evolution as necessarily contrary to Catholic teaching. I do not state this to imply that the Catholic Church is The One True Church(TM). I merely assert that it is possible to be serious about religion without rejecting the TOE. That Pope John Paul II was serious about his religion can't be disputed.
Ever ponder the why behind pi, or e, or the Pythagorean Theorum? Can these truths (and I will concede it is not known whether e is transcendent) stand on their own in a meaningless, purposeless, and ultimately hopeless universe?
This argument strikes me as finding wonder in the observation that no matter how tall people are, their feet always touch the ground, or that the ocean exactly meets the shore.
Not trying to argue with you (don't really have time for that), but consider these things.
I don't think we're really arguing, I think we're talking past each other.
I'm a slower writer than you.
yes, the position of our earth rotating around the sun determines the four seasons. I don't know what there is to explain. Isn't the precise timimg of our seasons self explanatory? I was just making the point that someone had to set all of this up as well as our creation and evolution tries to explain away a creator eventhough it is lacking in evidence.True Transitional fossils which clearly show one life form slowly evolving into another that should be all over the fossil record are not there. It very sad that the whole picture is not being taught to public school kids. And many wonder why there is a 30% drop out rate in America.
<< yes, the position of our earth rotating around the sun determines the four seasons. >>
Are you aware that we are closer to the sun in January than we are in August? Again I ask -- do you know what causes the seasonal changes? Please be specific. Maybe you do, but that answer above does not indicate so.
<< I don't know what there is to explain. Isn't the precise timimg of our seasons self explanatory? >>
What do you mean by "precise timing?" Just continuing to assert that this is "self-evident" is a waste of time. Why can you not explain yourself? Is it because you have no idea what you are talking about? If it is NOT that -- then explain yourself. Sheesh! Why is it always like pulling teeth to get creationists to explain anything straightforwardly, instead of talking in riddles?
Again -- you seem to be unaware that the solstices and the equinoxes vary from year to year. They are not "precise." They are within certain limits, which just makes sense, considering the orbit and the varying speeds of the planets movement around the sun -- but they are not "precise." The seasons are not precise; the year is not precise; the month is not precise; even the day is not precise. All of them vary -- within limits.
<< I was just making the point that someone had to set all of this up as well as our creation >>
You may BELIEVE that "someone" had to set it up -- but personal belief is not scientific evidence. The scientific evidence tells us about the variance in the speeds of the planet and the changes in the solstices and equinoxes -- but there is nothing in any of these that requires "someone" to set it up.
I am not saying that no one did -- but there is nothing preventing the planet from ending up in this position without "someone" doing it. You are taking something that IS and arguing backwards from there, using that as your "evidence" of a creator. But the specific "is" you are using can be easily explained without the need for a creator. Again -- I am not saying there was not one -- but your "evidence" is not evidence at all.
If you understood the real reason for the seasons -- and you might, but your answer does not give me confidence that you do -- but if you understood the real reason, and if that reason did not exist -- you could then point to THAT and say, "See? We have no seasons at all, and it takes 'someone' to set it up that way." You could say the same about just about anything you wanted to pick. It's a nothing argument.
<< and evolution tries to explain away a creator eventhough it is lacking in evidence. >>
Thou shalt not bear false witness. I read that somewhere once or twice. Evolution does not try to explain away a creator. OTOH -- YOU are trying to conjure up a creator, based on spurious evidence. Is this an indication of the weakness of your own faith?
Evolution has nothing to say about the question of God. Science does not do "god-stuff." It only tries to explain what it observes. Evolution only tries to explain the great variety of life we find on the earth today -- and it does a very good job of doing so. The evidence supporting that explanation is overwhelming. None of it says anything, positive or negative, about a creator.
In addition -- you have now jumped from the "precision of the axis changes" -- whatever that is -- to the "precision of the seasons" -- whatever THAT is -- to the evolution of life. You can't seem to stay focused on what you are talking about. I asked you to explain the connection between these other claims of yours -- even if they did make sense, which they do not -- to evolution, and you haven't done so. You have committed a complete non-sequitur.
There is no connection between meteorology and the theory of evolution -- except to the extent that climate changes and weather patters would have a part in natural selection. There is no connection between the speed of the planet, its position in its orbit, or its tilt, that has anything to do with evolution. But you seem to think that something about the seasons disproves something about evolution. WHAT is that?
If you are trying to "prove" that we needed a creator to "set all this up" -- you can't do so. It is just as easy to assume no need of a creator as it is to assume the need for one. As far as I know, there is no way to prove or disprove the idea scientifically. This is why evolution does not deal with the subject at all.
A deity could have set up the causes of our seasons -- that's true. A deity -- or several of them -- could have set up various other elements of our existence -- even all of them. If such is the case -- then that deity set up life so that it evolves. Or -- it could all have happened without the help of a deity. But the evidence for evolution does not just go away because some people think that threatens their idea of God. Not liking the evidence does not make it bad evidence.
<< True Transitional fossils which clearly show one life form slowly evolving into another that should be all over the fossil record are not there. >>
Yes, they are. You need to read some science, instead of all those creationist crap sites. In fact -- you and I are both transitional life forms. Maybe someday we will be fossils. And if so -- we will be transitional fossils.
<< It very sad that the whole picture is not being taught to public school kids. >>
You are right -- the whole picture is not often taught. And the reason for that is because schools are afraid of the lunatic fringe and the pressure they apply -- fringes such as creationists. So they downplay evolution to avoid conflict. Oh -- you didn't mean that, did you? You meant that you wanted creationism taught in schools.
Okay -- WHICH specific form of creationism do you want taught -- or are you willing to allow all of them? YEC? OEC? Hindu-creationism? Muslim-creationism? Should we gather up all the thousands of different creation stories and teach them in science class? If not all of them -- then on what basis are you going to disallow all of the ones you don't want taught? And when we include everyone's religious ideas -- when will we ever have time for any science?
<< And many wonder why there is a 30% drop out rate in America. >>
You think the drop-out rate is related to the fact that your particular brand of religious propaganda is not being taught in the schools? Why do so many white kids finish school, then, while so many blacks and hispanics drop out? How is it that the white kids have been able to withstand the pressure of being taught actual science? What is it about evolution that causes blacks and hispanics to drop out at such higher rates than whites?
Can you give some evidence to support this latest hilarious argument of yours? Do you even think about these things before posting -- or do you just post what "preaches good"?
"Do you have information that shows the theory of evolution to be false?"
Is that not akin to me having to prove that I did not kill my neighbor's dog?
I believe you are responding to the wrong person, I never wrote that and certainly not in post # 166.
Is that not akin to me having to prove that I did not kill my neighbor's dog?
No. Not even close. Scientific theories must be falsifiable to be theories. All you have to do is check the genetics, and show a major discrepancy in your data vs. what theory predicts. Or find some serious problem with biology or paleontology.
But, in 150 years it has not been done. There have been some modifications, but the overall theory as proposed by Darwin is still remarkably intact.
So, as was asked of you, do you have information that shows the theory of evolution to be false? Inquiring minds want to know.
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.