Revisiting intelligent design [Ohio's schools]

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH ^ | 09 July 2006 | Catherine Candisky

[editor-surveyor]

Evolution IS what communists and other destroyers are doing to science. Look at who posts in favor of evolution propaganda here. None of them have a clue what FR is about.

[bobdsmith]

While it is true that evolutionists were ecstatic when Turkana Boy showed up to replace the Piltdown fraud had finally been exposed after its 40 year run as proof positive of Darwin's theories.

Piltdown man was never put forward as "proof positive" of darwins theories. It is only famous because it was a fraud, not because it was the only fossil homnid skull around at that time. In fact before it was exposed as fraud it was becoming an anomoly in light of actual homnid skulls unearthed. These skulls "replaced it", not Turkana Boy. Turkana Boy was unearthed many decades later by which time there were many other fossils found. Turkana boy isn't even the first fossil example of erectus - it's just a particularly complete one.

(it's really amazing how many frauds have been perpetrated trying to "prove" this theory to non-believers)

I can only think of 2 frauds. Piltdown and Haekel. The latter was not done in an effort to try and prove the theory to non-believers, and the former was done for unknown reasons because the perpetrator is not known.

-- the entire basis for this "proof" thesis is that homo erectus and homo sapiens are two separate species. There is a strong following among scientists that the differences between homo erectus and homo sapiens are superficial at best and fit comfortably within the differences among modern humans.

There is no such following. Homo Erectus is a distinct species with it's own range of differences. Countless erectus fossils have been found which make up this range. It is very clearly distinguishable from modern human range, otherwise it would not be designated a different species. Even neandertal has a distinguishably different range from modern humans and they are even closer to us than erectus.

However one thinks about these differences of opinion -- Turkana Boy is a long, long way from proving that man evolved from ape let alone from a single cell organism as Darwin claimed.

It's about evidence not proof. The theory of evolution predicts that such ape-human transitionals should be found, while there is no specific reason why such intermediate forms should be found outside the theory. So to find such intermediate forms between ape and man is the best supporting evidence the fossil record can give to the theory.

[editor-surveyor]

"If you have a single piece of evidence that actually supports Darwin, I'd love to see it."

Stand back as the propagandists post their colorful, irrelevant, blacklight photographed monkey skulls for the 10,001st time. :o)

[Coyoteman]

While it is true that evolutionists were ecstatic when Turkana Boy showed up to replace the Piltdown fraud had finally been exposed after its 40 year run as proof positive of Darwin's theories. (it's really amazing how many frauds have been perpetrated trying to "prove" this theory to non-believers)...

The Piltdown Man hoax fooled few scientists for very long. Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting (correctly) that the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (E.A. Hooton, Up from the Ape, revised edition; The MacMillan Co., 1946).

The reason it was being challenged and ignored is that it did not fit the evidence, particularly the evidence coming from Java and South Africa. Rather than being "proof positive of Darwin's theories" as you suggest, Piltdown was increasingly ignored by paleontologists. After Friedrichs and Weidenreich wrote, Piltdown was ignored by probably 98% of the professionals. The only folks who do anything with it now are the creationists--because they can't seem to find anything better to attack evolution with than a 90-year-old hoax!

As for a long list of frauds--I would like to see such a list. And don't bother with the creationist websites, as they will fill you full of false information. (They are doing apologetics, not science.) I have seen what many of them claim, and its pretty sad.

...the entire basis for this "proof" thesis is that homo erectus and homo sapiens are two separate species. There is a strong following among scientists that the differences between homo erectus and homo sapiens are superficial at best and fit comfortably within the differences among modern humans.

The exact relationship between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not a subject that will help creationists. Either way the issue is decided by scientists, you are dealing with two million years of time and very definite evolution through time. What names are eventually used for these different critters won't change a thing. Oh, by the way, are you going to include Homo ergaster in with erectus? How about H. habilis?

However one thinks about these differences of opinion -- Turkana Boy is a long, long way from proving that man evolved from ape let alone from a single cell organism as Darwin claimed.

Turkana Boy is not alone. There are a lot of other specimens out there. There may be gaps between them, but they are getting progressively smaller. Its like a motion picture, which is made up of still frames separated by gaps. The more discoveries are made, the smaller the gaps and the better the picture. And why would Turkana Boy have anything to do with single cell organisms? He was busy on the plains of Africa, a couple of billion years later. (And besides, I don't do single cell organisms; my training is in bones.)

Now, this discussion started when you stated,

If you have a single piece of evidence that actually supports Darwin, I'd love to see it.

I provided you with four pieces of evidence, and you came back arguing some of the technical details of fossil man. Does this mean that I have met your challenge, and that you now admit there is evidence, contrary to your original claim? Or will you just move the goalposts?

[PatrickHenry]

This is pretty much a complete catalogue of all the "frauds" in the 150 years since Darwin's theory:

Piltdown Man. Science (not creationism) uncovered the fraud.
Nebraska Man. NEW Also: Nebraska Man in Textbooks? It wasn't much of a fraud.
Peppered Moths. Another non-issue.
NEW Ichneumon's Discussion of Peppered Moths. FreeRepublic post (#438).
Haeckel's Embryos. Yet another.
Ichneumon's Discussion of Haeckel's embryo drawings. A FreeRepublic post (#62).
Archaeopteryx. Despite howls from creationists, it's not a fake.
Archaeoraptor. A crude fake, publicised by Nat'l Geographic, then quickly exposed.
Lucy. The "fraud" claim is actually a creationist fraud.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

[whattajoke]

Evolution IS what communists and other destroyers are doing to science.

Wrong. And stupidly so. Especially since you've been told about 1000 times that Stalin and his cronies sought out and KILLED EVOLUTIONISTS, YOU IDIOT.

Look at who posts in favor of evolution propaganda here. None of them have a clue what FR is about.

I was not aware that FR was about ignorance, lies, propaganda, and outright stupidity. You may wish to revise your statement.

[Coyoteman]

Stand back as the propagandists post their colorful, irrelevant, blacklight photographed monkey skulls for the 10,001st time. :o)

You missed four nice skulls that I already posted. Keep looking downthread from #20.

But if you want to see that nice photo again, I have included it below. By the way, can you tell me which of these images are the monkeys?

(And if they were truly "irrelevant" why are you moaning so much about them?)

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[dread78645]

"ignorance on FR" placemark

[balrog666]

Evolution IS what communists and other destroyers are doing to science. Look at who posts in favor of evolution propaganda here. None of them have a clue what FR is about.

Communists? Destroyers? Coming from a person who thinks that modern medicine is a conspiracy against all True Christians®, that is a joke indeed!

[vetsvette]

"Proofs" are not used in science. Just evidence."

I can't recall exactly when I first learned that Piltdown was a fraud -- somewhere in grade school, when Ike was President, I think.

I wouldn't be surprised to find a "Made in China" sticker on it somewhere.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Evolution IS what communists and other destroyers are doing to science. Look at who posts in favor of evolution propaganda here."

I am pretty sure we are all capitalists to a person. Can't say the same for the anti-evos though.

[Gumlegs]

"Proofs" are not used in science. Just evidence."

Right.

I can't recall exactly when I first learned that Piltdown was a fraud -- somewhere in grade school, when Ike was President, I think.

Again, I didn't ask when you "first learned" Piltdown Man is a fraud, I asked why you say it's a fraud. What is it about Piltdown Man that leads you to your statement? How do you know?

I wouldn't be surprised to find a "Made in China" sticker on it somewhere.

If it had one, that would be a fraud, too.

[From many - one.]

To me hardworking would include some type of documentation, however poorly conceived.

[From many - one.]

You need to practice your evasion skills... we all know you didn't answer the question that was asked.

Are you going to try again or just give up?

[balrog666]

You need to practice your evasion skills... we all know you didn't answer the question that was asked. Are you going to try again or just give up?

Perhaps he's just another troll who deserves a refund on his education.

[Virginia-American]

I don't think I would go so far as to call the ID'ers/creationists communists. They aren't THAT bad... yet.

I dunno, the anti-evo coalition already includes the Islamists in Turkey, as well as the Iranian Mullahs and the Wahhabis, none of whom wish the USA well. Commies want to bring us down as well.

"The enemy of my enemy is my ... ally"

[From many - one.]

What bothered me the most about the Kansas fracas was that the anti-science people enthusiatically accepted Akyol's testimony. I believe his major was history.

[Virginia-American]

>..Darwiniacs have had a couple of hundred years to come up with a single fossil record that demonstrates evolution actually happened ...

How do you reconcile your post with the recent discovery of Tiktaalik?

The paleontologists used the ToE in two ways: 1) it predicts what a transitional between fish and amphibians should look like, and 2) it predicts what ancient environment it was likely to have lived in.

Both predictions were fulfilled, as usual.

...The "Theory of Evolution" isn't a scientific theory at all, it's hokum, pure and simple...

I used this example on another thread:

If a genetic marker is found in both cows and whales, but is not found in horses, tell which category each animal goes in: 1) will definitely have the same marker. 2) definitely won't. 3) not enough data.
People, pangolins, 'possums, pigs, platypuses, camels, cats, hippos, rhinos, elephants, zebras, giraffes, dogs?

The ToE can answer questions like this. So far, it's answers have always been confirmed by actual genetic testing.

This contradicts your claim that the theory is hokum.

Furthermore, neither the ID nor the creationist faction of the anti-evolution coalition can answer these questions correctly. This shows that neither one is as powerful as standard biology. This fact, coupled with the fact that neither one is a scientific theory, shows that they have no place in science classes.

[stands2reason]

Do you not know the logical difference between a proof and evidentiary support?

You cannot prove any theory in science. "Theory" is as high as it gets.
It's the entire field of science you have a problem with, and it's not leftist in origin.

Also if you're implying that I'm a liberal, you are desperately mistaken.

[Virginia-American]

Excellent questions.

...7. The rapidly-growing biotech industry, which is profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, employs thousands of scientists. Why don't they employ "creation scientists" or ID theorists to exploit their insights? (If they did, the creationist websites would surely mention it.)...

I'd add

8. The oil industry, as profit-oriented as biotech, employs geologists and paleontologists ...

then add links to the GCSSEPM article on creationism and also a link to Glenn Morton