Replies

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 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.

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.

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

Troll pretending to have a scientific education placemarker

Why do you say Piltdown Man is a fraud?

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.

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?

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.

And yet there is a strong following among creationists which has identified homo erectus fossils as "monkeys".

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

Other than Piltdown, name one other hoax.

"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."

No there isn't. Why did you have to make that up?

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.

Vetsvette, I need your help. Since you have an opinion on these supposed fossil ancestors of humans, and since you "have a terminal credential in one of the hard sciences", please fill out this survey of creationists. The evos clearly are blinded by their materialistic, godless presuppositions about the origins of man, and only creationists can give us a clear answer to the question: Just what kinds of fossils are these, anyway? I've got you down for G being "just an old human", but what about the others?

Thanks!

Which of the following are "just an old ape" and which are "just an old human"? Try it, it's fun!

Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison
(only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). [CLICK HERE] for larger photo.
(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

We know that A) is a modern chimpanzee and N) is a modern human. Everyone agrees that M) was a modern human as well. Your challenge is to fill in these blanks:

Fossil	Just an ape	Ape-like transitional	Human-like transitional	Just a human	Not related at all to apes or humans
B	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
C	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
D	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
E	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
F	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
G	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
H	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
I	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
J	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
K	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
L	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]

The Responses So Far:

Person	A Pan troglodytes (modern chimp)	B, C Australopithecus africanus	D Homo habilis	E Homo habilis	F Homo rudolfensis	G Homo erectus	H Homo ergaster	I Homo heidelbergensis	J, K Homo sapiens neanderthalensis	L, M Homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon, modern human)
Mainstream scientists	ape	ape-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans, human	human
The creationists...
Bowden, Malcolm	ape		human		human		human			human
Brown, Walt	ape	ape	ape	ape				human	human	human
editor-surveyor	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
Gish, Duane (1979)	ape		human		human		human			human
Gish, Duane (1985)	ape		ape		human		human			human
Luskin, Casey	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human	human	human	human
Mehlert, A. W.	ape		ape		human		human			human
Menton, David	ape		human		human		human			human
Michael_Michaelangelo	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
MississippiMan	ape							ape		human
Taylor, Paul	ape		human		human		human			human
vetsvette	ape					human				human