Distortiions due to evoltionists assumsions?

pudmuddle · #1 27th August 2003, 08:33 PM

Were the neandrathals really people who merely aged slowly?
Do scientists ever distort evidence to fit their theorys?

http://www.jackcuozzo.com/centech.html

Karl - Liberal Backslider · #2 28th August 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by pudmuddle

Were the neandrathals really people who merely aged slowly?

Probably not. Cuozzo only really looks at teeth, and dental and mouth patterns do not a Neanderthal make. When one considers brow ridges and the general robustness of the Neanderthal its signficant differences from H sapiens sapiens become clear.

Do scientists ever distort evidence to fit their theorys?

Yes. Haeckel did. And they get caught out.

Vance · #3 28th August 2003, 01:34 PM

I guess the real question is whether you believe that any other hominids ever walked the Earth other than Humans.

There are anti-evolutionary creationists who believe that the evidence is clear that there *were* many other hominid forms other than Man, which have all died out, but that Man did not evolve from these other hominids at all. They were just other species created by God which have become extinct like the dinosaurs.

Thus the fossils of hominids which are neither fully human or fully ape. In order to avoid these being "transitionals", these Creationists believe that there is no reason God could not have created other hominids just like any other created being.

lucaspa · #4 28th August 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by pudmuddle

Were the neandrathals really people who merely aged slowly?
Do scientists ever distort evidence to fit their theorys?

http://www.jackcuozzo.com/centech.html

The mtDNA evidence has been fairly conclusive that neandertals were NOT H. sapiens (people in your terminology). All that data has come since the 1994 paper by Cuozzo and thus replaces it.

Also, extensive analysis of genomic sequences reveals no sequence that goes back over 150,000 years. If neandertals were H. sapiens the genes would go back the 300,000 years that represents the beginnings of neandertals.

Since the evidence is available for examination by anyone, any outright distortion gets caught. There are honest differences of opinion over what the data means, and sometimes different people can reach different conclusions from the same data. An example is the fossil of a youth that lived about 20,000 years ago. The discoverers think the fossil shows a mosaic of neandertal and sapiens traits. Others looking at the same fossil think it represents a chunky sapiens but not neandertal.

6. Ian Tattersall*, and Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Commentary Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution PNAS 96, Issue 13, 7117-7119, June 22, 1999
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/13/7117

pudmuddle · #5 28th August 2003, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider

Probably not. Cuozzo only really looks at teeth, and dental and mouth patterns do not a Neanderthal make. When one considers brow ridges and the general robustness of the Neanderthal its signficant differences from H sapiens sapiens become clear.

Yes. Haeckel did. And they get caught out.

uh, actually, he looks at more than their teeth. And has said a lot about the shape of the face and brow ridges. "Robustness" would be required to live 900 years don't your think?
What about the fact that they placed the jaws out of joint for pictures to make the skulls look more apelike? Not deceiving?

pudmuddle · #6 28th August 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

I guess the real question is whether you believe that any other hominids ever walked the Earth other than Humans.

There are anti-evolutionary creationists who believe that the evidence is clear that there *were* many other hominid forms other than Man, which have all died out, but that Man did not evolve from these other hominids at all. They were just other species created by God which have become extinct like the dinosaurs.

Thus the fossils of hominids which are neither fully human or fully ape. In order to avoid these being "transitionals", these Creationists believe that there is no reason God could not have created other hominids just like any other created being.

I don't really see any reason to believe in other hominid forms.

Vance · #7 28th August 2003, 02:50 PM

Ah, then, all those fossils are transitionals. Some of them are too close to homo sapiens to be considered apes, others are too close to being apes to be considered humans.

And you can't really say that they are all "clearly" one or the other since there are many which cause a split among Creation Scientists, some saying it is human, some saying ape. If the fossil is so much a mix of the two that Christian Creation Scientists themselves can't agree which it is, then that would seem to be the very definition of a transitional species.

Unless they were simply other hominids God created which are not in any evolutionary line for apes or humans.

troodon · #8 28th August 2003, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by pudmuddle

I don't really see any reason to believe in other hominid forms.

As lucaspa said, mtDNA shows they weren't human.

Late_Cretaceous · #9 28th August 2003, 04:26 PM

If you need a root canal, go to Dr. Kuzzo
If you need proper anatomical analysis of some old bones, go to a paleontologist.

pudmuddle · #10 28th August 2003, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

Ah, then, all those fossils are transitionals. Some of them are too close to homo sapiens to be considered apes, others are too close to being apes to be considered humans.

And you can't really say that they are all "clearly" one or the other since there are many which cause a split among Creation Scientists, some saying it is human, some saying ape. If the fossil is so much a mix of the two that Christian Creation Scientists themselves can't agree which it is, then that would seem to be the very definition of a transitional species.

Unless they were simply other hominids God created which are not in any evolutionary line for apes or humans.

Depends what you mean by transitionals. The ages to which men lived after the flood slowly lessened, thus the changes in face stucture and DNA?

I never have gotten a clear answer from theistic evolutionists on that one. Why would the Bible say men lived to be 300-900 years old, if they didn't? Nothing allegoical about it, it is simply stated as fact.

lucaspa's article only reinforces how much supposition and downright guess work goes into their conclusions about neandrathals and ancient humans. And Cuazzo's explanations make as much sense as any.