Missing Link?

[Faith.Man]

FOXNews.com - Fossil Find May Be 'Missing Link' in Human Evolution

Why are there so few of these skeletons found? What's to say this wasn't some genetic anomaly? Since I'm an Old Earth Creationist, I'm not as concerned about the date. Thoughts anyone?

 

[Papias]

First of all, if you want an actual discussion, you'll need to post this question in the main origins forum, not in the creationism forum. This is because here in the creationism forum, no discussion in favor of evolution is allowed, so you just get an echo-chamber, not a discussion. For that reason, I'll not post again on this thread.

Faith man wrote:

Why are there so few of these skeletons found?

Um, you know there are fossils from literally thousands of individuals along the transition from ape to human, right? That's certainly not "so few".

The article isn't very good. As soon as I read "missing link" I knew the article would be poor, as the links in human evolution aren't missing anymore. One could use the term "missing link" back in the 1960s, but we are way past that now. Other phrases in the article reflect the same ignorance of science. Sure, it's nice to have another fossil skeleton, but it's like finding another fossil trilobite.


If you are seriously interested in the actual transitional fossils, you can learn about them here Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution. Feel free to look that over, then to open a thread in the main origins area if you'd like to discuss it.

Have a good day-

Papias

 

[Faith.Man]

First of all, if you want an actual discussion, you'll need to post this question in the main origins forum, not in the creationism forum. This is because here in the creationism forum, no discussion in favor of evolution is allowed, so you just get an echo-chamber, not a discussion. For that reason, I'll not post again on this thread.

If I wanted to argue with irrational evolutionists, I would have framed my original post differently and chosen a different venue. I wanted this to start a friendly discussion between YEC and OEC. People who worship on the altar of evolution are a lost cause.

Um, you know there are fossils from literally thousands of individuals along the transition from ape to human, right? That's certainly not "so few".

I believe that false statement is a violation of the rules you spout.

 

[mark kennedy]

FOXNews.com - Fossil Find May Be 'Missing Link' in Human Evolution

Why are there so few of these skeletons found? What's to say this wasn't some genetic anomaly? Since I'm an Old Earth Creationist, I'm not as concerned about the date. Thoughts anyone?

First of all if it 'resembles' Homo habilis it is most likely the skull of a large chimpanzee. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of our ancestors in natural history museums but did you ever wonder, where are the chimpanzee ancestors? They end up in natural history museums marks Homo XXX.

A good rule of thumb is that the prehistoric versions of apes and humans are generally about 10% larger then modern versions. So if they show you a skull that is just slightly bigger then a chimpanzee (between 400cc and 500cc) odds are it's one of the chimpanzees parental forms. There are exceptions, the 'Hobbit' fossils had ape size skulls but they were still human, just very small because of an environmental thing that was going on with them.

If I wanted to argue with irrational evolutionists, I would have framed my original post differently and chosen a different venue. I wanted this to start a friendly discussion between YEC and OEC. People who worship on the altar of evolution are a lost cause.

Come on now, that's not really fair. I don't like the attitude of TEs but many of them, if not most, are just being duped into believing they can have Christian conviction and atheistic materialism at once. Evolutionists use them and it's really not fair of us to judge. While it may be true that many of the evolutionists worship and serve the creature rather then the Creator it's so very hard to tell them apart at times. Now there will always be a few that simply put their atheistic/agnostic philosophy into vaguely theological terminology, but by and large TEs are Christians who have been led astray by worldly lures and tokens.

At any rate, the fossil evidence is not that hard to sort out. Bear in mind that fossilization is relatively rare and the obsession to find this mythical 'missing link' consumes secular paleontologists.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Um, you know there are fossils from literally thousands of individuals along the transition from ape to human, right? That's certainly not "so few".

Where are the chimpanzee ancestors?

If you are seriously interested in the actual transitional fossils, you can learn about them here Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution. Feel free to look that over, then to open a thread in the main origins area if you'd like to discuss it.

Have a good day-

Papias

It's going to be a while before I get the time but I promise you a Talk Origins debunk thread in the Origins common area when I get back. Talk Origins is perhaps the single biggest producer of false facts on the subject of evolution on the net. See you this summer

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of our ancestors in natural history museums but did you ever wonder, where are the chimpanzee ancestors?

...

Bear in mind that fossilization is relatively rare

 

[Faith.Man]

First of all if it 'resembles' Homo habilis it is most likely the skull of a large chimpanzee. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of our ancestors in natural history museums but did you ever wonder, where are the chimpanzee ancestors? They end up in natural history museums marks Homo XXX.

I actually see evolution on a macro scale as a dead issue. If I were a YEC, I would point to the vast differences between peoples of Earth right now. How would some future archaeologist explain these differences? I've only made one trip to Europe -- Sweden on business. Sweden is a wonderful, beautiful and historic country who treated this visitor royally. I did, however, notice that they looked slightly different than people from other European countries. Not bad different, just different. Multiply that by tens or hundreds of thousands of years and what would you get?

A good rule of thumb is that the prehistoric versions of apes and humans are generally about 10% larger then modern versions. So if they show you a skull that is just slightly bigger then a chimpanzee (between 400cc and 500cc) odds are it's one of the chimpanzees parental forms. There are exceptions, the 'Hobbit' fossils had ape size skulls but they were still human, just very small because of an environmental thing that was going on with them.

I just read about the "Hobbit" fossils a couple of days ago. Very interesting.

Come on now, that's not really fair. I don't like the attitude of TEs but many of them, if not most, are just being duped into believing they can have Christian conviction and atheistic materialism at once. Evolutionists use them and it's really not fair of us to judge. While it may be true that many of the evolutionists worship and serve the creature rather then the Creator it's so very hard to tell them apart at times. Now there will always be a few that simply put their atheistic/agnostic philosophy into vaguely theological terminology, but by and large TEs are Christians who have been led astray by worldly lures and tokens.

At any rate, the fossil evidence is not that hard to sort out. Bear in mind that fossilization is relatively rare and the obsession to find this mythical 'missing link' consumes secular paleontologists.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Yes it's not fair, I was trying to be provocative -- give this thread a jump start. I like the fact that the Theistic Evolutionist and the Creationist forums are separate. But if this thread morphs into something different than I originally intended, that's okay as long as everyone is respectful.

When I was growing up, we had a very old 4 volume History of the World by H. G. Wells. Wells being a staunch evolutionist, the first volume featured the evolution of man. The problem is all the "missing link" examples cited are now known to be frauds. So scientists faking data like the "the global warming" extremists are nothing new. Sorry, as a practical scientist (Mechanical Design Engineer) and a Christian, I dislike being manipulated and lied to. I'm off the soapbox now.

God bless.

 

[Mallon]

The problem is all the "missing link" examples cited are now known to be frauds.

Who revealed them to be frauds?

 

[Faith.Man]

Who revealed them to be frauds?

It took 97 years to unravel the fraud of the Piltdown Man. The story of the Piltdown Man is given below:

Piltdown Man

The story of Ida is given below:

Ida (Darwinius masillae): the Real Story of this “Scientific Breakthrough” - Answers in Genesis

More information:

Evolution Fraud

Where I differ from my YEC brothers and sisters in Christ, I am an OEC. I believe in the "Big Bang" and an old universe, not just an Earth with the apparent age of an old universe. A recent test of Einstein's theory of relativity has confirmed it as a plausible explanation for the creation of the universe, created by a word and through the Word.

 

[Mallon]

Who revealed them to be frauds?

 

[Assyrian]

The problem is all the "missing link" examples cited are now known to be frauds.

Which frauds are you referring to here? I had a look at Vol 1 of H. G. Wells Outline of History in the internet Archive, he mentions Java Man, Neanderthals, Heidelberg Man and Cro Magnons, but I thought these are still accepted fossils? The only one I can see that is a known fraud is Piltdown Man, but from what H. G. Wells writes about it, it was pretty controversial at the time too. He quotes scientists who dismiss it as a chimpanzee jaw and suspect it is a mixture of different fossils washed up together in a gravel bed, and that chemical analysis is needed to see if the jaw and cranium really are from the same source. Of course it was chemical analysis that showed not only were the jaw and cranium from different sources, but that whole thing was a fraud. Anyway if you want to discuss this it would have to be out into the main forum. But thanks for bringing the book up, it is a fascinating time slice to see how much was know, and how much we now take for granted was undiscovered back in 1920.

 

[mark kennedy]

I actually see evolution on a macro scale as a dead issue. If I were a YEC, I would point to the vast differences between peoples of Earth right now. How would some future archaeologist explain these differences? I've only made one trip to Europe -- Sweden on business. Sweden is a wonderful, beautiful and historic country who treated this visitor royally. I did, however, notice that they looked slightly different than people from other European countries. Not bad different, just different. Multiply that by tens or hundreds of thousands of years and what would you get?

Those are actually called dems but my view is rather different then the one you suggest. Isn't it odd that given the fact that the Gorilla and chimpanzee have both speciated at least once in limited areas humans never have. If we are so closely related then that really make no sense especially since our ancestors would have had to be on an adaptive fast track.

I just read about the "Hobbit" fossils a couple of days ago. Very interesting.

Turns out their human after all.

Yes it's not fair, I was trying to be provocative -- give this thread a jump start. I like the fact that the Theistic Evolutionist and the Creationist forums are separate. But if this thread morphs into something different than I originally intended, that's okay as long as everyone is respectful.

Posting anywhere on these boards invites evolutionists who will bang away at anyone who might be taking the Bible literally, that's just how it is. Not as bad as some places but what it does is runs creationists out of here or isolates the ones who stay.

When I was growing up, we had a very old 4 volume History of the World by H. G. Wells. Wells being a staunch evolutionist, the first volume featured the evolution of man. The problem is all the "missing link" examples cited are now known to be frauds. So scientists faking data like the "the global warming" extremists are nothing new. Sorry, as a practical scientist (Mechanical Design Engineer) and a Christian, I dislike being manipulated and lied to. I'm off the soapbox now.

God bless.

Well Piltdown was a fraud and not a very clever one at that, people saw what they wanted to see. There are fossils like Taung that while I don't consider it a fraud there is no real reason it could not be a chimpanzee ancestor. I am with you on the being lied to part, I get really sick and tired of that. Lucy is another one, she turns out to be nothing more then an ape and the bed she came out of was dated at something like 180,000 years. She's not a fraud she is a chimpanzee that got billed as our ancestor because, well, they desperately need a 'missing link'. Any chimpanzee skeleton will do. Got to be a little less dogmatic about the global warming thing, there is something to it but the effects are often exaggerated. I remember Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, he was talking about the World Trade Memorial being under 6 foot of water. Sorry, that's got to be a gross exaggeration.

One of the reasons I delight in this topic is because I think genetics is a fascinating area of research. Personally I am of the opinion that none of these issues will be settled as a contest between creationism and evolution, that's nothing but a shell game. The real issues will have to be decided as a contest between Mendel and Darwin because both cannot be right.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Faith.Man]

Who revealed them to be frauds?

Well, you are persistent. Scientists and academia confirmed the "truth" of Piltdown Man for 97 years. Books were written, photographs and artist renderings were made, museum displays were fashioned, etc. Then someone, I don't know who, reviewed the "evidence" and proclaimed Piltdown Man a fake. Is that the answer you're fishing for?

 

[Faith.Man]

Which frauds are you referring to here? I had a look at Vol 1 of H. G. Wells Outline of History in the internet Archive, he mentions Java Man, Neanderthals, Heidelberg Man and Cro Magnons, but I thought these are still accepted fossils? The only one I can see that is a known fraud is Piltdown Man, but from what H. G. Wells writes about it, it was pretty controversial at the time too. He quotes scientists who dismiss it as a chimpanzee jaw and suspect it is a mixture of different fossils washed up together in a gravel bed, and that chemical analysis is needed to see if the jaw and cranium really are from the same source. Of course it was chemical analysis that showed not only were the jaw and cranium from different sources, but that whole thing was a fraud. Anyway if you want to discuss this it would have to be out into the main forum. But thanks for bringing the book up, it is a fascinating time slice to see how much was know, and how much we now take for granted was undiscovered back in 1920.

My grandfather was somewhat of a wheeler-dealer. He managed to make and lose a fortune. But he passed on to my father a number of old book sets, this being just one. As for Neanderthals, Java Man, et al, I'll just refer you to the website below on hoaxes:

Homeschool World: Practical Homeschooling Articles: Hominids & Hoaxes

From what I've read, you are quite correct when you say that Piltdown Man was controversial, even in H. G. Wells time. Heidelberg Man and Cro Magnons were not hoaxes, as far as I can tell. I do not know how YEC deals with them. Being an Old Earth Creationist and Gap Theory believer, I'm not especially troubled by them.

One of the other book sets we had when I was growing up was an old encyclopedia set that had dinosaurs and predicted what space travel would be like. They showed an artist conception of a space liner, which looked a lot like an ocean liner in space, with people walking on the open deck!

By the way, I want to say thank you for the link. The Book (Volume 1) looks different though. But it's been a long time since I've seen it.

 

[Mallon]

Well, you are persistent. Scientists and academia confirmed the "truth" of Piltdown Man for 97 years. Books were written, photographs and artist renderings were made, museum displays were fashioned, etc. Then someone, I don't know who, reviewed the "evidence" and proclaimed Piltdown Man a fake. Is that the answer you're fishing for?

Was that person an evolutionary scientist?
What about the people who revealed Archaeoraptor to be a fake? Were they evolutionary scientists? What about the person to faked Archaeoraptor? Was he a scientist?

 

[gluadys]

Well, you are persistent. Scientists and academia confirmed the "truth" of Piltdown Man for 97 years. Books were written, photographs and artist renderings were made, museum displays were fashioned, etc. Then someone, I don't know who, reviewed the "evidence" and proclaimed Piltdown Man a fake. Is that the answer you're fishing for?

Piltdown Man was "discovered" in 1912 and discovered to be a fraud in the early 1950s. That's not 97 years.

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evidence was reviewed because a new dating technique using fluorine was developed in the early 1940s and used on the skull and jaw in 1949. This gave different dates for the pieces. The review was conducted by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner and the hoax confirmed in 1953.

 

[crawfish]

Piltdown Man was "discovered" in 1912 and discovered to be a fraud in the early 1950s. That's not 97 years.

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evidence was reviewed because a new dating technique using fluorine was developed in the early 1940s and used on the skull and jaw in 1949. This gave different dates for the pieces. The review was conducted by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner and the hoax confirmed in 1953.

I wonder why evolutionists are the ones that are falsifying evolutionary claims, and not creationists?

 

[Assyrian]

My grandfather was somewhat of a wheeler-dealer. He managed to make and lose a fortune. But he passed on to my father a number of old book sets, this being just one. As for Neanderthals, Java Man, et al, I'll just refer you to the website below on hoaxes:

Homeschool World: Practical Homeschooling Articles: Hominids & Hoaxes

From what I've read, you are quite correct when you say that Piltdown Man was controversial, even in H. G. Wells time. Heidelberg Man and Cro Magnons were not hoaxes, as far as I can tell. I do not know how YEC deals with them. Being an Old Earth Creationist and Gap Theory believer, I'm not especially troubled by them.

One of the other book sets we had when I was growing up was an old encyclopedia set that had dinosaurs and predicted what space travel would be like. They showed an artist conception of a space liner, which looked a lot like an ocean liner in space, with people walking on the open deck!

By the way, I want to say thank you for the link. The Book (Volume 1) looks different though. But it's been a long time since I've seen it.

While Piltdown was indeed a hoax, homo erectus like Java man, and Neanderthals are well established fossils and have, as you might say, stood the test of time. However if you wanted to look at specific arguments about Java man and Neanderthals you would need to talk about it in the main Origins Theology forum.

 

[Faith.Man]

Piltdown Man was "discovered" in 1912 and discovered to be a fraud in the early 1950s. That's not 97 years.

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evidence was reviewed because a new dating technique using fluorine was developed in the early 1940s and used on the skull and jaw in 1949. This gave different dates for the pieces. The review was conducted by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner and the hoax confirmed in 1953.

You are quite right. I got the 97 years from a website I was browsing and didn't check the math. They were obviously measuring time from this date back to the "discovery". The discrepancy didn't register with me until you brought it up. Thank you.

 

[Faith.Man]

While Piltdown was indeed a hoax, homo erectus like Java man, and Neanderthals are well established fossils and have, as you might say, stood the test of time. However if you wanted to look at specific arguments about Java man and Neanderthals you would need to talk about it in the main Origins Theology forum.

I understand. If you want to create a thread in the main Origins Theology section on this, I will probably contribute. But my intent here is different and this target audience is selected for a reason.

Java man, Home Erectus and Neanderthals are considered frauds or hoaxes according to the link I previously provided. Is there skeletal remains that are not in dispute by young Earth creationists?