Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[AV1611VET]

"Nebraska Man" was not widely accepted by scientists at the time, and what's more is that further study of the fossils found at that site is what lead to finding out it was from an ancestor of piggies. The skeptical reactions from scientists regarding this "discovery" are plentiful. The paleontologist who originally received the tooth and wrote the original publication even made it a point to say it was too soon to tell what it was exactly.

Do they have a habit of giving taxonomic entries to things they aren't sure about?

 

[durangodawood]

You mean like the people who wrote the Bible?

There arent here to tell us what it means.

 

[renniks]

Citation needed. That would have made international news. I am predicting you cannot support that claim either.

Until you have something more than just stories that you appear to have made up Lucy is scientific evidence for evolution. You have no response to that fact.

I'm giving you scientific information which you are just rejecting without ever checking out. That tells me All I need to know.
The assumption that the males locomoted different than the females led to some bizarre interpretations. Stearns and Susman said they could actually be different taxon, or the same but different sexes, or the larger were more terrestrial than the smaller, ignoring the obvious interpretation: two different taxons, or mixed specie's bones, they go with the most unlikely explanation

Because they didn't want to admit that modern humans and these chimps actually lived at the same time perhaps? These things aren't as straight forward as you have been taught. There's multiple interpretations, and the pressure is to make sure your explanation fits the darwinian model.

 

[renniks]

There arent here to tell us what it means.

It means what it says. Duh.

 

[renniks]

Do they have a habit of giving taxonomic entries to things they aren't sure about?

They are never " sure". It's funny how those who say science have no facts keep claiming evolution is fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm giving you scientific information which you are just rejecting without ever checking out. That tells me All I need to know.
The assumption that the males locomoted different than the females led to some bizarre interpretations. Stearns and Susman said they could actually be different taxon, or the same but different sexes, or the larger were more terrestrial than the smaller, ignoring the obvious interpretation: two different taxons, or mixed specie's bones, they go with the most unlikely explanation

Because they didn't want to admit that modern humans and these chimps actually lived at the same time perhaps? These things aren't as straight forward as you have been taught. There's multiple interpretations, and the pressure is to make sure your explanation fits the darwinian model.

There is no need for me to check it out since I have seen most of it before.

These are your claims. That means that it is your burden of proof. If you cannot provide any articles that rational conclusion is that it did not happen as you claim. If it did you would provide evidence of your claims. Not just drop names of authors whose work you did not understand.

Like it or not until you demonstrate otherwise, not just make what appear to be false claims, Lucy is a strong piece of evidence for human evolution.

By the way, the problem with a lot of your arguments is also that they can be refuted with a mere "So what?"

Lucy was a male (this appears to be false, but let's assume that it is true) So what? The gender of Lucy has no effect upon whether she is evidence for man's evolution or not. If she was male the evidence from the find would be exactly the same.

That really only takes a "So what?" to refute.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Do they have a habit of giving taxonomic entries to things they aren't sure about?

Nope.

Nebraska Man was not accepted by the scientific community and it was by further efforts in the scientific community that showcased the flaw of the original claim. I reckon there are better examples than "Nebraska Man" you could rely on.

 

[Frank Robert]

What terrible lizards!

Lizards are distantly related to dinos, both are closer related to crocs. Crocs and dinos that separated from a common ancestor about 250 million years ago. I know this drives AIG crazy because they need to jump through hoops with apologetics to explain the evidence away.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nebraska Man was not accepted by the scientific community ...

I don't believe that.

It wasn't the paperboy that named him Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, was it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Lizards are distantly related to dinos, both are closer related to crocs. Crocs and dinos that separated from a common ancestor about 250 million years ago.

Ooooh!

[shudders]

Those flamingos are even more dangerous than I thought!

QV please:

Behold the terrible lizard!

 

[durangodawood]

It means what it says. Duh.

Shall we put that to the test?

 

[Frank Robert]

Nope.
Nebraska Man was not accepted by the scientific community and it was by further efforts in the scientific community that showcased the flaw of the original claim. I reckon there are better examples than "Nebraska Man" you could rely on.

The creationist orgs have a cadre of in house scientists trying but they have difficulty burying the evidence and with each new discovery it gets harder and harder. Their saving grace is an unsophisticated audience that refuses to do its own research.

 

[Frank Robert]

Ooooh!

[shudders]

Those flamingos are even more dangerous than I thought!

QV please:

The pink ones are the most dangerous. I have a family of Sandhill Cranes that visit me a couple few times a week that I definitely would not mess with.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I don't believe that.

It wasn't the paperboy that named him Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, was it?

Any kooky scientist can name something. That doesn't mean it'll be accepted by their peers. Most often, it's scientists that hold other scientists to account. Working as intended.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any kooky scientist can name something. That doesn't mean it'll be accepted by their peers. Most often, it's scientists that hold other scientists to account. Working as intended.

That "kooky scientist" was Henry Fairfield Osborn, professor of zoology at Columbia University.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Any kooky scientist can name something. That doesn't mean it'll be accepted by their peers. Most often, it's scientists that hold other scientists to account. Working as intended.

An interesting read, Home | National Center for Science Educationrole-nebraska-man-creation-evolution-debate

 

[Frank Robert]

An interesting read, Home | National Center for Science Educationrole-nebraska-man-creation-evolution-debate

And here is the lesson

Good science can be practiced only when inappropriate external influences, such as politics, are left out. It is clear now that Osborn's wish to embarrass Bryan may have clouded his scientific judgment and led him to misidentify a specimen whose affinities required a more restrained assessment.​

Unfortunately one side as learned well how to create political discord to benefit of science denial.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's not what he said tho'. He said "this is my flesh and blood."
Not that it's "in" "with" or "under".
But literally no one takes that literally.

And it's a lot more nuanced than literal historical account.

What do you mean no one takes that literally? Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican Christians all take it very literally.

This is literally Jesus:

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

This is literally Jesus:

Then why does the [wheat] DNA stay the same?

 

[renniks]

Lucy was a male (this appears to be false, but let's assume that it is true) So what? The gender of Lucy has no effect upon whether she is evidence for man's evolution or not. If she was male the evidence from the find would be exactly the same.

Like I said if you had actually read anything I said you would understand why " her" being male was a problem for the theory they came up with.