Is it a hoax?

[mark kennedy]

Is pointing out that creationist arguments don't evolve really a 'negative' claim? It's just stating the obvious.

I was just pointing out that what your doing is fallacious and all you have.

 

[pitabread]

I was just pointing out that what your doing is fallacious and all you have.

I'm sure that's what you want to believe.

Meanwhile, I'll be waiting for the next time you mention Piltdown man.

 

[USincognito]

I can't believe you don't know anything about comparative genetics or the fossil evidence after all these years.

Coming from you that's hilarious.

That's called an ad hominem fallacy, it's like a mutation in your logic.

Given that just seconds earlier you typed this sentence:
>> I can't believe you don't know anything about comparative genetics or the fossil evidence after all these years. <<
I have to wonder if you were born without a sense of irony.

 

[USincognito]

The real question is how many times you will try to get me to chase these baseless, irrelevant arguments in circles. I don't know how many we have in common but the ERV class I is the largest most abundant ERVs in the Chimpanzee genome and we don't have any.

That's because it's lineage specific Mark, do you even comprehend what that means?

The only observed effects of changes in this gene in humans is disease and disorder:{snip}

Thanks for demonstrating my point. There was nothing in your copy and paste that mentioned the SRGAP2C allele.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's because it's lineage specific Mark, do you even comprehend what that means?

Oh putting it in red letters makes it so much more dramatic, thanks for that.

Thanks for demonstrating my point. There was nothing in your copy and paste that mentioned the SRGAP2C allele.

As usual, its down to the pedantic one liners. You are if nothing else, consistent.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm sure that's what you want to believe.

Meanwhile, I'll be waiting for the next time you mention Piltdown man.

Sure, no problem, I have it scripted;

This grand theatrical production has been performing for over a century now, it's history littered with fabrication. Perhaps the longest running demonstration was easily the Piltdown fraud. The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass grave site used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangutan jawbone. Even Louis Leakey, the famous paleontologist, had said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived.

Leakey mentions the Piltdown skull in his book 'Adam's Ancestors':

He referred to the whole affair as an enigma: In By the Evidence he says 'I admit . . . that I was foolish enough never to dream, even for a moment, that the true explanation lay in a deliberate forgery.' (Leakey and Piltdown)

The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man. Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown, a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leakey that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born.

The Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith had built his long and distinguished career on the Piltdown fossil. When it was exposed it sent Darwinians scrambling, Arthur Keith had always rejected the Taung Child (Raymond Dart’s discovery) a chimpanzee child. Rightfully so since it’s small even for a modern chimpanzee. Keith would eventually apologized to Dart and Leakey would take his suggested name for the stone age ape man, Homo habilis, but there was a very real problem. The skull was too small to be considered a human ancestor, this impasse became known as the Cerebral Rubicon and Leakey’s solution was to simply ignore the cranial capacity.

'If the lower jaw really belongs to the same individual as the skull, then the Piltdown man is unique in all humanity. . . It is tempting to argue that the skull, on the one hand, and the jaw, on the other, do not belong to the same creature. Indeed a number of anatomists maintain that the skull and jaw cannot belong to the same individual and they see in the jaw and canine tooth evidence of a contemporary anthropoid ape.'​

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.

"Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading proponents of Piltdown Man, was particularly instrumental in shaping Louis's thinking. "Sir Arthur Keith was very much Louis's father in science" noted Frida. Brilliant, yet modest and unassuming, Keith was regarded at the time of Piltdown's discovery as England's most eminent anatomist and an authority on human ancestry...a one man court of appeal for physical anthropologists from around the world....and his opinion that assured Piltdown a place on every drawing of humankinds family tree." (Ancestral Passions, Virginia Morell)​

Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1
Australopithecus africanus: Taung 1
Lucy a Chimpanzee
Taung Skull not Human-like 26 August 2014

These two are the only Hominid fossils I've seen that are really being passed of as transitional. They both have chimpanzee size brains, with all the features one would expect of a knuckle dragging, tree dwelling ape.

 

[pitabread]

Sure, no problem, I have it scripted;

 

[mark kennedy]

Now your pedantic oneliners have been reduced to a smilee. My work here is done.

 

[USincognito]

Oh putting it in red letters makes it so much more dramatic, thanks for that

Did it help you comprehend that they are lineage specific? Or are you unclear what that means?

As usual, its down to the pedantic one liners. You are if nothing else, consistent.

1. Another irony free insult from Mark (shocking).
2. Pedantic doesn't mean what you seem to think it means (shocking).
3. You still haven't addressed the fact that it's SRGAP2C specifically that is responsible for the increase in dendrite connections in the Homo brain (shocking).

 

[USincognito]

I'm sure that's what you want to believe.

Meanwhile, I'll be waiting for the next time you mention Piltdown man.

Mark and I had a formal debate over whether Creationists should even bring up Piltdown. If only I knew then what I know now (about his MO).
Forma Debate - Piltdown Man Should Not Be Cited By Creationists

 

[mark kennedy]

Did it help you comprehend that they are lineage specific? Or are you unclear what that means?

It's irrelevant, which is the whole reason its all you want to talk about.

1. Another irony free insult from Mark (shocking).

And the inevitable sellout to whole sale ad hominem rhetoric

2. Pedantic doesn't mean what you seem to think it means (shocking).

It always kind of fascinated me that no matter how wrong or weak the argument, you guys always feel superior. Correcting things not in error.

3. You still haven't addressed the fact that it's SRGAP2C specifically that is responsible for the increase in dendrite connections in the Homo brain (shocking).

That's yet another one of your irrelevant points intended to run everything in circles.

You, like all Darwinians, will not face the fabrication of the mythical stone age ape man myth. Can never face the vast space of the genomic divergence. The fact that the requisite mutation rate that high would not result in adaptation, but rather extinction. Then you sell out whole sale to these fallacious ad hominems because that all you really have nothing left. That's what happens when you abandon the actual evidence, don't blame me Darwinians sold you a lemon.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark and I had a formal debate over whether Creationists should even bring up Piltdown. If only I knew then what I know now (about his MO).
Forma Debate - Piltdown Man Should Not Be Cited By Creationists

Well now that's interesting, maybe you would like to take the subject up formally. With the demise of Piltdown there arose the Homo habilis stone age ape man myth. You don't get to decide what I bring up because it was a transitional line of reasoning. You want to take it to a formal debate present your proposal and drop me a PM. Other then that, snip at me from a more secure position.

I think a Piltdown like fraud will occur now or in the future. (Post #4)
​

There is a new fraud that was crafted to replace the Piltdown fraud. Homo habilis, and that is why Piltdown is relevant.

 

[xianghua]

The spots aren't that tiny; they're ~160,000 bp in size. Yes, we would only expect independent insertions in the same region very rarely -- if insertion probability is uniform across the genome. Since retroviruses and transposons both tend to have substantial biases in what parts of the genome they insert into

if so their insertions are very target- specific. and this put the claim of shared ervs as evidence for a common descent in a big doubt. combine it with the fact that some creatures cant survive without some ervs, and the possibility that those ervs are the result of design is stronger then ever.

i also explained why there isnt enough time to those ervs to be fixed in the population in such a short time.

 

[sfs]

if so their insertions are very target- specific.

No, they're not very target-specific. If they were, we would find insertions in random species in the tree in identical locations. We don't.

Let's cut to the chase: why do insertions at identical locations follow the phylogenetic tree, while those not at identical locations don't follow the tree?

 

[sfs]

another point is the unique ervs. if human have about 100 unique non functional ervs, and a fixation time for a neutral mutation is about 1 my in a small population, then it will take about 100my to get 100 unique ervs.

No, not even close. You're assuming the insertions would have to take place sequentially, i.e. that one has to be fixed before the next one can start. That's wrong. We could carry thousands of unfixed insertions in the population, just as we carry millions of other genetic variants in the population.

 

[sfs]

Steve seriously, I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to you on some level but higher primates are not mangabeys.

Mangabeys are indeed higher primates, and as far as retroviral infection goes we're all on an equal playing field.

This isn't an occasional germline invasion, the Chimpanzee germline would have had to be inundated with them. We are talking about nothing less them a million base pairs since the split. They are rare at the very least and becoming permanently fixed has to be orders of magnitude more unlikely, then add to the fact they have a tendency to remain active.

I don't know what you're talking about here. The bulk of the ERV insertions occurred long before the human/chimpanzee split.

 

[sfs]

With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome.

No, it really isn't. As I told you before, every time you write this it's wrong. It's wrong when you quote it from the paper and it's wrong when you paraphrase it.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, they're not very target-specific. If they were, we would find insertions in random species in the tree in identical locations. We don't.

Let's cut to the chase: why do insertions at identical locations follow the phylogenetic tree, while those not at identical locations don't follow the tree?

For a moment i paused. I considered alternatives, and attempted to reason this one out against common descent. I quickly found myself approaching denial and nonsense and simply said to myself...there is nothing in my arsenal that at the present time, that could say this is evidence for anything but common descent.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well now that's interesting, maybe you would like to take the subject up formally. With the demise of Piltdown there arose the Homo habilis stone age ape man myth.

Piltdown man was suspected to be a hoax fossil the moment it was "discovered", due to it deviating so much from other hominid fossils that had already been discovered. It was later confirmed a hoax via chemical tests, but even prior to that, wasn't taken seriously. If the scientific community was fine with accepting hoax fossils, why accept Homo habilis fossils (which you are claiming are fake) and reject Piltdown man (a fake revealed as such by the scientific community)?

You don't get to decide what I bring up because it was a transitional line of reasoning. You want to take it to a formal debate present your proposal and drop me a PM. Other then that, snip at me from a more secure position.

There are currently 5 different fossil collections for Homo habilis (the number denotes the number of individual bodies they come from). Each was discovered by a different group of people, and they don't all have the same bones (for example, the first fossil discovered was a lower jaw and a multitude of fragments of a left hand, and one discovered later had large portions of the skull). These people couldn't have worked together, years apart, to ensure that this line of "fakes" matched up with each other.

I think a Piltdown like fraud will occur now or in the future. (Post #4)

Fraudulent fossils are quite common, but it's impossible to make fakes that register as the correct age and composition. Since huge discoveries, such as hominid fossils, are analyzed heavily, they always go through tests that would reveal frauds. Piltdown man may be a famous fraud, but it's not the last time a person has tried to fake a hominid fossil.
​

There is a new fraud that was crafted to replace the Piltdown fraud. Homo habilis, and that is why Piltdown is relevant.

-_- says the man that thinks it is so easy to fake a fossil and have it pass chemical tests. Look, I even found a guide to telling the difference between fake Moroccan trilobite fossils and real ones
FAKE TRILOBITES & TRILOBITE FOSSIL FORGERY

If people could actually make fake fossils that would fool, say, museums and private collectors, they would to sell them and make tons of money. It's actually astounding how much a person would pay for 50% of a dinosaur skull.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mangabeys are indeed higher primates, and as far as retroviral infection goes we're all on an equal playing field.

Then why are they not happening to us?

I don't know what you're talking about here. The bulk of the ERV insertions occurred long before the human/chimpanzee split.

These have occurred since: