Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,338
- 1,559
- 77
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Since Hesperopithecus turned out to be a species of peccary, shouldn't there be peccaries in the picture?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Since Hesperopithecus turned out to be a species of peccary, shouldn't there be peccaries in the picture?
This is a drawing of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.
What's wrong with this picture?
Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656) published his book in 1650, which is 374 years ago.Not for me. 500 years ago when Bishop Ussher wrote his book they did not know what we know today.
I don't think that this is physically possible. Rayleigh scattering (the scattering of light by molecules) is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the wavelength of the light. Since the wavelength of blue light (440-500 nm) is less than that of orange or red light (580-760 nm), blue light must be scattered much more strongly than orange or red light, so the sky must be blue.I remember reading that certain scientists believe that our sky used to be orange in color before the flood and turned blue after the flood.
Since Hesperopithecus turned out to be a species of peccary, shouldn't there be peccaries in the picture?
It was on the cover of an English magazine, drawn by some artist who was not familiar with the fossil or even the evidence we had of primitive humans at the time.This is a drawing of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.
What's wrong with this picture?
It was on the cover of an English magazine, drawn by some artist who was not familiar with the fossil or even the evidence we had of primitive humans at the time.
Today, it's used by creationists as a convenient straw man.
They thought it was an ape and gave it an ape name... further study showed they'd made a mistake and they changed it. No fraud necessary, just an honest mistake.Then who named it Hesperopithecus haroldcookii?
I don't buy into the idea that scientists knew better from the get-go.
They thought it was an ape and gave it an ape name... further study showed they'd made a mistake and they changed it. No fraud necessary, just an honest mistake.
But "evolutionists" admit and correct their mistakes. Creationists shrug it off and use it in front of the next audience, hoping tyhey are unaware of it.100 years ago. You are digging pretty deep to come up with anything to substantiate your beliefs. People make mistakes. Evolutionists and Creationists. We are stuck in the Human condition and we look for ways to avoid making any errors in life.
But "evolutionists" admit and correct their mistakes. Creationists shrug it off and use it in front of the next audience, hoping tyhey are unaware of it.
I don't know if you are wrong or deliberately causing a confusion. Who are these "they"? Henry Osborne and his team or the scientific community at large. Because the way you write it, it seems that the entire scientific community embraced Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, which is a counterfactual representation of what happened.Correct me if I'm wrong, but only five years passed between the discovery of this tooth, and its proper classification.
In that five years, many scientists were skeptical about what it actually was.
Yet, for all their skepticism, they gave it a scientific name, got an artist to draw it (see the OP), and apparently said nothing as its reputation grew and grew.
Phrased the way you did and the frequency with which you bring Nebraska Man to the table, that suspicion is justified indeed.Now they want to sweep it under the carpet and make it look like anyone who brings it up is grabbing at straws to make science look bad.
Who are these "they"?
imagine, you write something and you can't answer the question below about what you write yourself?I have no idea.
I suppose they were zoologists, or whatever.
Joe? Sue? Bob?
It doesn't matter.
Who named the coyote Canis latrans?
Yet, for all their skepticism, they gave it a scientific name,
Because the way you write it, it seems that the entire scientific community embraced Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, which is a counterfactual representation of what happened.
Because that's how your sentence was structured. You treated "scientists" who were skeptical and those who named and supported promotion of a new hominid as the same group.Even though I wrote:
"In that five years, many scientists were skeptical about what it actually was."
Why do you read that as:
"It seems that the entire scientific community embraced Hesperopithecus haroldcookii"?
Because that's how your sentence was structured. You treated "scientists" who were skeptical and those who named and supported promotion of a new hominid as the same group.
Even though I wrote:
"In that five years, many scientists were skeptical about what it actually was."
Why do you read that as:
"It seems that the entire scientific community embraced Hesperopithecus haroldcookii"?
How are we to assume that the "their" and the "they" are referring to different sets of people - used in the same sentence even!Yet, for all their skepticism, they gave it a scientific name, got an artist to draw it (see the OP),
He also does have a general history of generally being disparaging towards scientists in general anyway, so it's not a surprise that you'd note that.
Yep, indeed. Coming from someone who wrote earlier:And he has the guts to write: Now they want to sweep it under the carpet and make it look like anyone who brings it up is grabbing at straws to make science look bad.
3. bastardizes academia to acadelmia
4. who made Pluto a derogatory verb
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?