Nebraska Man: What's Wrong with this Picture?

[Astrophile]

This is a drawing of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.

What's wrong with this picture?

Since Hesperopithecus turned out to be a species of peccary, shouldn't there be peccaries in the picture?

 

[Astrophile]

Not for me. 500 years ago when Bishop Ussher wrote his book they did not know what we know today.

Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656) published his book in 1650, which is 374 years ago.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

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.

Who are the scientists who believe that the sky used to be orange, and where have they published their work?

 

[AV1611VET]

Since Hesperopithecus turned out to be a species of peccary, shouldn't there be peccaries in the picture?

Good question.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Then who named it Hesperopithecus haroldcookii?

I don't buy into the idea that scientists knew better from the get-go.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

I agree.

It was an honest mistake.

 

[driewerf]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

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.

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.

 

[driewerf]

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.

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.

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.

Phrased the way you did and the frequency with which you bring Nebraska Man to the table, that suspicion is justified indeed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who are these "they"?

I have no idea.

I suppose they were zoologists, or whatever.

Joe? Sue? Bob?

It doesn't matter.

Who named the coyote Canis latrans?

 

[driewerf]

I have no idea.

I suppose they were zoologists, or whatever.

Joe? Sue? Bob?

It doesn't matter.

Who named the coyote Canis latrans?

imagine, you write something and you can't answer the question below about what you write yourself?

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.
For the record, you wrote;

Yet, for all their skepticism, they gave it a scientific name,

 

[AV1611VET]

Because the way you write it, it seems that the entire scientific community embraced Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, which is a counterfactual representation of what happened.

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"?

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

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.

 

[driewerf]

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"?

Yet, for all their skepticism, they gave it a scientific name, got an artist to draw it (see the OP),

How are we to assume that the "their" and the "they" are referring to different sets of people - used in the same sentence even!
Since English is your first language I have to assume that you master it good enough for this to be done on purpose.

 

[driewerf]

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.

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.

Yep, indeed. Coming from someone who wrote earlier:

1. science can take a hike
2. a five years old could look scientists straight in the face and tell them they are wrong
3. bastardizes academia to acadelmia
4. who made Pluto a derogatory verb
5. uses repeatedly the phrase "myopic science".

 

[AV1611VET]

3. bastardizes academia to acadelmia

aceldama

4. who made Pluto a derogatory verb

Pluto is finally getting some respect — not from astronomers, but from wordsmiths.

"Plutoed" was chosen 2006's Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society at its annual meeting Friday.

To "pluto" is "to demote or devalue someone or something," much like what happened to the former planet last year when the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union decided Pluto didn't meet its definition of a planet.

SOURCE

 

[Jimmy It]

He needs a haircut? Or is he from the sixties? "A refugee from a gorilla love in." Just guessing.