When does "Creationism" fail?

[shernren]

Could it be that those tools were found in a layer of sediment where human remains were also found? I've read that that's the case for habilis.

Well, of course the tools were found with the fossils!!! Otherwise, (especially in the case of habilis) we would not conclude they were made by them. When tools are found, but no fossils, we conclude they were made, but we don't know who made them until we find the tools and the fossils together. Once we can associate particular type of tool with a particular type of fossil, then finding the tools without fossil remains is sufficient to indicate the species must have lived there and produced the tools. But that reasoning cannot apply until you find the fossils and the tools together. H. habilis might have been classified as another australopithecine, (though a more human-like one) except for the fact that habilus fossils are associated with tools. No australopithecine species is associated with tools.

And there are so many findings of Acheulian tools associated with ergaster and erectus remains, that there can be no doubt as to who the makers of the tools were.

So I don't know what the point of the question is.

To clarify to vossler, I believe that what you are asking is whether there are specific sites where the hominid fossils and tools are found together, or whether they just happen to be found in the same layers but in different sites. Well the answer is that there are some sites where indeed fossils and tools are found together, and at those sites, specific species or subspecies of hominids are correlated with specific types of tools. (At least that's my understanding of what gluadys said.) Since there is that significant correlation at the sites where tools + fossils are found together, thus the presence of tools alone at another site implies strongly that the correlated species was also there but did not fossilize. But that inference is not made without the evidence that the same combination of fossils and tools was found elsewhere.

 

[gluadys]

I think you misunderstood me. I was trying to say that that the habilis fossil was found in a layer with modern human fossils and they are the ones who crafted the tools not habilis.

Well that would only be relevant if it were true of all habilis findings. So we would need a source for this allegation and have to check out the actual circumstances. Generally speaking, tools associated with sapiens fossils are much more sophisticated than the Oldowan tools associated with habilis fossils and it would be unclear as to why any sapiens population would create Oldowan tools when they were capable of creating more efficient tools.

Based on modern scientific measuring standards that is probably true. However that doesn't mean they are right.

I assume you are referring to the dating implied by "oldest". So let's say instead that most hominid fossils have been found exclusively in Africa. On the list I used only H. erectus and H. heidelburgensis have been found outside of Africa.

Would you then agree this statement is factual and not speculative?

To those from whom you produced an analysis that answer is yes. For the untrained eye like me it still looks like conjecture and speculation and I'm sure there are some trained eyes who would agree.

Well, you are more sure than I am then. For they have been examined by many trained eyes, and they still can be. However, you already agreed to this in a previous post when you said: "The things based on the observation and measurement of fossils are facts" and when you agreed that the physical characteristics of the fossils are real.

That is a fact. However to then go one and say we are related, that is conjecture and speculation.

Well, I am not asking you to go on. All I was asking is whether three things Darwin predicted in 1871 were later shown to be facts.

Hominid fossils were found in Africa.
They have a mixture of ape-like and human-like characteristics.
The human list of inherited characteristics ( as found through an analysis of human DNA) is more like that of African apes than like those of any other non-human animal.

Can we agree that these three statements are fact and not conjecture?

 

[vossler]

Well that would only be relevant if it were true of all habilis findings. So we would need a source for this allegation and have to check out the actual circumstances. Generally speaking, tools associated with sapiens fossils are much more sophisticated than the Oldowan tools associated with habilis fossils and it would be unclear as to why any sapiens population would create Oldowan tools when they were capable of creating more efficient tools.

I couldn't tell you that. How many habilis findings are there?

I assume you are referring to the dating implied by "oldest". So let's say instead that most hominid fossils have been found exclusively in Africa. On the list I used only H. erectus and H. heidelburgensis have been found outside of Africa.

When I stated "Based on modern scientific measuring standards that is probably true. However that doesn't mean they are right." I was saying that we can't be sure that our measuring standards are accurate. As far as we know they appear that way to us but that doesn't mean they necessarily are.

Well, you are more sure than I am then. For they have been examined by many trained eyes, and they still can be. However, you already agreed to this in a previous post when you said: "The things based on the observation and measurement of fossils are facts" and when you agreed that the physical characteristics of the fossils are real.

They are facts based on present knowledge which implies that this knowledge is accurate. We really don't know that and I would submit, based on the Word of God, they are not.

All I was asking is whether three things Darwin predicted in 1871 were later shown to be facts.

Hominid fossils were found in Africa.
They have a mixture of ape-like and human-like characteristics.
The human list of inherited characteristics ( as found through an analysis of human DNA) is more like that of African apes than like those of any other non-human animal.

Can we agree that these three statements are fact and not conjecture?

I would say the first and third are, but the second I would say isn't nearly as clear.

 

[gluadys]

How many habilis findings are there?

There are 15.

When I stated "Based on modern scientific measuring standards that is probably true. However that doesn't mean they are right." I was saying that we can't be sure that our measuring standards are accurate.

All of our measuring standards, ancient and modern, are accurate to some degree. Some are more accurate than others. At what point do we begin to distrust them because they are "modern".

Let's look at a few of the measurements alluded to in the fossil descriptions.

The africanus skull is noticeably different from afarensis: in the more vertical slope of the face,...

This is a measurement of angles, specifically the difference between a vertical and a sloping angle. The measurement of angles is not modern. Humans have been measuring angles since as far back as the Chaldeans and the ancient Egyptians. It is a fundamental of geometry. Often you can see the difference in slope through simply eyeballing it, and you can measure it with a simple protractor.

Is this an example of a measuring standard that is too modern and/or too inaccurate to be reliable? Is this an example of something that can "appear that way to us" yet is not necessarily that way in reality?

If you really think so, why are we teaching geometry in school? How can we trust engineers and carpenters and surveyors to come up with reliable solutions to problems involving the measurement of angles?

habilis had a fairly apelike physical form: its arms were almost as long as its legs.

What modern and/or unreliable measurement are scientists relying on to make this statement. Do you really have a problem with measuring tapes, or even string? In fact, you can make this comparison without equipment at all.

Stand in front of a wall and position yourself so that you can raise your leg to hip height and place the sole of your foot against the wall, without bending your knee. Lower your foot again and mark your position. The distance between your position and the wall is approximately the length of your leg, agreed? Now, still standing in the same position, raise your arm, palm facing forward. Does your palm touch the wall? Not unless your arm is as long as your leg. Step forward until you can place your palm against the wall. Mark your new position. The distance between this position and the wall is approximately the length of your arm, agreed? And the distance between the two positions shows how much longer your leg is than your arm.

Note that we didn't actually measure either your arm or your leg, but we could make a reliable comparison of their length. You could do the same by cutting a length of string equal to the length of your arm and another equal to the length of your leg. Or, if you want actual figures, you could use a carpenter's or a seamstress's measuring tape.

And again, there is nothing particularly modern about such measuring tools. The basic unit of length in biblical days was the cubit, which was the length of the forearm, from elbow to finger tip. The French word for "inch" is "pouce" which means "thumb" telling you one source of this measuring unit. Of course, such measurements were less accurate than modern standardized measures, but are either so unreliable you can't compare the length of an arm and a leg and say whether or not they are about the same length?

Are these examples of measuring devices so unreliable that you can't be sure that what they tell you is necessarily so? How then do carpenters and seamstresses manage to make cupboards and doors and clothing that fits together properly?

One more:

The brain size in habilis averages about 650cc
In addition, brain size [in heidelburgensis] increases gradually up to 1600cc.

We have dealt with angles, and we have dealt with lengths. Now let's look at volume. I am sure your wife has a set of mixing bowls of various sizes. Can you tell, even without measuring their capacity, that one is larger than another? If you fill a small bowl with water and then pour the water into a measuring cup, you will have the volume. If you do the same with a large bowl, will you have more or less water than in the first case?

If the small "bowl" was a typical habilis cranium, you would get about 650cc (around 2 1/2 cups) of water. If the large "bowl" was a heidelburgensis cranium, you would get around 1600 cc or over 6 cups of water.

Are you really claiming this is a difference that is imaginary, or could be imaginary. If we truly have no reasonably accurate measure of volume, how can we permit oil companies to charge for gasoline by the litre or the gallon. Unreliable measurements of volume cannot be the basis of fair pricing, can they?

Furthermore, although we have modern devices that measure all these things far more accurately than ancient measuring tools could, none of them are dependent on modern measuring tools. Humans were calculating angles and measuring length and volume long before the days of Abraham.

So it seems to me, the only basis on which you can say the measurements deal only with appearance and not reality, is to claim that no appearance of any sort has any relationship to reality. The whole world, as it appears to us, is a grand illusion. And that, my friend, is Hinduism, not Christianity.

Is that really where you want to go? Or will you return to your earlier statement that these are descriptions based on observable facts and that the things based on the observation and measurement of fossils are facts,

(Note that "things" here does not include inferences drawn from the facts. This is not a matter of dealing with scientific theory or conclusions, but of finding the boundary where fact ends and speculation begins.)

So you have already agreed that most hominid fossils are found in Africa, and that human DNA is more like that of African apes than that of other animals.

Are you prepared now to agree, without committing yourself to any implications one way or the other, that these fossils show a variety of characteristics, some of which are more ape-like, some of which are more human-like and some of which are intermediate between human and ape? Or do you still say this is speculation, not observation?

 

[vossler]

There are 15.

Were they all in different locations?

All of our measuring standards, ancient and modern, are accurate to some degree. Some are more accurate than others. At what point do we begin to distrust them because they are "modern".

My point here was solely that sometimes we put so much trust in our scientific methodology when we should be not so quick to make assumptions based on these findings. If I'm studying this subject from the standpoint that evolution is fact then I'll see these findings from a completely different perspective than if I didn't.

I'm not questioning the accuracy of the measurements but the conclusions and inferences drawn of these measurements. I don't know of any creationist organization that is claiming this either. I think all would agree on the basic facts, it's in the details of how we arrive at our conclusions that problems arise.

I've heard a number of creation scientists explain the existance of these fossils in very logical, systematic and scientific ways that left no doubt in my mind that most of these fossils can be clearly identified as either man or ape without much difficulty.

Are you prepared now to agree, without committing yourself to any implications one way or the other, that these fossils show a variety of characteristics, some of which appear more ape-like, some of which appear more human-like and some of which appear intermediate between human and ape?

With the modifications I made yes.

 

[gluadys]

Are you prepared now to agree, without committing yourself to any implications one way or the other, that these fossils show a variety of characteristics, some of which appear more ape-like, some of which appear more human-like and some of which appear intermediate between human and ape?

With the modifications I made yes.

Sounds like we are getting close to agreement here. Just to double-check. I hope you are not saying these appearances are imaginary. Are you?

You are agreeing that the heidelburgensis cranium appears larger than the habilis cranium because it really is larger, right?

And why would we say it is more ape-like?

Would it not be because of this observation:

Take four average crania from H. sapiens, H. heidelburgensis, H. habilis and a modern chimpanzee and set them out in order of size.

The H. habilis cranium will be next to the chimpanzee cranium, but separated from the H. sapiens cranium by the H. heidelburgensis cranium.

"more ape-like" in this context does not necessarily imply evolution, but simply measurement.

Are you ok with that?

Do you agree that what is being measured here shows a real observable difference that is not speculative?

 

[gluadys]

Were they all in different locations?

No, some were found together, but not all. Most habilis fossils have been found in Tanzania, but in five different sites. They have also been found in Kenya and South Africa.

 

[vossler]

Sounds like we are getting close to agreement here. Just to double-check. I hope you are not saying these appearances are imaginary. Are you?

lol, No I'm not.

You are agreeing that the heidelburgensis cranium appears larger than the habilis cranium because it really is larger, right?

And why would we say it is more ape-like?

Would it not be because of this observation:

Take four average crania from H. sapiens, H. heidelburgensis, H. habilis and a modern chimpanzee and set them out in order of size.

The H. habilis cranium will be next to the chimpanzee cranium, but separated from the H. sapiens cranium by the H. heidelburgensis cranium.

"more ape-like" in this context does not necessarily imply evolution, but simply measurement.

Are you ok with that?

I'm ok with that except I've seen the skull and looking at it I would never think of it as anything other than an ape.

Do you agree that what is being measured here shows a real observable difference that is not speculative?

You sure are being deliberate with me, I'm not sure if I should be offended or honored.

 

[gluadys]

lol, No I'm not.

I'm ok with that except I've seen the skull and looking at it I would never think of it as anything other than an ape.

Sure, most people would agree. A paleontologist would note some differences that a layperson would not, such as the placement of the jaw underneath the brain, and the more vertical slope of the face than usually found in apes.

Also, the paleontologist would note that the placement of the hip bones relative to the pelvic bones is much more like that of a human than an ape. This is part of what permits an erect bi-pedal stance and habitual walking.

As for whether habilis is an ape, in spite of human-like leg bones, that's just a question of definition. What is not questionable are the actual observed measurements and proportions.

You sure are being deliberate with me, I'm not sure if I should be offended or honored.

I know. You want to run ahead of me and say "This is what I mean by speculation." But my feeling is that we cannot really define what is speculative until we have determined what is not.

So we have a fair list of what is not speculative now. Next post, we can start looking at how scientists come to the conclusions they do about these fossils and whether that really qualifies as "conjecture and speculation".

 

[gluadys]

Hi, vossler

Almost ready to talk speculation. But first, logical consequences.

We have been looking at some predictions Darwin made in 1871 about evidence for human evolution. At the time he made those predictions, none of this evidence had yet come to light. Now we have observations of all of them, and it turns out that they verify the accuracy of Darwin's predictions.

Now, since we are not claiming any omniscience or supernatural foresight for Darwin, no crystal-ball gazing, nor visions from God, how was Darwin able to predict what kind of evidence would turn up if his theory was true?

The answer is "logical consequences". You get to logical consequences by asking "if this theory is true, what observable consequences must also be true?"

For example, on the theory that humans are modified African apes, Darwin concluded that the first evidences of human or proto-human existence must be found in Africa.

Does that make sense? Would his theory have been equally credible if the australopithecines or similar fossils had turned up in Mexico instead of Tanzania?

Similarly, on the theory that humans are modified apes, Darwin concluded that fossils of possible transition species would exhibit a mixture of ape, human and intermediate characters.

Could he come to any other conclusion? Could he have entertained the idea that humans are modified apes, but that fossils would show a mixture of cat and human traits rather than ape and human traits?

Now we have already established that the evidence Darwin predicted has actually been observed. That is not speculation.

But that wouldn't mean a lot unless the observations were logically required by the theory.

For example, if I theorize that my plants are doing poorly because they don't get enough light, it may be true that I am also running out of coffee and need to add that to my shopping list. But it is also irrelevant. It tells me nothing as to whether or not I have diagnosed the plant problem correctly.

So, now the question is this: are the observations we have been speaking of relevant to the theory that humans evolved from some species of African ape? Would the theory be significantly damaged if we did not have these observations, or if we had very different observations instead?

And another question. With these examples of logical consequences, would you include logical consequences in the category of "conjecture and speculation"?

 

[shernren]

Now, since we are not claiming any omniscience or supernatural foresight for Darwin, no crystal-ball gazing, nor visions from God, how was Darwin able to predict what kind of evidence would turn up if his theory was true?

Ah say the Devil told 'im. Who better to learn about fossils from, than th' joker who put 'em in the groond in th' first place?

(Carry on with your usual stimulating discussion.)

 

[hithesh]

What you are overlooking Hitesh, is the basics of deductive logic: true statements cannot have false consequences.

All my life, an "H" gets lost from my name, and I never understood why.

The questions from the original post were directed towards our "beloved young-earthers".

What I was trying to get it: is that arguing against evolution is not so productive, because no matter what the result, you will not be the new king of the hill.

I was trying to gauge the responses, from the Young-earthers, to such a statement.

 

[vossler]

Hello again gluadys,

We have been looking at some predictions Darwin made in 1871 about evidence for human evolution. At the time he made those predictions, none of this evidence had yet come to light. Now we have observations of all of them, and it turns out that they verify the accuracy of Darwin's predictions.

I guess it all depends on what perspective you have because to me this isn’t the case. Let’s see what he said:

“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.​

I see that question being just as valid today as it was then.

Similarly, on the theory that humans are modified apes, Darwin concluded that fossils of possible transition species would exhibit a mixture of ape, human and intermediate characters.

Could he come to any other conclusion?

Not if he was trying to substantiate his own theory.

Could he have entertained the idea that humans are modified apes, but that fossils would show a mixture of cat and human traits rather than ape and human traits?

I really don’t know what Darwin’s motivation was, I can only speak for my own. The examples of fossils I’ve seen clearly fall into either ape or human, I’ve yet to see one that convincingly shows anything else.

So, now the question is this: are the observations we have been speaking of relevant to the theory that humans evolved from some species of African ape? Would the theory be significantly damaged if we did not have these observations, or if we had very different observations instead?

They are relevant because they substantiate the prior assumption that evolution occurred. If that assumption is taken out then I don’t think they are relevant.

And another question. With these examples of logical consequences, would you include logical consequences in the category of "conjecture and speculation"?

Assuming they are logical consequences no, but I don’t see them as such.

 

[Assyrian]

All my life, an "H" gets lost from my name, and I never understood why.

I googled your name. It seems to mean One who thinks of others and helps them Apparently some of the others you have been helping, have been helping themselves to some of the 'H's. Cool name though hithesh

 

[gluadys]

Hello again gluadys,
I guess it all depends on what perspective you have because to me this isn’t the case. Let’s see what he said:

“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.​

I see that question being just as valid today as it was then.

You are confusing a general observation with a specific prediction. This citation is a general observation that the fossil record is far from complete. And I agree that even though it is much fuller now than when Darwin wrote that passage, it is still far from complete, and by the very nature of fossilization will always be far from complete.

But the specific prediction I was referring to was Darwin's prediction that if humans are related to apes, the fossil evidence to support that relationship would be found in Africa.

Now we have found fossils in Africa and whether you choose to categorize each individually as ape or human, it is undeniable that they display a mixture of ape-like and human-like characteristics.

Does this meet Darwin's prediction?

Not if he was trying to substantiate his own theory.

I really don’t know what Darwin’s motivation was, I can only speak for my own. The examples of fossils I’ve seen clearly fall into either ape or human, I’ve yet to see one that convincingly shows anything else.

Darwin's motivation is irrelevant. I am talking logic here. Can one logically claim a relationship between apes and humans and predict a fossil similarity between cats and humans instead?

If one's claim is a relationship between apes and humans, does not logic require that fossil evidence of that relationship confirm similarities to both apes and humans? What does motivation have to do with it?

Furthermore, Darwin's motivations have nothing to do with the actual characteristics of the actual fossils found. That is a matter of observation, as we have already established.

The way the fossils are classified is also not a matter of contention. Paleontologists gladly agree that the australopithicids are apes. But that doesn't change the fact that their leg and pelvic bones are more human than ape-like and that they normally walked erect rather than being knuckle-walkers like chimps and gorillas. Similarly, if you see H. erectus as being "human", I don't think a paleontologist will disagree with you. But that does not change the fact that some H. erectus characteristics (low forehead, prominent browridges) are more ape-like than human-like.

All of this is observed fact whether or not one assumes evolution. Right?

They are relevant because they substantiate the prior assumption that evolution occurred. If that assumption is taken out then I don’t think they are relevant.

Let's just take the last part of that question again. If the fossil evidence that did turn up had been very different from what Darwin predicted, would that have an effect on the credibility of his theory?

If we had found the australopithicids and early hominids in North America instead of Africa, could we still sustain a theory that humans are most closely related to the great apes of Africa?

If we had found the earliest evidence of "human-like" features in cat-like fossils instead of in ape-like fossils, could we still sustain a theory that humans are most closely related to the great apes?

Since the evidence found is consistent with the predictions made, does this not have relevance to the possibility that the predictions are based on something that is fact?

Assuming they are logical consequences no, but I don’t see them as such.

Well, let's deal with whether the consistency of evidence with prediction is significant first. Then we can deal with the assumptions on which the predictions were made.

All I am looking for at this time is whether it is speculation that the evidence found concords with the predictions made. If so, what does that imply about the predictions?

You are agreeing that logical consequences do not come under the rubric of "conjecture and speculation". So now the challenge becomes one of showing whether the scientific conclusions are conjecture or logical consequences. Or is it possible to be both? What then?

 

[theIdi0t]

The examples of fossils I’ve seen clearly fall into either ape or human, I’ve yet to see one that convincingly shows anything else.[/FONT]

I have never understood this postion.

I've always wondered what a fossile of the "convincing" would look like?

Perhaps you can draw us a picture, or find one for us?

 

[theIdi0t]

But the specific prediction I was referring to was Darwin's prediction that if humans are related to apes, the fossil evidence to support that relationship would be found in Africa.

I'm curious as to what would have led Darwin to make such an assumption?

 

[Citanul]

I'm curious as to what would have led Darwin to make such an assumption?

Could it be because apes are found in Africa? Unless you're referring to the assumption that humans are related to apes, and I would guess that the many physical similarities led him to think that that might be the case.

 

[gluadys]

I'm curious as to what would have led Darwin to make such an assumption?

I would call it an inference rather than an assumption.

Here is the reasoning:

Morphologically the non-human populations most like humans are the great apes of Africa.

The great apes of Africa are found only in Africa.

So, if humans evolved, they probably evolved from a common ancestor shared with the great apes of Africa, and the most likely place of human origin (and the most likely location of transitional fossils in the lineage leading to humans) is Africa.

 

[shernren]

Bumpity bump.

You are agreeing that logical consequences do not come under the rubric of "conjecture and speculation". So now the challenge becomes one of showing whether the scientific conclusions are conjecture or logical consequences. Or is it possible to be both? What then?