Humans and Apes not closely related after all?

[pitabread]

The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax.

Repeating a piece of hyperbole doesn't make it less of a piece of a hyperbole.

I suggest reading the book, Unraveling Piltdown. It's a fascinating read on the subject (reads a bit like a mystery novel actually) and dispels the notion that Piltdown it was this 'flagship transitional' as you claim for the first half of the 1900's. While it certainly was a remarkable find at the time and there were those championing its importance (arguably nationalism came into play in that regard), it still was a controversial find at the time. And it become more controversial due to subsequent hominid findings in the decades to come.

But if you want to keep copy-pasting the same posts ad nauseum, go nuts.

 

[mark kennedy]

Repeating a piece of hyperbole doesn't make it less of a piece of a hyperbole.

I suggest reading the book, Unraveling Piltdown. It's a fascinating read on the subject (reads a bit like a mystery novel actually) and dispels the notion that Piltdown it was this 'flagship transitional' as you claim for the first half of the 1900's. While it certainly was a remarkable find at the time and there were those championing its importance (arguably nationalism came into play in that regard), it still was a controversial find at the time. And it become more controversial due to subsequent hominid findings in the decades to come.

But if you want to keep copy-pasting the same posts ad nauseum, go nuts.

And you post nothing but ad hominem taunts, I have studied the subject, you obviously haven't. Oh and btw, I've never advocated nationalism in any size form or fashion. I don't appreciate European nationalism whether Fascist or Communist. Not only are you missing the details regarding the Piltdown hoax and the stone age ape man myth you obviously know less about my political ideologies. I'm a a moderate Democrat and consider European style national socialism to be a plague.

 

[pitabread]

An you post nothing but ad hominem taunts

Please, point to the ad hominem in the post you quoted.

I have studied the subject, you obviously haven't.

Studied it how exactly? Did you read the book I listed?

Oh and btw, I've never advocated nationalism in any size form or fashion. I don't appreciate European nationalism whether Fascist or Communist. Not only are you missing the details regarding the Piltdown hoax and the stone age ape man myth you obviously know less about my political ideologies. I'm a a moderate Democrat and consider European style national socialism to be a plague.

I didn't say anything about your politics. I was talking about the time of the discovery itself and particularly American versus European scientists at the time.

 

[mark kennedy]

Please, point to the ad hominem in the post you quoted.

Your posts have little else.

Studied it how exactly? Did you read the book I listed?

Thanks but I wouldn't be interested. I've studied enough that I know there is a lot of misinformation out there.

 

[pitabread]

Your posts have little else.

I asked you to point out the ad hom in my post. Be specific, now.

Thanks but I wouldn't be interested. I've studied enough that I know there is a lot of misinformation out there.

Why wouldn't you be interested? It's a fascinating book, well-written and quite comprehensive. I don't see why you wouldn't want to read it.

 

[mark kennedy]

I asked you to point out the ad hom in my post. Be specific, now.

You told me I was wrong and uninformed suggesting I needed to research the topic, I'm not out of the loop here and spent a lot of time on the subject. That's classic ad hominem flawed logic and there is little else in your posts.

Why wouldn't you be interested? It's a fascinating book, well-written and quite comprehensive. I don't see why you wouldn't want to read it.

Fine, quote it and let's hear your discussion on the subject. Otherwise I'm not interested in playing go fish with source material.

 

[pitabread]

You told me I was wrong and uninformed suggesting I needed to research the topic, I'm not out of the loop here and spent a lot of time on the subject. That's classic ad hominem flawed logic and there is little else in your posts.

Pointing out something is incorrect is not an ad-hom. Neither is suggesting a person do more research.

Fine, quote it and let's hear your discussion on the subject. Otherwise I'm not interested in playing go fish with source material.

I don't currently own the book, thus quoting it directly would be a bit of a challenge until I obtain another copy. I merely suggested it as a good source for a comprehensive discussion on the subject, as it paints a somewhat different picture than your suggestion of it being a "flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century".

 

[mark kennedy]

Pointing out something is incorrect is not an ad-hom. Neither is suggesting a person do more research.

Unless that's all you say.

I don't currently own the book, thus quoting it directly would be a bit of a challenge until I obtain another copy. I merely suggested it as a good source for a comprehensive discussion on the subject, as it paints a somewhat different picture than your suggestion of it being a "flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century".

You might want to look into the career of Arthur Keith and Louise Leaky. I honestly paid little attention to the Piltdown hoax, I was more interested in the Oldovia fossils Louis Leaky got so much attention with, especially the supposed tools. That is until I realized his connection to Arthur Keith, then it all started to make sense.

Piltdown was more then some random artifact and a less then cleaver hoax. It was the centerpiece of Keith's career and thesis. I might be guilty of a little hyperbole but that's my prerogative. If you have an alternative view of all of this I'm listening but I've yet to see it.

 

[tas8831]

I heard that they had to ignore like 40 billion pieces of genetics

Pieces of genetics.

Classic!

 

[Devin P]

Pieces of genetics.

Classic!

I'm not sure what you would call it, but it was 40 billion something. Pieces, strands, segments, idk. People who read it can understand what I meant though. Don't have to be a scientist to understand fraudulence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I didn't read any of that, because, science. But, apparently (after listening to a video) I heard that they had to ignore like 40 billion pieces of genetics, and with what was left they get the 98% figure.

-_- considering that humans and chimps have genomes of 3 billion base pairs, that wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

Have you looked into evolution? Apparently, they tried saying they found an entirely new evolutionary species of humans by finding ONE tooth. An entire person, out of a tooth... They taught it in schools, and then were found out that it wasn't even a human tooth, but a pig's... and then, on top of that, they KEPT teaching it in schools AFTER they knew they had been disproven. So many more examples of this are involved in evolution.

Oh, I know this one, and no, it was never taught in schools. A guy found a fossilized tooth, and told his reporter friend that he thought it might be from a human ancestor, but that he wasn't sure. But that didn't stop his friend from writing an entire newspaper article about the "big find" and drawing up some pretend proto-human to make money. Once the tooth was actually analyzed, it was found to be a pig tooth.

Also, look at stars. Videos of them. People who have nice cameras and such, can look up at them... they look nothing like what scientists have led us to believe they do. Idk what to make of it, but it's interesting. They look... as if they're being seen through water? Idk how to describe it, but that works pretty well.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but pollution in the atmosphere can distort images from space. Make the moon look oily and whatnot.

 

[sfs]

I'm not sure what you would call it, but it was 40 billion something. Pieces, strands, segments, idk. People who read it can understand what I meant though. Don't have to be a scientist to understand fraudulence.

No, you don't have to be scientist to understand fraudulence. You do, however, have to have some solid grounds for accusing people of fraud -- at least if you want to avoid slandering people. I'm one of the scientists you're accusing of fraud. I'd really like you to provide some evidence to support your accusation.

 

[Devin P]

No, you don't have to be scientist to understand fraudulence. You do, however, have to have some solid grounds for accusing people of fraud -- at least if you want to avoid slandering people. I'm one of the scientists you're accusing of fraud. I'd really like you to provide some evidence to support your accusation.

The bible. I don't believe most of modern science today. Never will. Obviously you do, we're just not gonna agree. Agree to disagree.

I trust people when they say evolution is fraud. Some are regular people, some are scientists. I don't really care to get into an argument over something of this nature. I'm bias, I'll admit it. God > science in my mind. It'll always be like that. I was sharing a find with someone who felt roughly the same. So no, I don't have to. It's a fact that evolution has been proven to have been falsified in a few occasions, that's all I need. Admiral Bird, GMO's, I don't trust science or most scientists. Are all scientists bad? Obviously not, but it is the foolishness of the world, and that from the mouth of God.

 

[sfs]

The bible. I don't believe most of modern science today. Never will. Obviously you do, we're just not gonna agree. Agree to disagree.

I trust people when they say evolution is fraud. Some are regular people, some are scientists. I don't really care to get into an argument over something of this nature. I'm bias, I'll admit it. God > science in my mind. It'll always be like that. I was sharing a find with someone who felt roughly the same. So no, I don't have to. It's a fact that evolution has been proven to have been falsified in a few occasions, that's all I need. Admiral Bird, GMO's, I don't trust science or most scientists. Are all scientists bad? Obviously not, but it is the foolishness of the world, and that from the mouth of God.

I see a lot of words but none address my point. You can believe anything you like about evolution and the Bible, and feel however you like about scientists. You accused me and my colleagues of fraud. That's a serious accusation, one that could easily cost me my job and career if substantiated. I want to know what the evidence is that I and my colleagues committed scientific fraud.

 

[Devin P]

I see a lot of words but none address my point. You can believe anything you like about evolution and the Bible, and feel however you like about scientists. You accused me and my colleagues of fraud. That's a serious accusation, one that could easily cost me my job and career if substantiated. I want to know what the evidence is that I and my colleagues committed scientific fraud.

Did you singlehandedly create and propagate evolution? No. You're not going to lose your job over my disdain for the theory of evolution, sorry but that's ridiculous. Nor are you going to lose your job because of piltdown man being a fraud, nor for humans falsely being called 98% us. You're a scientist, I get it. We will never agree. I don't believe I'm evolution, nor us sharing 98% of our DNA with monkeys. That's just how it is, just agree to disagree.

 

[sfs]

Did you singlehandedly create and propagate evolution?

I'm not talking about evolution. I'm talking about your accusation that the scientists comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes fraudulently discarded data. I'm one of those scientists. Where is your evidence that we committed fraud?

 

[USincognito]

I'm not sure what you would call it, but it was 40 billion something. Pieces, strands, segments, idk. People who read it can understand what I meant though. Don't have to be a scientist to understand fraudulence.

Wouldn't you agree it might be a good idea to find out what we would "call it" before posting something as if you have an authoritative opinion on the subject?

 

[USincognito]

Just curious of peoples thoughts or ideas. Preferably from a technical perspective.

I would note that you didn't need to copy and paste the entire thing to your OP. Anyone with sufficient acumen in genetics or biology would probably be able to figure out how to take a link.

 

[USincognito]

Have you looked into evolution? Apparently, they tried saying they found an entirely new evolutionary species of humans by finding ONE tooth. An entire person, out of a tooth... They taught it in schools, and then were found out that it wasn't even a human tooth, but a pig's... and then, on top of that, they KEPT teaching it in schools AFTER they knew they had been disproven. So many more examples of this are involved in evolution.

There is nothing factual in this paragraph.
1. Hesp. haroldcookii was never thought to be anything other than an anthropoid ape. It was never thought to be a human or a human ancestor.
2. If it were an anthropoid ape, that would have been very problematic for evolution because biogeography says that anthropoid apes are only found in the Eastern Hemisphere.
3. The find wasn't taken that seriously by the majority of scientists at the time because it went against so much of what was already known in 1922.
4. Porcine molars are very similar to primate molars. And molar was from a peccary, not a domestic pig.
5. Hesp. haroldcookii was properly identified within a few years and disappears from the discussion except for Creationists who don't actually know the whole story repeating stuff they're heard/read.
6. The drawing of Nebraska man and his family was done by a newspaper artist, not a scientist. It was based more on Java man than Nebraska and of the drawing Henry Osborne said, "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".

Also, look at stars. Videos of them. People who have nice cameras and such, can look up at them... they look nothing like what scientists have led us to believe they do. Idk what to make of it, but it's interesting. They look... as if they're being seen through water? Idk how to describe it, but that works pretty well.

Sigh... you're talking about photos of planets taken by Nikon P900. There's a whole mythology out there where people take these cameras with poor focal length and then claim the fuzzy photos are evidence of the firmament. They only thing they're evidence of is credulity and ignorance.

This video is of an amateur astronomer using a telescope. His images are the same as those of professional astronomers.

 

[USincognito]

Sure it did. Gee, its nice just asserting without having to show
any thought, much less proof. Then again, I don't do that.
Nebraska Man Hoax

What's funny is the only hoax is the content of that web page.

A tremendous amount of literature was built around this supposed missing link​

Hesp. haroldcookii was never promoted as a missing link and the "literature" was rather sparse.

The evidence for Nebraska Man was used by evolutionists in the famous Scopes evolution trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. William Jennings Bryan was confronted with a battery of "great scientific experts" who stunned him with the "facts" of Nebraska Man. Mr. Bryan had no retort except to say that he thought the evidence was too scanty and to plead for more time. Naturally, the "experts" scoffed and made a mockery of him. After all, who was he to question the world's greatest scientific authorities?​

This, simply, is a lie. No scientific evidence was allowed to be introduced at the Scopes trial so this entire episode if a figment of the authors imagination.

A similar discovery, which was also based upon a tooth, was the Southwest Colorado Man. It is now known that this particular tooth actually belonged to a horse!​

More Creationist urban legend. Even CMI admits one shouldn't mention this supposed find because nothing is really known about it.
'Southwest Colorado Man' and the year of the one-tooth wonders - creation.com
>> So, without definite information on who exactly made the original claims, Southwest Colorado Man does not make a compelling candidate as an apologetics evidence for creationists. <<