The Evolution Chamber: Piltdown Man

[Thermos aquaticus]

Not wishing to be pedantic or difficult, but don't fox/canine hybrids occur?

There appears to be a difference in chromosome counts between foxes and wolves which prevents crossbreeding, and the only accounts of hybrids I can find from a quick internet scan don't appear to be that reliable.

NOTE: It is still possible for species to interbreed with different chromosome counts, but it can still be a barrier to interbreeding in many cases.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I guess I was misinformed. Always good to learn new info.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aha, yup that looks about right. I'll try to keep that in mind if the same attempt at an analogy crops up in future. (I have collected a few standard replies over the years for some of the standard creo try-ons.) Thanks.

Of course analogies like this are always difficult because there is no set rate of evolution. Still it does not matter. Even in the rare cases when a creationist will admit that a fossil does support a hypothesis they still won't admit that there is evidence for evolution. Severe cognitive dissonance strikes when they try to do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There appears to be a difference in chromosome counts between foxes and wolves which prevents crossbreeding, and the only accounts of hybrids I can find from a quick internet scan don't appear to be that reliable.

NOTE: It is still possible for species to interbreed with different chromosome counts, but it can still be a barrier to interbreeding in many cases.

Even great number of differences in numbers of chromosomes will not stop some breeding. Check out zebra horse hybrids. Of course they are sterile so by Mayr's breeding definition of species they are different species.

Zebroid - Wikipedia

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Even great number of differences in numbers of chromosomes will not stop some breeding. Check out zebra horse hybrids. Of course they are sterile so by Mayr's breeding definition of species they are different species.

Zebroid - Wikipedia

The classic example is Przewalski's horses (wild horses), domesticated horses, and donkeys. Horse-donkey hybrids are almost completely sterile (except for the rare fertile jenny) due to how genes are distributed between chromosome and chromosome counts, but crosses between Przewalksi's horses and domesticated horses are fertile despite having different chromosome counts. It really comes down to how the chromosomal fusions occurred and what happened in each lineage after they diverged.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The classic example is Przewalski's horses (wild horses), domesticated horses, and donkeys. Horse-donkey hybrids are almost completely sterile (except for the rare fertile jenny) due to how genes are distributed between chromosome and chromosome counts, but crosses between Przewalksi's horses and domesticated horses are fertile despite having different chromosome counts. It really comes down to how the chromosomal fusions occurred and what happened in each lineage after they diverged.

The reason that I referred to Zebras is because they have from 32 to 46 chromosomes depending upon species. Horses have 64 That means there is at least a difference of 18 chromosomes and yet they can interbreed. Most zebroids end up with 54 chromosomes. I need a geneticist to explain this to me, but my point was that a difference of a mere two chromosomes is not like going to be the reason that two closely related species cannot breed.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I need a geneticist to explain this to me, but my point was that a difference of a mere two chromosomes is not like going to be the reason that two closely related species cannot breed.

It may be a problem. It really depends on how the chromosomes pair up, and the effect of extra chromosomes. For some humans, trisomy of some chromosomes is lethal while others cause disease (e.g. Down Syndrome). So I don't think there is a fast and hard rule when it comes to chromosome counts.

 

[gnostic]

I need a geneticist to explain this to me, but my point was that a difference of a mere two chromosomes is not like going to be the reason that two closely related species cannot breed.

Horse and donkey can breed. They just don’t breed fertile offspring.

Sorry, but you already know that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Horse and donkey can breed. They just don’t breed fertile offspring.

Sorry, but you already know that.

The breeding that we see between two closely related species is explained by the theory of evolution. Creationists have no explanation, as usual. We see examples of ever increasing separation and the decreased fertility between the two groups that goes with it in nature until interbreeding produces no offspring at all.

 

[arthurchappell]

It was scientists who discovered the Piltdown Man claim was a scam, not religious people. It was always in doubt by many scientists.

One absurdity was that early Scientologists started reporting having unlocked memories of their past lives running around as Piltdown Men right up to the hoax being broken. Oops.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The evolution chamber is a look back at classic science. An historical look at the theory of Evolution.

Today's episode: Piltdown Man

From 1912 to 1953 Piltdown man was accepted as genuine by the evolution community. After 40 years of prestige in the halls of peer reviewed reproducible observation (i.e. insert head in ***) it was discovered that it was human and ape bones put together and artificially aged. 40 years.

Problem was Piltdown man was put under lock and key for many decades without scrutiny and sadly blindly accepted by so called 'science' Part of the backstory was the Germans found Neanderthal and the Brits needed to catch up and so... file down chimpanzee teeth and stain to make look old ... and put under lock and key


bottom line, see
The fossil was introduced as evidence by Clarence Darrow in defense of John Scopes during the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Darrow died in 1938, fifteen years before Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud.

And...

The Scopes trial media buzz also included Nebraska man which was worse as it was the tooth of an
Never mind that it may destroy the faith and many of a generation of children as they are told ape to man evolution was a done deal Seems the ruse went quite a while for many although it was questioned by some at the start

 

[Audie]

Problem was Piltdown man was put under lock and key for many decades without scrutiny and sadly blindly accepted by so called 'science' Part of the backstory was the Germans found Neanderthal and the Brits needed to catch up and so... file down chimpanzee teeth and stain to make look old ... and put under lock and key


bottom line, see
The fossil was introduced as evidence by Clarence Darrow in defense of John Scopes during the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Darrow died in 1938, fifteen years before Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud.

And...

The Scopes trial media buzz also included Nebraska man which was worse as it was the tooth of an
Never mind that it may destroy the faith and many of a generation of children as they are told ape to man evolution was a done deal Seems the ruse went quite a while for many although it was questioned by some at the start

Welo! We sure see why "whirl"
goes in ye moniker there!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Problem was Piltdown man was put under lock and key for many decades without scrutiny and sadly blindly accepted by so called 'science' Part of the backstory was the Germans found Neanderthal and the Brits needed to catch up and so... file down chimpanzee teeth and stain to make look old ... and put under lock and key


bottom line, see
The fossil was introduced as evidence by Clarence Darrow in defense of John Scopes during the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Darrow died in 1938, fifteen years before Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud.

And...

The Scopes trial media buzz also included Nebraska man which was worse as it was the tooth of an
Never mind that it may destroy the faith and many of a generation of children as they are told ape to man evolution was a done deal Seems the ruse went quite a while for many although it was questioned by some at the start

Why do you keep repeating this false claim about the Scopes trial? I have repeatedly refuted it. Your own link agrees with me. The defense was not allowed to introduce any of scientific evidence in that trial. Read your links plaese.

 

[whirlingmerc]

It was scientists who discovered the Piltdown Man claim was a scam, not religious people. It was always in doubt by many scientists.

One absurdity was that early Scientologists started reporting having unlocked memories of their past lives running around as Piltdown Men right up to the hoax being broken. Oops.

Piltdown Man Hoax Is Exposed: Jaw an Ape's, Skull Fairly Recent. John Hillary. New York Times November 22, 1953.

Scientology started around Feb 1954 around the time Piltown was exposed as fraud... so maybe some even held to those memories long after the fraud was known... kinda like the Haekle Embrio charts.. they just go on and on and on


so.... fraud ran from 1912 to 1953...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Piltdown Man Hoax Is Exposed: Jaw an Ape's, Skull Fairly Recent. John Hillary. New York Times November 22, 1953.

Scientology started around Feb 1954 around the time Piltown was exposed as fraud... so maybe some even held to those memories long after the fraud was known... kinda like the Haekle Embrio charts.. they just go on and on and on


so.... fraud ran from 1912 to 1953...

So what? It was never well accepted and the theory never relied on Piltdown Man. Also, though wrong, Haeckel was never shown to be a fraud. And there are a some ideas of Haeckel's that were correct. That is why you still see those charts today.

By your standards the Shroud of Turin "disproved" Christianity. That fraud was around for over five hundred years. That makes your beliefs ten times as weak, again by your standards, as those that accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Audie]

Piltdown Man Hoax Is Exposed: Jaw an Ape's, Skull Fairly Recent. John Hillary. New York Times November 22, 1953.

Scientology started around Feb 1954 around the time Piltown was exposed as fraud... so maybe some even held to those memories long after the fraud was known... kinda like the Haekle Embrio charts.. they just go on and on and on


so.... fraud ran from 1912 to 1953...

Haekel embryo.. are you equally critical of Hubble for
his Mars canal drawings? Why not?

And why are you critical of Haekel for his mistake?

Re gifts that keep giving, every time you creationists
bring up piltdown and haekel, you show again that you
have nothing at all to show that there is any problem
at all with ToE.

 

[Audie]

So what? It was never well accepted and the theory never relied on Piltdown Man. Also, though wrong, Haeckel was never shown to be a fraud. And there are a some ideas of Haeckel's that were correct. That is why you still see those charts today.

By your standards the Shroud of Turin "disproved" Christianity. That fraud was around for over five hundred years. That makes your beliefs ten times as weak, again by your standards, as those that accept the theory of evolution.

Still around. The "shroud" has hordes of avid believers.

 

[ecco]

By your standards the Shroud of Turin "disproved" Christianity. That fraud was around for over five hundred years.

Wait! What!?! The Shroud has been proved to be a fraud?

 

[metis]

Problem was Piltdown man was put under lock and key for many decades without scrutiny and sadly blindly accepted by so called 'science' Part of the backstory was the Germans found Neanderthal and the Brits needed to catch up and so... file down chimpanzee teeth and stain to make look old ... and put under lock and key

First of all, that fraud was found out by an anthropologist and, secondly, even before he found it to be a fraud others, such as Louis Leaky, thought it was likely one because it simply didn't fit in with real human finds discovered since Piltdown was constructed.

Also, if we all were to use your approach, shouldn't we all be condemning Christianity, including you, because of there being so many frauds put forth by so many ministers and some theologians?

 

[arthurchappell]

First of all, that fraud was found out by an anthropologist and, secondly, even before he found it to be a fraud others, such as Louis Leaky, thought it was likely one because it simply didn't fit in with real human finds discovered since Piltdown was constructed.

Also, if we all were to use your approach, shouldn't we all be condemning Christianity, including you, because of there being so many frauds put forth by so many ministers and some theologians?

Yes the sale of sacred relics was big business in the Middle Ages. Chaucer criticises it in The Canterbury Tales. There were probably enough shards of the one true cross on sale to rebuild a forest.