Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Indeed.
Originally Posted by wilsoncole
Largely imagination and artists' impressions.
NO!
The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.
What Did They Look Like?
However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based?
The book The Biology of Race answers:
“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds:
“Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.” (The Biology of Race, by James C.　King,　1971, pp. 135,　151)
Science Digest also commented:
“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. .　.　. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.” Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged:
“No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.” (Science Digest, “Anthro Art,” April 1981, p. 41)
Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.” (Lucy, p. 286)
So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects .　.　. sheer invention.” (New Scientist, book review of Not From the Apes: Man’s Origins and Evolution by Björn Kurtén, August 3,　1972, p. 259)
Thus in Man, God and Magic p. 304, Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”
In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig. (Missing Links, by John Reader,　1981, pp. 109,　110; Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, by Stephen Jay Gould,　1983, pp.　201-226)
What Were They?
If “ape-man” reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago.
In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind p. 315, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote:
“They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels.” Richard Leakey called the mammal a “rat-like primate.”(Origins, p. 40)
But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.
Next on the generally accepted list, with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as:
“Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time, “Just a Nasty Little Thing,” February 18,　1980, p. 58)
“Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times January　1, 1984, Section 1, p. 16)
“Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins p. 52)
But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found.
The Rise and Fall of “Ape-Men”
Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus—Rama’s ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India). Fossils of it were found in India about half a century ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: “As far as one can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the human family.” (Origins, p. 56)
What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same publication remarked: “The evidence concerning Ramapithecus is considerable—though in absolute terms it remains tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth.” (Origins p. 67)
Do you think that this was “considerable” enough “evidence” to reconstruct an upright “ape-man” ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an “ape-man,” and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature—all on the basis of
jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times February 14,　1982, p. E7, reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.”
However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family.
So New Scientist now declares: “Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line.” (New Scientist, “Jive Talking,” by John Gribbin, June 24,　1982, p. 873)
Such new information provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, .　.　. reconstructed only from teeth and jaws—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward-marching procession?” (Natural History, “False Start of the Human Parade,” by Adrienne L.　Zihlman and Jerold M.　Lowenstein, August/September 1979, p. 86)
Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say.”
Source: (Evolution or Creation? [Ce] chap. 7 pp. 89-93)
If you are tempted to dismiss these articles on account of their age, just remember this:
Except for, perhaps one, there has been no revision or removal of any exhibit constructed on the basis of extremely small fragments of bone.
The "links" remain missing and the presentation intact.
My question:
Why has the peer-review system been unable or unwilling to remove these frauds from being demonstrated at authentic replications of "pre-human" creatures? Why have they allowed entire exhibits, reconstructed entirely from tiny pieces of bone, to be presented as authentic?
Let the trash-talking begin!
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
There is no such thing as creationism.
I took your "farewell" seriously!Watch the two first minutes...
Quote from Richard Leakey: "Anyone who doubts that we are a product of Evolution has to be utterly insane."
Are you sure this is a man you wish to present in the light of someone who would cast doubt on the Theory of Evolution?
Originally Posted by wilsoncole
Largely imagination and artists' impressions.
NO!
The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of mans link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.
1. I don't know why on earth you would start with such recent evolution as humans, but your pick.
2. This sentence is so wrong it doesn't even make sense. Humans are ape-like beasts, as anyone can tell by looking at us.
Just take a look:
Those aren't even fossils. It's clear that these two animals are very closely related, without even comparing the internal organs or brains, let alone the DNA, which shows the same close relationship.
Here is a list of fossils from 7 million years ago to the present.
Here are skulls alone, which you are trying to say are not related to each other. If not, please tell us which of these are human, and which unrelated apes:
Because they have no relationship to each other, and are dramatically and obviously different, right?
You'd be surprised!So this entire skeleton.... and the thousands of other Neanderthal bones (including infants, children and elderly) are all fakes then?
This one is a fake too?
Who has ever found any of them whole?
And beyond the Neanderthals, these are all fakes too? Even when they are found whole?
Nobody's challenging science, so get off that horse! It is not a holy word! (Or is it?)
these are just the skulls, we also have significant parts of the rest of the body.
A few bits of bone it isn't. Yes, some fossils are less known than others, but paleontologists are quick to account for new material that is found and revise things to better fit reality. This is the very nature of science and complaining about it is IMHO naive at best and hypocritical at worst.
While artistic reconstructions are subject to the skill and knowledge of the artist... scientists don't base their work on the artwork but on the fossils themselves. The artwork is simply to make the critter at hand more accessible to the public and spark the imagination.
Only a fool would think that science is based on the doodles of artists. (spoken by someone who aims to do professional paleo-reconstruction work)
wa:do
Are you or are you not alleging that these fossils are fakes?
You are.
No.
painted wolf, unlike you, is not a novice.
You have just exhibited your ignorance. Science is not about proof. It's about evidence.
Only a fool would distrust the result of the scientific nethod.
Are you alleging that these photos use Photoshop?!?
You really don't have clue, do you?
1. I don't know why on earth you would start with such recent evolution as humans, but your pick.
2. This sentence is so wrong it doesn't even make sense. Humans are ape-like beasts, as anyone can tell by looking at us.
Just take a look:
Those aren't even fossils. It's clear that these two animals are very closely related, without even comparing the internal organs or brains, let alone the DNA, which shows the same close relationship.
Here is a list of fossils from 7 million years ago to the present.
Here are skulls alone, which you are trying to say are not related to each other. If not, please tell us which of these are human, and which unrelated apes:
Because they have no relationship to each other, and are dramatically and obviously different, right?
All this means very little, as impressive as it seems. How many posts by yourself and PW have been put up outlining the evolution of the knuckle walking hands into human. It appears that this topic is now well outdated. Indeed recent research by Lovejoy and many other scientists have shown strong evidence that we did not evolve from chimpanzees at all. Also that knucklewalking evolved independently. All these skulls you have posted showing the gradual changes from chimp to human are extremely outdated and misleading. At the very least these single minded posts do not acknowledge the full body of research, yet many of you continue to maintain that these fossil skulls are some sort of undeniable evidence of ancestry from the chimpanzee. Many researchers now disagree with this mainstream idea. That is how solid the evidence actually is.
You guys/gals really need to stop shoving this style of evidence in peoples faces.
Now all these skulls you have posted will need to be 'fitted in' with another line of ancestry that does not come directly from the chimp line. So this information is mute and of no value at all.
Earth Magazine Oct '09: Before Lucy: Older hominid Ardi challenges thinking about human evolution
Lucy, the 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis fossil, has long been the poster child for early human evolution. But now shell have to share the spotlight with an even older hominid. After spending the last 15 years studying an ancient hominid species about the size of a chimpanzee, scientists revealed details about the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus in a press conference today. Despite the similarity in size, Ardipithecus didnt look or act like a chimpanzee, which the researchers say suggests that the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans was not chimpanzee-like either. As a result, they said, scientists may need to rethink some long-standing ideas about the origins of the human family tree.
Many scientists thought humans evolved from an ape similar to chimpanzees and gorillas one that swung through the trees and knuckle-walked while on the ground. But this new information suggests that like Ardipithecus the last common ancestor of chimpanzees, gorillas and humans also had a more primitive form of locomotion, the researchers say. Therefore, chimpanzees didnt evolve their specialized climbing and knuckle-walking until after they diverged from humans which also implies that chimpanzees and gorillas likely evolved this form of locomotion independently as other recent research has suggested.
But the bones also paint an unexpected picture of an early hominid: Despite its bipedalism, Ardipithecus was more primitive than chimpanzees in many ways negating the idea that the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans was chimpanzee-like, as some scientists have assumed. For example, Ardipithecus ramidus was not an arboreal acrobat like chimpanzees and gorillas, the researchers say. Chimpanzees and gorillas rely on their long, strong arms and hands, their curved fingers and their grasping feet to climb trees, swing through the canopy and hang from branches while feeding. But Ardipithecus lacked those features: Instead, it walked on all fours on top of the tree branches, similar to how monkeys move through the trees
As for the environment, theres no doubt that [Ardipithecus] was adapted for an arboreal lifestyle, Ward says. But where Lovejoy, White and their colleagues see primitive, monkey-like climbing, Richmond still sees typical chimpanzee- and gorilla-like features. The hands and feet look like an ape, he says. They would have been capable of climbing the way chimps and gorillas climb.
Still, with all of this new evidence, the idea that we came from a chimp-like ancestor is highly unlikely, Ward says. And therefore, given a different starting point, researchers will need to reframe many of the questions about how and why hominids started down the human path.
But this is hardly the end of the discussion and many more scientists are likely to weigh in on the fossils. Its an almost unprecedented collection of fossils, Ward says. Theres a tremendous amount of information in [them] and decades of questions to be addressed.
