| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JaBrIoL" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2003 11:09:15 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Lord Greystoke's family tree. |
The "family tree" often drawn of man's claimed evolution from lower
animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a
more recent fossil discovery "leaves in ruins the notion that all
early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary
change." And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared:
"Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of
man, every drawing of man's family tree will have to be junked. They
are apparently wrong."
The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the
castoffs of previously accepted "links." An editorial in The New York
Times observed that evolutionary science "includes so much room for
conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about
their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often
seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the
center line that leads to man and everyone else's skulls on side lines
leading nowhere."
In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by
evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine
observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree.
Why? After noting that "the links that make up the ancestry of the
human species can only be guessed at," this publication stated:
"Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in
vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, 'one could
confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story
of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the
opposite has occurred.'"
Discover concluded: "The human species, and all species, will remain
orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past."
Perhaps "lost" from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not
the Genesis alternative "found" our parents as they actually are in
the fossil record-fully human, just as we are?
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.
.
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Lord Greystoke's family tree. |
27 Oct 2003 11:40:10 AM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310270909.23f0584d@posting.google.com...
The "family tree" often drawn of man's claimed evolution from lower
animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a
more recent fossil discovery "leaves in ruins the notion that all
early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary
change." And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared:
"Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of
man, every drawing of man's family tree will have to be junked. They
are apparently wrong."
Note the point about "orderly sequence." Popular works (and some scholars)
like to arrange fossils on an "evolutionary ladder" from primitive to modern
species; one sees this in popular depictions of the horse series and in the
"march of progress" depiction of human evolution. Yet no one from Darwin on
supposed that evolution normally works like this; it is a *branching*
process. Any modern species is simply one twig on a many-branched family
tree; its ancestry would have sent off many side branches, many of which
became dead ends. Most human fossils would be evolutionary "uncles" or
"cousins," not direct ancestors (and we can't be sure the direct ancestors
have been found for most of the period). The Neanderthals, for example,
were not our ancestors, but a different species of human with a common
ancestor (perhaps _Homo antecessor_) sharing (for a time) the planet with
us. Likewise, Asian _Homo erectus_ seems not to have been an actual
ancestor; the probable actual ancestor of modern humans was _H. ergaster_
(sometimes called African _H. erectus_). There are entire groups of
species, like the paranthropines (robust australopiths) which are more
closely related to humans than are chimps, but not ancestral to us.
A few years ago there was a big brouhaha in the press over evidence that
some of Sally Hemmings's (Thomas Jefferson's slave and possible concubine)
descendants shared distinctive Y chromosome DNA sequences with known
descendants of the Jefferson family. This was held as evidence that
Jefferson *did* father at least one child on the woman he owned. Then there
were counter-arguments: Jefferson's nephews, after all, would have virtually
identical Y-chromosomes, so all we can be sure of is that Jefferson or one
of his male-line male relatives fathered at least some of Hemmings's
children. That is, we can use genetic testing to establish that Jefferson
was related to Hemmings's descendants, but not the exact nature of the
relationship. We can't say whether any particular fossil was a direct
ancestor, or merely an evolutionary cousin to the direct ancestor, but this
does not mean that we are not related to them (any more than being unable to
say whether Jefferson is the direct ancestor or great-to-the-n-granduncle of
the modern Hemmings' means he is not related to them at all).
The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the
castoffs of previously accepted "links." An editorial in The New York
Times observed that evolutionary science "includes so much room for
conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about
their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often
seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the
center line that leads to man and everyone else's skulls on side lines
leading nowhere."
Again, the point is not that there is reason to doubt that these skulls are
from species closely related to our own, but simply that the exact
relationship cannot be determined.
In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by
evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine
observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree.
Why? After noting that "the links that make up the ancestry of the
human species can only be guessed at," this publication stated:
"Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in
vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, 'one could
confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story
of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the
opposite has occurred.'"
It would be interesting to see what was originally in that ellipsis. Of
course, as noted above, there is no test that will tell if a given fossil
was from an individual with any descendants at all, or if its species was
directly ancestral to us or merely a close relative. Even DNA evidence will
not settle the issue, since related individuals and even related species
have very similar DNA, as they have very similar bones. The point is that
degree of relationship can be settled, but the exact nature of that
relationship cannot, by comparisons of genes and morphology. This is simply
a limit on the sort of knowledge we can get. Just as, if I found a document
on the web or in the library that had the exact text of this post, I could
settle that you'd copied it -- but not that you'd copied it from that
particular website or article rather than from some other with the same
original source -- so one can establish common ancestry more easily than
establishing who that ancestor actually was.
Discover concluded: "The human species, and all species, will remain
orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past."
Perhaps "lost" from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not
the Genesis alternative "found" our parents as they actually are in
the fossil record-fully human, just as we are?
No. There are, in fact, many fossils that seem neither unambiguously
nonhuman nor quite fully human. Fossils like _H. ergaster_ or _H.
heidelbergensis_ straddle any line one might wish to draw between
"fully-formed humans" and "fully-formed apes," and anti-evolutionists argue
among themselves over which "kind" they "clearly" belong to.
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.
No, this is a totally wrong reading of both the articles cited and the
actual skeletal and genetic evidence.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Lord Greystoke's family tree. |
27 Oct 2003 12:11:54 PM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310270909.23f0584d@posting.google.com...
The "family tree" often drawn of man's claimed evolution from lower
animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a
more recent fossil discovery "leaves in ruins the notion that all
early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary
change." And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared:
"Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of
man, every drawing of man's family tree will have to be junked. They
are apparently wrong."
<snip>
A friend used to believe that he was descended from a Native American
Princess. Turns out not to be exactly true. Accordingly, having disproved
that he was descended from a Native American Princess, I can now say
conclusively that he don't have any ancestors.
Isn't science wonderful?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Lord Greystoke's family tree. |
16 Nov 2003 09:52:47 PM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0310270909.23f0584d@posting.google.com>
Senor Santana never does give competent references because he has
none. He is riding a saddle under which there is no horse. Plus he
knows that when he does give a reference, he will be unavoidably
pilloried by it since the references he does give never do back up
what he claims they do. Such is the case, once again, here.
My guess is that he got his "Leakey comment" (and leaky it is) from
somewhere like this:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/apeimage.htm
but it supposedly originates in the June, 1973 National Geographic (p.
819). That's convenient for Antonio since the online Nat. Geog.
archives only go back 7 years, so once again he is saved from anyone
who doesn't have the entire collection of Nat. Geog. magazines
actually looking up the information.
However, here is the truth. He quotes the age of the skull from the
initial assessment: "Potassium argon dating of volcanic tuft in the
layer surrounding Skull 1470 gave an age of approximately 2.8 million
years."
You can tell he is mindlessly quoting this from another Clueless
Creationist(TM) web site since they use the word "tuft" (meaning a
clump of plants) instead of the actual word, "Tuff" (meaning rock made
from compacted volcanic ash that can vary from fine sand to coarse
gravel in size).
First of all, this tuff (the KBS Tuff) was not "surrounding" the
skull, but overlying it, and was dated at 2.6 million years old.
However, the sample they used was contaminated by older material and
so artificially inflated the date. When a clean sample was dated, it
was found to be only 1.8 million years old, therefore the KNM-ER 1470
skull was only a bit older than that, and so fitted comfortably with
other H. habilis specimen ages.
However, there was another issue, which was that the skull did not
appear to be a typical H. habilis. It had things in common with some
other contemporaneous skulls however, and so a separate species, H.
Rudolfensis, was created to accommodate these skulls.
These two issues, the bad date and the unusual skull (for habilis)
were what caused leakey to be unsure of what he had. Now both of
these issues have been resolved. Of course, Senor Santana would never
tell you this even if he knew it because he is a patholigcal liar and
his information is, as usual, plagiarised and so far out of date as to
be meaningless.
Since the online _Discover_ magazine archives go back only to 1992,
Antonio is again safe quoting something which appeared in a January
1983 magazine since it is difficult for most people to easily look up.
However, in this case, as in the previous case, Senor ***** is
again using ancient and out of context quotes to unsuccessfully try
and hit up a moving target.
Note that he does not quote from the actual book (The Myths of Human
Evolution by Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall (New York, Columbia
University Press, 1982)) since both these guys are staunch
evolutionists. All he can do is quote a quote of a book review! How
pathetic is that?
The fact is that _The Myths of Human Evolution_ discusses human
evolution in the same light as Eldredge's earlier work on punctuated
equilibria. Human evolution is no different - there were long periods
of stasis punctuated by relatively rapid evolutionary change. But the
fact that there are species slowly (in geological time) changing from
apelike to humanlike over several million years is not a gap in the
fossil record. On the contrary - it is established by the fossil
record.
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.
This is a lie, plain and simple, and reams of published evidence in
peer-reviewed journals highlights it for the falsehood that it is. I
have repeatedly asked Antonio Santana to publish references to
peer-reviewed papers in standard science journals that either refute
the Theory of Evolution or establish a theory which better explains
the evidence. He cannot cite a single such reference and by his
inability he is admitting that the Theory of Evolution is the best
theory to account for available scientific evidence. QED.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl Krupa" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Lord Greystoke's family tree. |
03 Nov 2003 02:11:04 AM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0310270909.23f0584d@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
The links really have never been there.
Well, here's a fine one, though it only goes back to about 260 AD:
http://www.pjfarmer.com/chronicles/grebson.htm
A longer discussion, including a picture of the Greystoke coat of arms:
http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/Farmer_articles.htm
Really, Jabbers, these links have been avaiable for years.
You should be careful about making such a sweeping statement.
You could start with "Time's Last Gift", about a Greystoke
living at about 12,000 BC:
http://www.pjfarmer.com/secret/Immortal/befuddled1b.htm
Apurk Lyrad
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Lord Greystoke's family tree. |
02 Nov 2003 03:12:17 AM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0310270909.23f0584d@posting.google.com>...
The "family tree" often drawn of man's claimed evolution from lower
animals changes constantly...
< SNIP >
...the fossil record-fully human, just as we are?
Still harking on this old tosh, Jabriol?
You really are wasting your time.
The fact that man evolved from apelike ancestors is simply not
controversial among those who actually study the evidence; even though
they may argue over the details. This is healthy science at work.
It has always been clear that the 'family tree' has been open to
revision, because it is reconstructed from the available sources. When
new evidence is discovered then it's natural that the picture should
be revised.
There's no shock value in any of this.
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.
There is a huge problem with this assertion Jabriol, it's called DNA
and it shows definite relationships between contemporary species; most
famously between us and chimpanzees, though the evidence goes much
further.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Lord Greystoke's family tree. |
02 Nov 2003 05:23:47 PM |
|
|
(Ian Braidwood) wrote in message news:<53ad390d.0311020112.6e2e6f1e@posting.google.com>...
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.
There is a huge problem with this assertion Jabriol, it's called DNA
and it shows definite relationships between contemporary species; most
famously between us and chimpanzees, though the evidence goes much
further.
(-: Ian :-)
Dna evidence also shows that a banana has more than 50% match with
humans.. does this make us a fruit?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Lord Greystoke's family tree. |
02 Nov 2003 08:44:46 PM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311021523.2e758a86@posting.google.com...
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) wrote in message
news:<53ad390d.0311020112.6e2e6f1e@posting.google.com>...
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.
There is a huge problem with this assertion Jabriol, it's called DNA
and it shows definite relationships between contemporary species; most
famously between us and chimpanzees, though the evidence goes much
further.
(-: Ian :-)
Dna evidence also shows that a banana has more than 50% match with
humans.. does this make us a fruit?
Just eukaryotes. Humans and chimps are two species of African apes, humans
and mice are two species of placental mammals, and humans and bananas are
two species of eukaryotes.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Lord Greystoke's family tree. |
16 Nov 2003 10:03:41 PM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0311021523.2e758a86@posting.google.com>...
Dna evidence also shows that a banana has more than 50% match with
humans.. does this make us a fruit?
Oh, now it's "more than" 50%? You started this claim as 90%, then
dropped it to 75%, then to 60%, then to 50%, and now it's >50%?
I have repeatedly asked you for an intelligent and useful reference
for this lie you keep repeating and you have consistently failed to
provide one. How many times do you wish to be embarrassed by having
your shortcomings exposed on the Internet?
The reference you did give: "Robert May is a UK Chief Scientist. In
New Scientist magazine (July 1, 2000) on page 5 he stated, "We share
half our genes with the banana." was actually a throw-away comment,
not a scientific demonstration of the statement (you *can* tell the
difference, presumably?), and even then it was a lie!
Unfortunately, for you, I was able to actually look this one up. I
searched the _New Scientist_ archives for the month of July 2000 for
both "banana" and for "Robert May" and both searches came up blank.
The same thing happened when you quoted us as sharing 75% of our genes
with the banana. The reference you gave for that actually said that
we *may* share *up to* 30% of our genes. In other words, on the only
occasions you have ever given a reference for your bananas comment,
you have proven yourself to be a liar.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Lord Greystoke's family tree. |
07 Nov 2003 06:55:24 AM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0311021523.2e758a86@posting.google.com>...
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) wrote in message news:<53ad390d.0311020112.6e2e6f1e@posting.google.com>...
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.
There is a huge problem with this assertion Jabriol, it's called DNA
and it shows definite relationships between contemporary species; most
famously between us and chimpanzees, though the evidence goes much
further.
(-: Ian :-)
Dna evidence also shows that a banana has more than 50% match with
humans.. does this make us a fruit?
I'm happy to agree with Steven J's reply: it makes us all eukaryotes.
But I have another question, which is: Do you really think sarcasm
like yours really achieves anything worthwhile for your cause?
Do you really see yourself as a Christian soldier doing the dirty on
the heathen? If so, where is that much vaunted goodness of yours? I
can't see any.
Where is generosity, truthfullness and respect, to name just three
virtues you obviously lack.
Perhaps you'd have more success if you lived up to your ideals, rather
than exploiting them as an excuse to indulge yourself.
Perhaps if you ever had anything positive to say, people might start
listening to you; but that would entail you doing some good, wouldn't
it? And you wouldn't know where to begin.
You can't avoid being a little ape Jabriol, but the way you behave can
stop you being a grotty one.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Say not the Struggle nought Availeth" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Lord Greystoke's family tree. |
01 Nov 2003 02:08:47 PM |
|
|
It would be easier to evaluate your statements if you would only include
some references, including dates, for your citations.
When was the book "Myths of Human Evolution" written?
the Date of newspaper report on Richard Leakey?
The date of the editorial of the NY times?
So on and so forth.
JaBrIoL wrote:
The "family tree" often drawn of man's claimed evolution from lower
animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a
more recent fossil discovery "leaves in ruins the notion that all
early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary
change." And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared:
"Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of
man, every drawing of man's family tree will have to be junked. They
are apparently wrong."
The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the
castoffs of previously accepted "links." An editorial in The New York
Times observed that evolutionary science "includes so much room for
conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about
their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often
seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the
center line that leads to man and everyone else's skulls on side lines
leading nowhere."
In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by
evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine
observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree.
Why? After noting that "the links that make up the ancestry of the
human species can only be guessed at," this publication stated:
"Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in
vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, 'one could
confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story
of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the
opposite has occurred.'"
Discover concluded: "The human species, and all species, will remain
orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past."
Perhaps "lost" from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not
the Genesis alternative "found" our parents as they actually are in
the fossil record-fully human, just as we are?
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
