Creationist webpage: "ape-ancestry myth"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 03:41 PM
RE: Creationist webpage: "ape-ancestry myth"
This hits on the main problem with lack of scientific literacy. People (mainly my family) ask me all the time, when I argue with them about it, "why does it matter to you so much if we came from monkeys?" (or some similarly-degrading phrasing).

Not knowing what the actual facts are lets all that kind of Woo, from Blood-God Clay-Men in a Garden right down to the Gleep and Glorp type Woo of "astral beings" and such.

If you're gonna buy into that kind of Woo, just put a pistol in your ear hole; it's a less-effective but much faster way to get rid of those useless brains, and at least that way we won't have to listen to you trying to infect others with the Woo.

Tongue

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-08-2015, 03:44 PM
RE: Creationist webpage: "ape-ancestry myth"
(Dr) Jerry Coyne, (U of Chicago)'s YouTube is pretty good, as are his books.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-08-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: Creationist webpage: "ape-ancestry myth"
Carl Zimmer's Evolution is a great primer that covers a lot of ground without too much technicality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 06:35 PM
RE: Creationist webpage: "ape-ancestry myth"
MAN, that video took a long time to watch. But it was worth it.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 06:46 AM
RE: Creationist webpage: "ape-ancestry myth"
Everyone, sorry for the delay in responding back about my thoughts on those creationist webpages. Here are some of my thoughts per my growing understanding and the handful of books I've read. I'm not able to check all the references the guy mentioned and I skimmed most of the webpages, but I am working with Donald Prothero's book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" and Jerry Coyne's book on evolution, as well as a few things I remember from various youtube videos (for what those are worth).

Quote: However, the loud publicity and slick propaganda for the ape-ancestry theory cannot alter the fact that the evidence is scanty and contradictory and open to other interpretations.
Sorry, dimwit, the fossil evidence is not scanty.
Prothero: "The hominid fossil record is now becoming very complete, contrary to creationist falsehoods." "The hominid fossil record has increased enormously over the past several decades."

"Contradictory"? This is a loaded word and incorrect. "Open to interpretation"? Yes.
Prothero: "Although the human fossil record is now quite impressive and includes thousands of specimens, there are thousands of physical anthropologists who must 'publish or perish,' and who need to make a career somehow. ... Consequently, every idea and every specimen in hominid paleontology is challenged and restudied and reinterpreted many times, and any creationist who wants to quote-mine can find some person (no matter how unqualified they might be) to say something that out of context seems to deny the validity of a given fossil."


Quote: Anthropologist Richard Leakey has said that ‘If someone went to the trouble of collecting together in one room all the fossil remains so far discovered of our ancestors (and their biological relatives) who lived, say, between five and one million years ago, he would need only a couple of large trestle tables on which to spread them out.’1 Most hominid fossils are fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls but, as palaeontologist Stephen J. Gould once said, ‘they serve as a basis for endless speculation and elaborate storytelling’.2

This is terribly outdated information. I don't know the source, but in one of AronRa's videos, he debunks this claim and says instead of all the hominid fossils only fitting on a pool table (like some creationist claimed), they would fill a whole pool!

"Fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls"?
Prothero: "Decades of hard work in the field by hundreds of scientists has turned up thousands of hominid fossils, including a few good skeletons and many good skulls that show clearly how humans have evolved over 7 million years"

Quote: Beliefs, expectations and prejudices inevitably play a role in the interpretation of fossils, as do personal rivalries and the desire for fame. More than one palaeoanthropologist has become famous overnight by announcing sensational and extravagant claims after finding some fragmentary remains of a creature he or she believes to be related to human origins. But such claims have a habit of being undermined or invalidated by further research and discoveries. The details of our supposed descent from the apes remain obscure and are the subject of heated debate among evolutionists.

And every sensational claim has been investigated by science and science has either verified it or proven it a hoax, not creationists. Big deal that this kind of stuff happens...that's just the nature of an exciting field. And what a bogus lie that our descent from apes "remains obscure" and is still a "subject of heated debate"...not at all! We've very much clarified these issues, though the exact details of how it all happened are up for debate.


Moving on. Then, in my mind, it seemed that most of the rest of this webpage was going back and forth about various disagreements about various fossils from within the scientific community. This proves nothing of the author's point.

Quote: The neo-Darwinian theory that one species gradually evolves into another species through the slow accumulation of minute changes over extremely long periods of time is contradicted by the fossil record, including the hominid fossil record.1

Bullshit. Completely unproved assertion citing himself as a reference. Any rational person who examines all the fossil evidence can see the transitionary forms over time, which I'll leave it up to Prothero and Coyne to describe and provide diagrams and all...good stuff.

I'm not able to debunk some of the rest of the crap in his final section, but I'm not inclined to think some quote-mined thing from geneticist Haldane in the 1950's carries much weight in 2015. Just my first thought.

Quote: Furthermore, contrary to the impression Darwinists like to give, genes do not carry the ‘blueprint’ for the construction of an organism; they merely code for the production of proteins.
Hmm, I don't know anything about genetics to address this quote and the section on genetics.

Quote: 3. Suppressed evidence of human antiquity & 4. Giants and Wildmen
Quote: A surprising number of giant human skeletons have reportedly been discovered, some of them reaching heights of 4.6 m (15 ft) or more. In many cases, the present whereabouts of the remains is unknown, and many details about the skeletons and the circumstances of their discovery are lacking, including indications as to their possible age. But to dismiss every such find out of hand as a delusion or hoax would seem to owe more to rank prejudice than to healthy scepticism.
Sorry, dude, but this is entirely unskeptical and unscientific. If there is no evidence to review, you can't prove anything. Show the evidence, and scientists will take a look. In fact, I'd argue the opposite that if no evidence has ever been presented and reviewed...this demonstrates all these claims ARE INDEED hoaxes. There's no evidence for giants and it's physiologically impossible.



I didn't see anything worth commenting on for Part 3 of this guy's webpage...there was a lot of woo on there. (*rolling my eyes*) Since this woo is untestable, it's not evidence or an alternate scientific theory of the origin of man, so the entire webpage is an abysmal failure at proving an alternate theory. And not only that, he miserably fails to deal with the detailed analysis of paleontologists and biologists of the evidence that has been obtained, instead spending his time just talking about inside-the-scientific-community discussions. He makes a bunch of outright falsehoods and also uses a lot of outdated information, as is typical of creationists. He fails to adequately explain things like why humans share traits and characteristics with other primates like forward-facing eyes, fingernails, color vision and opposable thumbs...or how humans and some other primates are not able to synthesize our own vitamin C. He also fails to explain why some humans are born with a fully-developed vestigial tail. Or (working from memory here) to explain why monkeys and humans show, in their genes, that they both were affected by diseases that show up in the same place of the genome (sorry, can't remember where I read this in Coyne). When it all comes down to it, simply reading about all the human fossil evidence is very convincing of our common descent with chimps, and that we are clearly primates.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Learner's post
19-08-2015, 08:42 AM
RE: Creationist webpage: "ape-ancestry myth"
[Image: laetoli.jpg]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...is-fossil/

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
19-08-2015, 09:06 AM
RE: Creationist webpage: "ape-ancestry myth"
(19-08-2015 06:46 AM)Learner Wrote:  
Quote: Anthropologist Richard Leakey has said that ‘If someone went to the trouble of collecting together in one room all the fossil remains so far discovered of our ancestors (and their biological relatives) who lived, say, between five and one million years ago, he would need only a couple of large trestle tables on which to spread them out.’1 Most hominid fossils are fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls but, as palaeontologist Stephen J. Gould once said, ‘they serve as a basis for endless speculation and elaborate storytelling’.2

This is terribly outdated information. I don't know the source, but in one of AronRa's videos, he debunks this claim and says instead of all the hominid fossils only fitting on a pool table (like some creationist claimed), they would fill a whole pool!

As AronRa pointed out, we have quite a bit more than when Dr. Leakey first said that; his family are still out finding amazing new stuff.

I know they're talking specifically about human evolution, but I have a friend who was an undergrad with me (graduated together), who went on to become a paleontologist (PhD from Univ. of Colorado-Boulder), and he tells me while he's in grad school that they have the opposite problem, in terms of transitional fossils: there are SO MANY fossils found that they're literally sitting around in boxes, collecting dust in university basements, because there aren't enough skilled paleontologists to evaluate them all. "Discoveries" are being made all the time which were actually dug up 20-30 years ago.

Ten years later, Mr. Netting appointed her to that post at the museum, which houses the fourth largest collection of fossil vertebrates in the world. The museum's basement famously houses crates and crates of dinosaur bones in plaster, dating from Andrew Carnegie's era, that have yet to be unpacked -- although one recent foray yielded the first known hind feet of the stegosaurus.

http://www.post-gazette.com/life/lifesty...1103130316

Obviously, potentially-human remains get more-immediate attention, due to the public interest in that sort of finding and the everpresent need for more funding, so it's less likely we've missed something in that field, sitting in a crate. But I'm talking about our understanding of evolution's history, overall. There are so many species found, even among human ancestors, that it's a matter of TOO MANY candidates. Rather than the "missing links" being actually missing, we're running into a problem of trying to figure out which left-or-right turns humanity made on the various branches of our history, in order to narrow down to the candidate that is our actual ancestor. One example is a pair of Leakey family finds in the 3.5 million years ago range: Australopithecus afarensis versus Kenyanthropus platyops.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
19-08-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: Creationist webpage: "ape-ancestry myth"



Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
19-08-2015, 01:30 PM
RE: Creationist webpage: "ape-ancestry myth"
When someone like this guy puts so much crap into one place, it would take more time to go through line by line and point out the stupidity than to actually just go and learn about evolution from an actual scientist.

That is the big issue with groups like AiG too. One could spend 10x the amount of effort they do in refuting all their bullshit, but why? Creationists don't care to read the critiques and there are far better ways to educate the interested.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
19-08-2015, 02:00 PM
RE: Creationist webpage: "ape-ancestry myth"
(19-08-2015 01:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  When someone like this guy puts so much crap into one place, it would take more time to go through line by line and point out the stupidity than to actually just go and learn about evolution from an actual scientist.

That is the big issue with groups like AiG too. One could spend 10x the amount of effort they do in refuting all their bullshit, but why? Creationists don't care to read the critiques and there are far better ways to educate the interested.

Hahaha, great point! Laugh out load

I agree with you. Personally, although I've read and done a fair amount of study already about evolution over the past year and a half (coming from a young-earth creationist background when I was a Christian), I'm not only continuing to grow in my understanding, but I think my approach is maturing a bit at a time. When I was a Y.E.C. and fundamentalist, there was skepticism toward anything that science said...because it's "just the word of man when we have the word of God." As an atheist with a budding interest in the natural sciences, my respect for the scientific community only continues to grow. So just at face value, some random guy's webpage is just the amount of blabbing and stupidity he can put out on his own, even if he's read a few things. The scientific community, on the other hand, deals with rigorously testing, falsifiability, peer review, no religious agendas, and when there's an agreement between various scientific disciplines, you know that something is scientifically solid (like man's descent from apes). When I first became an atheist, I think I needed time of looking up what creationists said about all the evolution stuff I was reading so I could then go look up the evolution rebuttals to the creationist rebuttals. But since I'm learning more and more to see through the bullshit, I have less interest at all in reading what creationists say just because it's wasted time and effort trying to understand wrong stupidity. I'd rather spend time just reading more evolution books and resources. And I don't think it's a case of "confirmation bias" to ignore any creationist webpages/articles/resources, but simply a firm admission that: (1) I'm an atheist, not a creationist who believe in God, (2) I know that the article was written by some person most likely not educated in the field they're writing an article about, and most likely working off of old resources and quote-mining and just plain making stuff up.

Thanks for your input.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Learner's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: