Creationists Take Another Called Strike - and run to dugout

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 901 - 920 of total 4794 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Jaybro

Social climber

Wolf City, Wyoming

Oct 18, 2009 - 05:49pm PT

I have undergraduate degrees in Science (Geology/Paleontology) and often use the scientific method, always for critical things, am I a scientist? I kinda don't think so....

Ed is a bonfide scientist, as I look at it.

Vedauwoo legend Doug Cairns said it took a Phd to call yourself a scientist, he was a mechanical engineer, and I implied once in a conversation that it needed to be in pure, not applied science. He didn't argue.

My ex wife is an MD. Her field, like that of engineers, depends heavily on science. She once said," I realized at some point that I am not a scientist".

In both cases, I think they would be scientists if, with their own backgrounds, they turned to research.

Someone Ed, I, and other people here know and climb with, has a phd in biology. She is one of the smartest people I've ever met. She used to work in research and now teaches. I would say she was a scientist before, but isn't currently.

Another one of the other smartest people I know is about a credit short of a Phd in M.E. He is currently a Carpenter in Laramie. He uses both the Scientific and the related, Socratic, method, many times, every day. Because, to quote Odub, "that's who he is." Perhaps more than anyone I've ever met.

What really makes a scientist?

Gobee

Trad climber

Los Angeles

Oct 18, 2009 - 07:21pm PT

Did Humans Evolve from 'Ardi'?
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Ardipithecus ramidus is an extinct primate whose fossilized remains were first found along the Awash River in Ethiopia about 15 years ago. Many fragments were collected, including shattered bones from a four-foot-tall female nicknamed “Ardi.” She was chosen to represent her kind, apparently because of the comparative completeness of her remains. Now Ardi’s discoverers believe they have collected enough data to reconstruct her history—but what does their data actually reveal?

Ardi was splashed onto the scientific scene with eleven technical articles in a special issue of Science, accompanied by depictions of the reconstructions of her bones. The reconstructions are based on CT scans of fossils, interpretative speculation in areas where there were no bones available, and more interpretation on how all the pieces fit together.

According to the researchers who found her, Ardi spent time as a human ancestor, based on their assumption that humans either evolved from her or some creature quite like her. “The Ar. ramidus fossils therefore provide novel insights into the anatomical structure of our elusive common ancestors with the African apes,” stated one of the Science papers, concluding that “Ar. ramidus implies that African apes are adaptive cul-de-sacs rather than stages in human emergence.”1 Another paper viewed Ardi as the source of a new model of hominid evolution:

Referential models based on extant African apes have dominated reconstructions of early human evolution since Darwin’s time…. Ardipithecus essentially falsifies such models, because extant apes are highly derived relative to our last common ancestors.2

Yet none of these statements carry meaning without the presupposition of evolution in general, and unless Ardipithecus is presumed to be an ancestor to man.

To place Ardi into human ancestry, as these authors insisted, creates more problems than it solves. For example, Ardipithecus' body structure shows no objective or undisputable transition toward uniquely human features. The authors themselves listed some of these differences: Humans have unique and interdependent sexual organs and reproductive biochemistry, unique feet, ankles and musculature, unique hip structure, unique teeth and crania, totally unique cognitive abilities, a distinct “gut structure,” upright walking, unique vocal apparatus, a “precipitous reduction of olfactory receptors,” mammary glands that retain a stable size, unadvertised female proceptivity, and an “unusually energy-thirsty brain.”3

Speculation and evolutionary guesswork, not scientific observations, are offered to bridge these gaps. Consistent with this is the broad use of speculative verbiage on the part of the authors. In the eleven papers in Science, the word “probably” appeared about 78 times, and “suggest,” “suggesting,” “suggestive,” or “suggests” were used 117 times, among other terms that are associated with an unsubstantiated story rather than a scientific description.

If Ardi is presumed to be a human ancestor, then the century-long concept that has been taught as virtual fact—that humans evolved from a chimpanzee-like creature (based most recently on the strength of a supposed 99 percent agreement between their genome sequences)—must be discarded! This is because of Ardi’s unique features, which she does not share with African apes (or humans). In other words, arbitrarily placing Ardi at the foot of humanity’s evolutionary tree means that she negates the long-held concept of an African ape-like heritage. The chimpanzee, then, would have to have evolved on its own separate path.

Ardi’s foot structure presents another problem for her assigned role in human ancestry. A lone Ardipithecus foot bone was described in 2001, and “it also shows a mosaic morphology that has features of both apes and A. afarensis [a.k.a. Lucy].”4 The other bones of her feet present no exception to the concept that Ardi possessed a mosaic of features, characteristics shared with other creatures and yet integrated into a uniquely created primate. She had hands for feet, and the long, curved bones of her fingers and toes clearly show that Ardi was adept at living in trees.

The Ardipithecus foot has its big toe “thumb” projecting strikingly sideways, which is hardly human-like. Nor are its other foot bones like those of chimps and gorillas, which have specially flexible feet that enable them to climb vertical tree trunks. Ardi’s feet are like those of some of today’s monkeys, which have a stable platform from which to leap, along with a fully developed grasping structure. Though the authors insisted that this stable platform was adequate for walking, other experts already disagree with this assessment.5

Ardipithecus-as-ancestor promoters stated, “The foot of Ar. ramidus shows that none of these ape-like changes were present in the last common ancestor of African apes and humans.”6 However, Ar. ramidus only “shows” what was present in pre-human “hominids” if Ar. ramidus is presumed, a priori, to be an evolutionary antecedent of apes and humans. It looks instead like an extinct but unique animal, which the authors themselves hinted at when they stated that “the Ardipithecus foot was an odd mosaic.”6

Bipedality expert C. Owen Lovejoy wrote, “We can no longer rely on homologies with African apes for accounts of our origins and must turn instead to general evolutionary theory.”2 Thus, setting aside evolution-inspired ideology, there is no scientific reason—or observed evidence—to believe that Ardi was an ancestor of mankind. In fact, there is every reason to believe it is solely an extinct primate, as uniquely created as any monkey still alive today.

References

Lovejoy, C. O. et al. 2009. The Great Divides: Ardipithecus ramidus Reveals the Postcrania of Our Last Common Ancestors with African Apes. Science. 326 (5949): 100, 104.
Lovejoy, C. O. 2009. Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus. Science. 326 (5949): 74e1.
Ibid, 74e7.
Harcourt-Smith, W. E. H., and Aiello, L. C. 2004. Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion. Journal of Anatomy. 204: 404.
For instance, paleoanthropologist William Jungers, cited in Keim, B. Humanity Has New 4.4 Million-Year-Old Baby Mama. Wired Science. Posted on wired.com October 1, 2009, accessed October 1, 2009.
Lovejoy, C. O. et al. 2009. Combining Prehension and Propulsion: The Foot of Ardipithecus ramidus. Science. 326 (5949): 72.

http://www.icr.org/

Lynne Leichtfuss

Trad climber

Will know soon

Oct 18, 2009 - 07:22pm PT

What an interesting Thread. Thanks Norton ! You began with a shattered skeleton and now we are discussing the definition of a scientist and who qualifies for the title of scientist.

How we have "evolved" .....way back and today. :D

According to the definition of science in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary I could be a scientist. Probably not so with the strict interpretation from Wikipedia.

What is in a name after all? It is the spirit of search and discovery inside one and how hotly they pursue their beloved topic that really defines scientist.....at least to lynnie. Sunday Smiles to All on ST.

Jaybro

Social climber

Wolf City, Wyoming

Oct 18, 2009 - 07:26pm PT

"What makes a man? Sir?" Asked (the big) Jeff Lebowski.

Lynne Leichtfuss

Trad climber

Will know soon

Oct 18, 2009 - 08:06pm PT

Jaybro, remembering I am not yet fully evolved......who is Jeff Lebowski ???!!!333

'Pass the Pitons' Pete

Big Wall climber

like Ontario, Canada, eh?

Oct 18, 2009 - 08:11pm PT

God is the same yesterday, today and forever. To him, a "day" is but millions of years.

cintune

climber

the Moon and Antarctica

Oct 18, 2009 - 08:11pm PT

"The chimpanzee, then, would have to have evolved on its own separate path."

Yes, that has already been proposed from other lines of evidence.

We don't have a clue as to just how diverse the hominid family tree really is. Lots to still be found and correlated on that count. Still does nothing to endorse a magical mystery pseudo-explanation, in any event,

Lynne Leichtfuss

Trad climber

Will know soon

Oct 18, 2009 - 08:13pm PT

Agree Pete, actually in one book it says "a day is but a thousand years"....but in general context I certainly agree. :D Peace, lynne

dirtbag

climber

Oct 18, 2009 - 08:19pm PT

"What makes a man? Sir?"

A penis?

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Oct 18, 2009 - 08:30pm PT

"what makes a man a man?"

I thought The Who answered that... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9FsgEKwVyE

'Pass the Pitons' Pete

Big Wall climber

like Ontario, Canada, eh?

Oct 18, 2009 - 09:56pm PT

Lynne,

I'm usually pretty good at finding the reference. But I'm stumped on this one. [HINT]

Jan

Mountain climber

Okinawa, Japan

Oct 18, 2009 - 10:03pm PT

Gobee-

Your article, "Did humans evolve from Ardi?" based on "creation research" http://www.icr.org/ is a masterpiece of selective and out of context quotations about the data and its interpretation through the use of scientific method. Much could be said, but here's a list of the specific errors I spotted.

Errors:

Ardipithecus' body structure shows no objective or undisputable transition toward uniquely human features.

The uniquely human characteristic that Ardi shows is upright walking dated at 4.4 million years. Brian Thomas mentions upright walking and then goes on to ignore it.

In the eleven papers in Science, the word “probably” appeared about 78 times, and “suggest,” “suggesting,” “suggestive,” or “suggests” were used 117 times, among other terms that are associated with an unsubstantiated story rather than a scientific description.

We are dealing with a 4.4 million year old fossil, not some dead cat that's just been dissected. Of course we don't know everything there is to know about Ardi yet and at least scientific method is honest enough to admit this.

If Ardi is presumed to be a human ancestor, then the century-long concept that has been taught as virtual fact—that humans evolved from a chimpanzee-like creature (based most recently on the strength of a supposed 99 percent agreement between their genome sequences)—must be discarded!

No scientific work on evolution has ever claimed that humans are descended from chimpanzees or even chimpanzee-like ancestors. We share a high similarity in our genes (98%) because we have a common ancestor. Modern chimps are different and more specialized than 4.4 million old chimps just as modern humans are more specialized for ground dwelling than was Ardi.

The Ardipithecus foot has its big toe “thumb” projecting strikingly sideways, which is hardly human-like. Nor are its other foot bones like those of chimps and gorillas, which have specially flexible feet that enable them to climb vertical tree trunks.

This simply proves that the common ancestor of both Ardi and the apes was both less human like and less apelike than the modern varieties of either. What is surprising is that it is possible to have an opposable thumb and walk upright as this has not been seen before.The fact that the modern human foot is more functional for permanent ground walking is a good illustration of the fact that in 4 million years, evolution of the foot has occured.

if Ar. ramidus is presumed, a priori, to be an evolutionary antecedent of apes and humans.

Nobody but Brian Thomas is assuming that A. ramidas was an evolutionary antecedent to apes. Both A. radius and apes had a common ancestor.

Bipedality expert C. Owen Lovejoy wrote, “We can no longer rely on homologies with African apes for accounts of our origins and must turn instead to general evolutionary theory.”

Lovejoy is merely emphasizing this point. From Darwin on, it has been a principle of evolution that older fossils are less specialized to specific environments than more modern ones.

The real mystery here is why someone goes to such lengths to misinterpret scientific findings to try to force them into a particular creation account which was never meant to be a scientific explanation in the first place? True research proceeds with an open mind, "creation research" is only interested in distorting the data to try to force it into a preconceived conclusion. Far from helping, this kind of biased reasoning only drives more and more people away from religion every year.

Lynne Leichtfuss

Trad climber

Will know soon

Oct 18, 2009 - 10:46pm PT

Pass the Pitons Pete, Thanks for asking.....

Ps. 90:4 "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."

and II Peter 3:8 "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day."

Lynne Leichtfuss

Trad climber

Will know soon

Oct 18, 2009 - 11:23pm PT

Locker, where do you get these pics ..... and how is your Mom doing ? I think of her often..... Really, ever since you mentioned her when we climbed in Josh. Peace, lynne

TripL7

Trad climber

'dago'

Oct 18, 2009 - 11:46pm PT

"He has also set eternity in the hearts of men;" Ecclesiastes 3:11. This refers to a deep seated, compulsive drive to transcend our mortality by knowing the meaning and destiny of the world. Because we are made in the image of God , we have an inborn inquisitivness about eternal realities. We can find peace only when we come to know our Creator. Since we were made for eternity, the things of time cannot fully and permanantly satisfy us.

Lynne Leichtfuss

Trad climber

Will know soon

Oct 19, 2009 - 12:09am PT

Locker's T-says it all. Right on Locker. Jesus message must be simple cause if it was not, if it were complex some people we love would be left out.

They are what our current society calls challenged. For many of us these friends and loved ones are beyond special. They are a sweet yet complex seasoning to life itself. Many don't understand their challenged status in our society or why God would allow them to be born with such difficulties to overcome. Well, I don't understand it all. But then none of us understand all the mysteries of life. Peace and Beauty, lrl

Lynne Leichtfuss

Trad climber

Will know soon

Oct 19, 2009 - 01:03am PT

This is a definite must lose....the pic. Please, I'll bake you brownies laced with whatever you want. I have grandkids under 11 that watch here......Help!!! LOL Never thought I could have too much buff. Yikes. :D

Edit: at least lose the glasses......