Discovery Channel Evolution Program
J McCoy
convince everyone of the truth of evolution - that is the transition
of apes into mankind. The show was replete with enthusiastic phrases
such as "ascent of man is underway!" This computerized piece of
fiction titled "Walking with Prehistoric Beasts," was featured on the
Discovery Channel. While the Discovery Channel provides quality
programs, I found this to be an exception to that norm. I don't know
how it slipped in, except maybe the computer generated animation of
walking Australopithecines convinced some of the staff that maybe the
big A had infact been an ancestor of mankind. Not so long ago on
talk.origins members were arguing that Australopithecus was not, in
fact, a direct transition of man. This came up in a thread in which I
stated an experience that I had:
I was in my high school class when a fellow student had said, "so, do
you think we came from apes?" And my teacher said, "no. We came from
a common unknown ancestor." To which, I looked down in my textbook
and saw the words "Australopithecus," which means SOUTHERN APE. This
happened a second time in a psychology course that I had at college.
So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
me that the foreman magnon of the skull in question proved that the
head was held aloft like a normal human. I wasn't entirely convince. I
couldn't get a good look at the skull and a comparison ape or monkey
skull wasn't presented along side and in a fashion that you could
compare it. Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite
the well known debate amongst paleontologists that counter the claim.
The views of creationists were excluded too, giving the impression of
pseudoscientific venture that wanted itself to be shielded from
questioning.
Of course the views I would present in this thread would be silenced
too.
It was hard for me to buy this garbage. I know that language sounds
rough, but hearing the narrator say, "increase of meat [consumption]
will increase brain size]. OK. Yes, that's why a dog has a small
head in comparison to humans.
The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
are. I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
out of some old Star Wars film. The awkward gait that was exhibited
by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
from ape to man. Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
head hunter poles.
Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
In pseudo science, where facts are missing scoundrels proliferate
the use of artwork, footnotes and charts. The style of writing is dry
and abstract. Lengthy fictional accounts are invented to assuage the
doubts and the knee wobblings. The pseudoscientist, perhaps is
suffering from the jitters of caffeine extreme, and need to stop
those jittering bouts of doubt. Perhaps someone sees the naked pseudo
scientist, the phoney computerized images, but there is left a mocking
skull of the big A laughing at the con men who pulled a fast one.
J McCoy
Geoff
news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> While the Discovery Channel provides quality
> programs
*snicker*
> I was in my high school class when a fellow student had said, "so, do
> you think we came from apes?" And my teacher said, "no. We came from
> a common unknown ancestor." To which, I looked down in my textbook
> and saw the words "Australopithecus," which means SOUTHERN APE. This
> happened a second time in a psychology course that I had at college.
And your point is...? We are apes. The most recent common ancestor between
us and
chimpanzees was an ape. Australopithecus may be considered an ape, but that
does
not mean it is necessarily our ancestor.
> So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
> me that the foreman magnon of the skull in question proved that the
> head was held aloft like a normal human. I wasn't entirely convince. I
> couldn't get a good look at the skull and a comparison ape or monkey
> skull wasn't presented along side and in a fashion that you could
> compare it. Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite
> the well known debate amongst paleontologists that counter the claim.
> The views of creationists were excluded too, giving the impression of
> pseudoscientific venture that wanted itself to be shielded from
> questioning.
Excluding creationism in no way hinders the efforts of science. In fact
creationism
is self-exclusionary. When a creationist wants to submit his junk for
review, bring
it on. Until then, forget the conspiracy theory. It makes you look kooky.
> Of course the views I would present in this thread would be silenced
> too.
You're right! I can't hear anything!
> It was hard for me to buy this garbage. I know that language sounds
> rough, but hearing the narrator say, "increase of meat [consumption]
> will increase brain size]. OK. Yes, that's why a dog has a small
> head in comparison to humans.
I am not familiar with this theory. I have heard that increased brain size
confer certain advantages and problem solving requirements of hunting.
> The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
> hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
> are. I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
> The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
> exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
> out of some old Star Wars film. The awkward gait that was exhibited
> by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
> the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
> from ape to man. Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> head hunter poles.
It's just TV, man, it's not real.
> Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
> Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
> human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
> doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
>
> In pseudo science, where facts are missing scoundrels proliferate
> the use of artwork, footnotes and charts. The style of writing is dry
> and abstract. Lengthy fictional accounts are invented to assuage the
> doubts and the knee wobblings. The pseudoscientist, perhaps is
> suffering from the jitters of caffeine extreme, and need to stop
> those jittering bouts of doubt. Perhaps someone sees the naked pseudo
> scientist, the phoney computerized images, but there is left a mocking
> skull of the big A laughing at the con men who pulled a fast one.
Well, of course, there are no fossils. No intermediaries. Godidit.
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> Just last night I saw a disingenous attempt by evolutionists to try to
> convince everyone of the truth of evolution - that is the transition
> of apes into mankind.
No, you saw a pop culture science program, that illustrated the evidence
through computer animation techniques.
> The show was replete with enthusiastic phrases
> such as "ascent of man is underway!" This computerized piece of
> fiction titled "Walking with Prehistoric Beasts," was featured on the
> Discovery Channel. While the Discovery Channel provides quality
> programs, I found this to be an exception to that norm.
I am not impressed by your opinion of science.
> I don't know
> how it slipped in, except maybe the computer generated animation of
> walking Australopithecines convinced some of the staff that maybe the
> big A had infact been an ancestor of mankind.
The evidence shows that the human line of ancestory most likely went through
Australopithecus.
> Not so long ago on
> talk.origins members were arguing that Australopithecus was not, in
> fact, a direct transition of man. This came up in a thread in which I
> stated an experience that I had:
>
> I was in my high school class when a fellow student had said, "so, do
> you think we came from apes?" And my teacher said, "no. We came from
> a common unknown ancestor." To which, I looked down in my textbook
> and saw the words "Australopithecus," which means SOUTHERN APE. This
> happened a second time in a psychology course that I had at college.
You seem to have a short memory. In that previous thread, it was pointed
out to you that no MODERN species of ape is a human ancestor. No one ever
claimed that the ancestor of modern humans wasn't what a uninformed layman
might call an "ape". In fact as many, including myself, has pointed out,
humans are STILL APES.
>
> So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
> me that the foreman magnon of the skull in question proved that the
> head was held aloft like a normal human. I wasn't entirely convince.
That's hardly a surprise. Since you won't allow yourself to view the
evidence with any objectivity, it's not likely you would be convinced.
>I
> couldn't get a good look at the skull and a comparison ape or monkey
> skull wasn't presented along side and in a fashion that you could
> compare it.
Why don't you go to many books, scientific publications, and web sites that
actually show the skulls?
Here, for example is a site with photos of all the most important fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
This site even lets you look at the fossils in 3D
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/#
>Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite
> the well known debate amongst paleontologists that counter the claim.
What "counter opinions" are those?
> The views of creationists were excluded too, giving the impression of
> pseudoscientific venture that wanted itself to be shielded from
> questioning.
It wasn't a "debate", it was a presentation of the information done with a
hollywood twist. The Creationists don't have a thing to offer to such a
presentation. They haven't presented any views worth considering.
>
> Of course the views I would present in this thread would be silenced
> too.
If by "silenced", you mean "not taken seriously", then yes, that's true.
You are not a scientist, and you haven't the slightest inkling, of a glimmer
of a clue on how evolution operates, and any opinions you offer are based
solely on your personal ignorance, and your personal denial of the truth.
>
> It was hard for me to buy this garbage. I know that language sounds
> rough, but hearing the narrator say, "increase of meat [consumption]
> will increase brain size]. OK. Yes, that's why a dog has a small
> head in comparison to humans.
Which only goes to show you haven't a clue about what was actually said.
>
> The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
> hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
> are.
No paleoentologist claims that Australopithicines were "hunched over
galloping apes". They are known by the fossils to have been bipedal apes.
> I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
Again, no surprise. You have no clue as to the real evidence.
> The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
> exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
> out of some old Star Wars film.
So, complain to the animators.
> The awkward gait that was exhibited
> by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
> the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
> from ape to man.
No one claims that Austrailopithicines had an "imperfect" gait.
> Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> head hunter poles.
Again, complain to the animators if you didn't like it. Don't falsely
assume that it was done to decieve anyone.
>
> Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
> Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
> human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
> doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported this
lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your claim, or
be once again shown to be a liar.
>
> In pseudo science, where facts are missing scoundrels proliferate
> the use of artwork, footnotes and charts.
In psueudoscience, people make unfounded, irresponsible charges, which they
refuse to back up.
> The style of writing is dry
> and abstract. Lengthy fictional accounts are invented to assuage the
> doubts and the knee wobblings. The pseudoscientist, perhaps is
> suffering from the jitters of caffeine extreme, and need to stop
> those jittering bouts of doubt. Perhaps someone sees the naked pseudo
> scientist, the phoney computerized images, but there is left a mocking
> skull of the big A laughing at the con men who pulled a fast one.
Again, you make claims that betray you as a liar. Support your claims, or
confirm your status as a liar.
DJT
John Harshman
J McCoy wrote:
Another estimable phrase...
[discussing something he saw on the Discovery Channel]
> So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
> me that the foreman magnon of the skull in question proved that the
> head was held aloft like a normal human.
[snip remaining gibberish]
This could be considered just a spelling flame, but there's something
poetic in the misspelling here. What would your definition of foreman
magnon be? Head of a gang doing cave paintings? I think there's also a
whiff of filet mignon. Beautiful.
JTEM
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote
> Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite
> the well known debate amongst paleontologists that
> counter the claim.
Have any citations for this "well known debate" that I've never
heard of?
> The views of creationists were excluded too,
That's rather blatently dishonest of you. Admit it, chump, the
inclusion of a "creationist" view wouldn't have made you
happy at all, unless it was the "Creationist" myth endorsed
by your particular brand of religion.
There's certainly no shortage of creationist who laugh at
Jewish/Christian accounts of creation.
Science ignores religion while "Creationist" devalue all but
their own religion.
JTEM
"Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote
> And your point is...? We are apes. The most recent common
> ancestor between us and chimpanzees was an ape.
> Australopithecus may be considered an ape, but that does
> not mean it is necessarily our ancestor.
What's the difference? I got into this kind of exchange over in
a Catholic newsgroup last summer. Using the example for that
exchange:
Amphibians came from fish so they're fish. And reptiles
came from amphibians -- which are fish -- so they have to be
fish. And dinosaurs came from reptiles and reptiles are really
amphibians which in turn are really fish so dinosaurs are fish.
And birds came from dinosaurs which came from reptiles
which are really amphibians which are in fact fish so birds are
really fish.
.....on & on until we finally conclude that there's no such thing
as reptiles, birds or anything else for that matter, besides some
awkwardly replicating molecules.
Modern humans did not come from apes. Homo Sapiens, our
species, came from Homo Erectus (with a likely genetic
contribution from others).
J McCoy
> Alt atheism removed
>
> You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported this
> lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your claim, or
> be once again shown to be a liar.
>
If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
Pay up or..... OK. I'll be nice and not finish that phrase.
J McCoy
>
>
> DJT
AC
Let me guess, you've got photocopies of the evidence.
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
gen2rev
>
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b6shk8$8kln0$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > Alt atheism removed
>
> >
> > You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported this
> > lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your claim, or
> > be once again shown to be a liar.
> >
> If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
> look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
>
> I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
I'll take you up on that bet, but I'll hold you to exactly what you
state above.
John Harshman
JTEM wrote:
> "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote
>
>
>>And your point is...? We are apes. The most recent common
>>ancestor between us and chimpanzees was an ape.
>>Australopithecus may be considered an ape, but that does
>>not mean it is necessarily our ancestor.
>>
>
> What's the difference? I got into this kind of exchange over in
> a Catholic newsgroup last summer. Using the example for that
> exchange:
>
> Amphibians came from fish so they're fish. And reptiles
> came from amphibians -- which are fish -- so they have to be
> fish. And dinosaurs came from reptiles and reptiles are really
> amphibians which in turn are really fish so dinosaurs are fish.
> And birds came from dinosaurs which came from reptiles
> which are really amphibians which are in fact fish so birds are
> really fish.
And all correct.
> .....on & on until we finally conclude that there's no such thing
> as reptiles, birds or anything else for that matter, besides some
> awkwardly replicating molecules.
The problem with that view is that it requires you to claim that there
are no groups nested within other groups. Why can't birds be dinosaurs,
reptiles, *and* fish, all at the same time?
> Modern humans did not come from apes. Homo Sapiens, our
> species, came from Homo Erectus (with a likely genetic
> contribution from others).
Why isn't it possible for modern humans to come from more than one
ancestor? Would you agree that we came from primates and that we came
from mammals? All these groups you refer to are clades, and clades are
nested within other clades. Humans are a particular group of apes, which
are a particular group of primates, which are a particular group of
mammals, which are a particular group of amniotes (old word: reptiles),
which are a particular group of tetrapods (old word: amphibians), which
are a particular group of vertebrates (old word: fish).
You need to learn a bit more about cladistic classification.
Dana Tweedy
news:<b6shk8$8kln0$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > Alt atheism removed
>
> >
> > You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported this
> > lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your
claim, or
> > be once again shown to be a liar.
> >
> If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
> look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
No. I would be surprised to see you supporting one of your claims, but
that's hardly worth $150. Why not just support your claims so that people
don't think you are a liar? BTW, the man's name is Johanson, not Johansen.
>
> I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
Why not just provide the evidence?
>
> Pay up or..... OK. I'll be nice and not finish that phrase.
Pay up? For what? You haven't provided anything that supports your claim,
nor did I agree to pay you anythiing. If you support your claim, I will
be greatly surprised.
DJT
>
> J McCoy
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > DJT
>
Kermit
> Just last night I saw a disingenous attempt by evolutionists to try to
> convince everyone of the truth of evolution - that is the transition
> of apes into mankind.
YOu mean the truth of Natural selection as an explanation for
evolution, which is an often-observed fact.
> The show was replete with enthusiastic phrases
> such as "ascent of man is underway!" This computerized piece of
> fiction titled "Walking with Prehistoric Beasts," was featured on the
> Discovery Channel. While the Discovery Channel provides quality
> programs, I found this to be an exception to that norm.
I suppose by "quality" you mean "doesn't conflict with my primitive
idea of religion, as far as I know".
> I don't know
> how it slipped in, except maybe the computer generated animation of
> walking Australopithecines convinced some of the staff that maybe the
> big A had infact been an ancestor of mankind. Not so long ago on
> talk.origins members were arguing that Australopithecus was not, in
> fact, a direct transition of man. This came up in a thread in which I
> stated an experience that I had:
>
> I was in my high school class when a fellow student had said, "so, do
> you think we came from apes?" And my teacher said, "no. We came from
> a common unknown ancestor." To which, I looked down in my textbook
> and saw the words "Australopithecus," which means SOUTHERN APE. This
> happened a second time in a psychology course that I had at college.
And "hippopottomus" means "river horse". That doesn't mean that
scientists think it's a horse. This does illustrate once again (and
not for the first time in this paragraph) your utter cluelessness
regarding science.
Anyway, we are apes; the teacher should have said (and possibly did -
I don't trust your memory, considering your comprehension of these
matters (nor, come to think of it, do I trust your veracity)) "we and
the other living apes are descended from a common ancestor".
Australopithecus seems to be an ancestor, but not immediate ancestor.
See
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
>
> So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
> me that the foreman magnon of the skull in question proved that the
> head was held aloft like a normal human. I wasn't entirely convince.
No, of course not. Why should evidence and clear thinking convince you
of anything. For an experiment: lokk at the ceiling for the next 30
minutes or so and tell me how your neck feels. I can tell you that
simply craning my neck back to read teh monitor thru my lower bifocal
lenses is a pain in the neck. Imagine doing it with gravity pulling
down in addition.
I suppose you think that fins are not an indication that a creature
swam?
> I
> couldn't get a good look at the skull and a comparison ape or monkey
> skull wasn't presented along side and in a fashion that you could
> compare it.
You could try reading a book on the subject. Or if that's too much
work, just look it up on the damn web. We know you have web access.
> Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite
> the well known debate amongst paleontologists that counter the claim.
Um... what claim? That we are descended from australopithecus? There's
only so much you can fit in an hour.
> The views of creationists were excluded too, giving the impression of
> pseudoscientific venture that wanted itself to be shielded from
> questioning.
>
Shocking. Only *scientists were interviewed for this science program?
How unreasonable of them.
> Of course the views I would present in this thread would be silenced
> too.
>
> It was hard for me to buy this garbage.
Yes. You have to spend a little effort :)
> I know that language sounds
> rough, but hearing the narrator say, "increase of meat [consumption]
> will increase brain size]. OK. Yes, that's why a dog has a small
> head in comparison to humans.
You hear much that doesn't get said, and read much that isn't written.
The narrator may have said something about more meat consumption being
a result of a bigger brain, or perhaps a driving force. Whan our
ancestors moved out of the woods into the savannah, meat become a more
important part of our diet - nice source of calories (mmm... tapir
burger).
>
> The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
> hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
> are. I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
> The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
> exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
> out of some old Star Wars film. The awkward gait that was exhibited
> by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
> the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
> from ape to man.
More likely a result of a budget somewhat smaller than a Star Wars
movie.
> Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> head hunter poles.
>
So your argument against science is ...bad animation?
> Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
> Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
> human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
> doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
>
This is dangerously close to libel, bucko. Got any evidence besides
your ignorance?
> In pseudo science, where facts are missing scoundrels proliferate
> the use of artwork, footnotes and charts.
Damn! I wasn't prepared for that, and I didn't have my irony meter's
shock mode activated. Damndamndamn. Another $13 blown.
> The style of writing is dry
> and abstract.
It makes it so hard to concentrate, doesn't it?
> Lengthy fictional accounts are invented to assuage the
> doubts and the knee wobblings. The pseudoscientist, perhaps is
> suffering from the jitters of caffeine extreme, and need to stop
> those jittering bouts of doubt. Perhaps someone sees the naked pseudo
> scientist, the phoney computerized images, but there is left a mocking
> skull of the big A laughing at the con men who pulled a fast one.
Oh, I'm sure some of your Creationists are sincere. I believe my own
family was. Of course, Grandpa (the Baptist preacher) thought the
Russians invented rock and roll :P
> JMcCoy
--- Kermit of the Apes
I speak their language!
Bobby B
Thomas P.
wrote:
>Just last night I saw a disingenous attempt by evolutionists to try to
>convince everyone of the truth of evolution - that is the transition
>of apes into mankind.
No, that is not evolution. A lie in the very first sentence. The
rest is just more of the same pathetic ignorance and lies.
snip
Mike Ruskai
[snip]
Is this Nameless himself, returned from blissful (for us) obscurity?
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Modern humans did not come from apes. Homo Sapiens, our
> species, came from Homo Erectus (with a likely genetic
> contribution from others).
Modern humans *are* apes. As were Homi Erecti (or however you spell the
plural) and any other species in our neighborhood of the family tree.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
John Wilkins
Since you cannot have more than one species with the same name, and that
is the name of a species, then the plural must add to the entire name:
Homo erectuses, Homo sapienses, irrespective of what the Latin would do.
As a parallel - it is John Wilkinses, not Johns Wilkinses.
--
John Wilkins
Nasty Little Hobbitses
John Harshman
John Wilkins wrote:
On the other hand, if you did want the Latin, it would be Homines
erecti. I've never heard anyone apply a plural to a Latin species name,
but if they did, Homo erectuses would be as good as any.
Lucas Bachmann
that could be taught to pronounce Neanderthal
properly?
Lucas Bachmann
Lucas Bachmann
Kermit wrote:
>
> And "hippopottomus" means "river horse". That doesn't mean that
> scientists think it's a horse. This does illustrate once again (and
> not for the first time in this paragraph) your utter cluelessness
> regarding science.
All hippopotami are pachyderms
Some pachyderms are cousins of horses.
The hippopotamus is not.
The apobaramin pachyderm is truly unrelated.
raven1
<spammoc.r...@begoneynnaht.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:56:10 +0000 (UTC), J McCoy wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>Is this Nameless himself, returned from blissful (for us) obscurity?
Unfortunately.
Budikka
news:<3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> Just last night I saw a disingenous...
Is that dissin' genius (which you commonly do), or disingenuous?
> ...attempt by evolutionists to try to
> convince everyone of the truth of evolution - that is the transition
> of apes into mankind.
Unless you can point to solid scientific data refuting the mass of
evidence suggesting a genetic connection between humans and apes, *you
lose*. Unless you can define "kind" and then define scientifically
what the mechanism is which prevents one "kind" from becoming another
kind through genetic modification, then *you lose*.
I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever presented by you to support
anything you have said. Your entire armamentarium consists of nothing
but whiney-assed sour-grapes. If you had any refutation, you would
undoubtedly post it, which is proof positive for me that you have less
than the nth root of squat to support your blithering idiocy.
> While the Discovery Channel provides quality programs,
How could you possibly know? You have absolutely no means whatsoever
of determining quality, as comprehensively demonstrated by the
thorough lack of it in everything you post.
> I was in my high school class
While I am in serious doubt that you have class, I am amazed that you
had high school.
> So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
> me that the foreman magnon of the skull
The "foreman magnon"? Is that the name of some French guy who was in
charge of the dig?
> I wasn't entirely convince.
You wasn't entirely convince? I'm not entirely surprise.
> I couldn't get a good look at the skull and a comparison ape or monkey
> skull wasn't presented along side and in a fashion that you could
> compare it.
And, of course, you cannot get off your idle-ass lazy-days
good-for-nothing butt to go and actually read a science book where
such comparisons are presented clearly? You'd rather arrange your
entire challenge to biology on the basis of popular TV shows? Why am
I not entirely surprise?
> Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite...
Dispite?
> ...the well known debate amongst paleontologists that counter the claim.
I notice you present none of these purported arguments here. Why am I
not entirely surprise?
> The views of creationists were excluded too, giving the impression of
> pseudoscientific venture that wanted itself to be shielded from
> questioning.
Or shielded from illiterate ne'er-do-wells.
> Of course the views I would present in this thread would be silenced
> too.
Idiotic opinion silences itself. Now if you actually had some
supported, referenced argument instead of endless trash-talk, that
would be a little bit different.
[blathering whiney trash deleted]
> In pseudo science, where facts are missing scoundrels proliferate
> the use of artwork, footnotes and charts.
I think that's possibly one of the best descriptions of creationism I
have ever heard. Congratulations.
> J McCoy
He ain't the real McCoy.
Budikka - creationism is the science of lying
J McCoy
> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
> news:<b6shk8$8kln0$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > Alt atheism removed
>
> > >
> > > You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported this
> > > lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your
> claim, or
> > > be once again shown to be a liar.
> > >
> > If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
> > look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
>
> No. I would be surprised to see you supporting one of your claims, but
> that's hardly worth $150. Why not just support your claims so that people
> don't think you are a liar? BTW, the man's name is Johanson, not Johansen.
Because I have to go to the library again.
>
> >
> > I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
>
> Why not just provide the evidence?
It'll pay for my bus ride.
>
> >
> > Pay up or..... OK. I'll be nice and not finish that phrase.
>
> Pay up? For what? You haven't provided anything that supports your claim,
> nor did I agree to pay you anythiing. If you support your claim, I will
> be greatly surprised.
Surprised you will, but I had no plans to visit the library, which is
in another town. I promise that the next time I'm up there I'll find
that quote, if that book is still there. Johansen wrote several books,
and he wrote about it in his talk about his discovery of the specimen.
He's a fraud though.
J McCoy
>
> DJT
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > J McCoy
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > DJT
> >
J McCoy
A horse is an arbitrary name. The name precedes modern science.
However, modern scientists have names Australopithecus, hence the
foreign language used as a cover. Scientists did not name Mr. Hippo.
>
> Anyway, we are apes;
I know you are but what am I?
the teacher should have said (and possibly did -
> I don't trust your memory, considering your comprehension of these
> matters (nor, come to think of it, do I trust your veracity)) "we and
> the other living apes are descended from a common ancestor".
Chimps off the old block?
>
> Australopithecus seems to be an ancestor, but not immediate ancestor.
> See
> http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
>
> >
> > So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
> > me that the foreman magnon of the skull in question proved that the
> > head was held aloft like a normal human. I wasn't entirely convince.
>
> No, of course not. Why should evidence and clear thinking convince you
> of anything. For an experiment: lokk at the ceiling for the next 30
> minutes or so and tell me how your neck feels. I can tell you that
> simply craning my neck back to read teh monitor thru my lower bifocal
> lenses is a pain in the neck. Imagine doing it with gravity pulling
> down in addition.
I can't have some prof telling me what I see, when they could as
easily shown the comparison skulls together so I could decide for
myself. And how about competing opinions? Do you get insurance
without different opinions? No. What would those people at
Progressive insurance do to you, given your lack of objectivity?
Science is about debate and reasoning. I don't see some prof
grandstanding and telling me what to believe as science? That's
pontification. Believe, ye.
>
> I suppose you think that fins are not an indication that a creature
> swam?
>
> > I
> > couldn't get a good look at the skull and a comparison ape or monkey
> > skull wasn't presented along side and in a fashion that you could
> > compare it.
>
> You could try reading a book on the subject. Or if that's too much
> work, just look it up on the damn web. We know you have web access.
Just believe what you're told. Evolutionists are allowed to get away
with this scam every day, every hour!
>
> > Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite
> > the well known debate amongst paleontologists that counter the claim.
>
> Um... what claim? That we are descended from australopithecus? There's
> only so much you can fit in an hour.
Sir Solly Zuckerman did not agree and neither did Oxnard.
Creationists don't agree, so what are their reasons? You might as
well let these people debate each other and let us decide. You know,
Fox news, fair and balance, you decide.
>
> > The views of creationists were excluded too, giving the impression of
> > pseudoscientific venture that wanted itself to be shielded from
> > questioning.
> >
> Shocking. Only *scientists were interviewed for this science program?
> How unreasonable of them.
I didn't say that. If you have a degree you are a scientist.
Scientists who disagree with the big A analysis were not interviewed.
What a disgrace to modern science.
>
> > Of course the views I would present in this thread would be silenced
> > too.
> >
> > It was hard for me to buy this garbage.
>
>
> Yes. You have to spend a little effort :)
>
> > I know that language sounds
> > rough, but hearing the narrator say, "increase of meat [consumption]
> > will increase brain size]. OK. Yes, that's why a dog has a small
> > head in comparison to humans.
>
> You hear much that doesn't get said, and read much that isn't written.
> The narrator may have said something about more meat consumption being
> a result of a bigger brain, or perhaps a driving force. Whan our
> ancestors moved out of the woods into the savannah, meat become a more
> important part of our diet - nice source of calories (mmm... tapir
> burger).
Bogosity. You aren't going to have any change due to meat consumption.
>
> >
> > The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
> > hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
> > are. I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
> > The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
> > exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
> > out of some old Star Wars film. The awkward gait that was exhibited
> > by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
> > the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
> > from ape to man.
>
> More likely a result of a budget somewhat smaller than a Star Wars
> movie.
You evidently liked Jar Jar Binks. I didn't like Jar Jar Binks and how
dare you even suggest that? For that reason alone you should be
discredited. So much for ye evolutionists and Jar Jar Binks.
>
> > Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> > see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> > it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> > head hunter poles.
> >
>
> So your argument against science is ...bad animation?
It was falsified.
>
> > Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
> > Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
> > human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
> > doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
> >
>
> This is dangerously close to libel, bucko. Got any evidence besides
> your ignorance?
You might be surprised! Grin. Do you want to bet $150 buckaroos on it?
>
> > In pseudo science, where facts are missing scoundrels proliferate
> > the use of artwork, footnotes and charts.
>
> Damn! I wasn't prepared for that, and I didn't have my irony meter's
> shock mode activated. Damndamndamn. Another $13 blown.
Don't blow a gasket.
>
> > The style of writing is dry
> > and abstract.
>
> It makes it so hard to concentrate, doesn't it?
>
> > Lengthy fictional accounts are invented to assuage the
> > doubts and the knee wobblings. The pseudoscientist, perhaps is
> > suffering from the jitters of caffeine extreme, and need to stop
> > those jittering bouts of doubt. Perhaps someone sees the naked pseudo
> > scientist, the phoney computerized images, but there is left a mocking
> > skull of the big A laughing at the con men who pulled a fast one.
>
> Oh, I'm sure some of your Creationists are sincere. I believe my own
> family was. Of course, Grandpa (the Baptist preacher) thought the
> Russians invented rock and roll :P
Most of us are sincere. There are some enthusiastic bad apples,
however.
J McCoy
Mark Richardson
wrote:
<snip mindless dribble>
>J McCoy
Nameless!
He who's name shall not be uttered has returned!
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark VandeWettering
>> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
>> news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
>> > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
>> news:<b6shk8$8kln0$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>> > > Alt atheism removed
>>
>> > >
>> > > You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported this
>> > > lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your
>> claim, or
>> > > be once again shown to be a liar.
>> > >
>> > If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
>> > look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
>>
>> No. I would be surprised to see you supporting one of your claims,
>> but that's hardly worth $150. Why not just support your claims so
>> that people don't think you are a liar? BTW, the man's name is
>> Johanson, not Johansen.
>
> Because I have to go to the library again.
That will make twice. Maybe someday some of that fancy book larnin' will
rub off on you.
>> > I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
>>
>> Why not just provide the evidence?
>
> It'll pay for my bus ride.
Let me guess. You're a defense contractor?
>> > Pay up or..... OK. I'll be nice and not finish that phrase.
>>
>> Pay up? For what? You haven't provided anything that supports your claim,
>> nor did I agree to pay you anythiing. If you support your claim, I will
>> be greatly surprised.
>
> Surprised you will, but I had no plans to visit the library,
Color me shocked.
> which is
> in another town. I promise that the next time I'm up there I'll find
> that quote, if that book is still there. Johansen wrote several books,
> and he wrote about it in his talk about his discovery of the specimen.
>
> He's a fraud though.
Yeah. Right.
> J McCoy
Mike Miksch
Heeeeey, I took that class....
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:<b6su8e$8n8jp$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
> > news:<b6shk8$8kln0$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > > Alt atheism removed
> >
> > > >
> > > > You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported
this
> > > > lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your
> > claim, or
> > > > be once again shown to be a liar.
> > > >
> > > If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
> > > look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
> >
> > No. I would be surprised to see you supporting one of your claims, but
> > that's hardly worth $150. Why not just support your claims so that
people
> > don't think you are a liar? BTW, the man's name is Johanson, not
Johansen.
>
> Because I have to go to the library again.
You won't support your lies because you "have to go to the library again"?
What happened to all those photocopies you claim you have?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
> >
> > Why not just provide the evidence?
>
> It'll pay for my bus ride.
you need $150 for a bus ride?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Pay up or..... OK. I'll be nice and not finish that phrase.
> >
> > Pay up? For what? You haven't provided anything that supports your
claim,
> > nor did I agree to pay you anythiing. If you support your claim, I
will
> > be greatly surprised.
>
> Surprised you will, but I had no plans to visit the library, which is
> in another town. I promise that the next time I'm up there I'll find
> that quote, if that book is still there. Johansen wrote several books,
> and he wrote about it in his talk about his discovery of the specimen.
So, although you have no evidence of your cliam, other than your own faulty
memory, you accuse a respected scientist of fraud? I have read Johanson's
book, and he said nothing about prowing around graveyards. So, why don't
you just admit you were lying, just as you were lying about all the other
irresponsible claims you have made over the years?
>
> He's a fraud though.
>
> J McCoy
If you are referring to yourself, you are correct.
>
>
> >
> > DJT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > J McCoy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DJT
> > >
>
gen2rev
>
> freehand...@hotmail.com (Kermit) wrote in message news:<1575bfdc.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> > > Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
> > > Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
> > > human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
> > > doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
> > >
> >
> > This is dangerously close to libel, bucko. Got any evidence besides
> > your ignorance?
>
> You might be surprised! Grin. Do you want to bet $150 buckaroos on it?
I do. Why don't you reply to me? Or did you miss
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=3E91EFA5.2B93B56E%40crosswinds.net
?
[snip the rest]
Dana Tweedy
.
> >
> > And "hippopottomus" means "river horse". That doesn't mean that
> > scientists think it's a horse. This does illustrate once again (and
> > not for the first time in this paragraph) your utter cluelessness
> > regarding science.
>
> A horse is an arbitrary name.
so is "ape".
> The name precedes modern science.
so does "ape".
> However, modern scientists have names Australopithecus, hence the
> foreign language used as a cover. Scientists did not name Mr. Hippo.
Hippopotamus is a "foreign language" too, the same foreign language as used
in scientific nomeclature. Nor is Australopithecus used as a "cover". It's
scientific practice that goes back to the work of Carl Von Linne, also known
as Linnaeus, who invented the binomial system of scientific names. All
scientific names are in latin. The genus Australopithecus was named by
Raymond Dart in the 1920s to describe an early hominid fossil. Johanson was
placing his specimen in the same already established genus.
>
> >
> > Anyway, we are apes;
>
> I know you are but what am I?
It's not an insult, it's simply a biological fact. You are a moron. That's
an insult.
>
>
> the teacher should have said (and possibly did -
> > I don't trust your memory, considering your comprehension of these
> > matters (nor, come to think of it, do I trust your veracity)) "we and
> > the other living apes are descended from a common ancestor".
>
> Chimps off the old block?
If you need to see it that way. Humans' closest living relatives are
chimpanzees. If that makes us chimps, we're chimps.
snipping
>
> I can't have some prof telling me what I see, when they could as
> easily shown the comparison skulls together so I could decide for
> myself.
Then why don't you go and look at the skulls and compare them? There are
many websites that give photos of the fossils. One even gives you 3D
reconstructions that you can see from different angles.
>And how about competing opinions? Do you get insurance
> without different opinions? No. What would those people at
> Progressive insurance do to you, given your lack of objectivity?
> Science is about debate and reasoning. I don't see some prof
> grandstanding and telling me what to believe as science? That's
> pontification. Believe, ye.
There are few, if any competing views in this particular question. Find any
genuine scientist that disagrees, and perhaps you can get some controversy.
>
>
> >
> > I suppose you think that fins are not an indication that a creature
> > swam?
> >
> > > I
> > > couldn't get a good look at the skull and a comparison ape or monkey
> > > skull wasn't presented along side and in a fashion that you could
> > > compare it.
> >
> > You could try reading a book on the subject. Or if that's too much
> > work, just look it up on the damn web. We know you have web access.
>
> Just believe what you're told. Evolutionists are allowed to get away
> with this scam every day, every hour!
It's a shame, isn't it. Provide people with a working theory, and the
evidence to back it up, and you get away with anything...
>
>
> >
> > > Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite
> > > the well known debate amongst paleontologists that counter the claim.
> >
> > Um... what claim? That we are descended from australopithecus? There's
> > only so much you can fit in an hour.
>
> Sir Solly Zuckerman did not agree and neither did Oxnard.
Out of context quotations, from more than 30 years ago don't count as
"dispute".
> Creationists don't agree, so what are their reasons?
They have a religious objection to examining the evidence. We already know
their "reasons", so why do we have to hear their bleatings?
>You might as
> well let these people debate each other and let us decide. You know,
> Fox news, fair and balance, you decide.
If you really think Fox News is "fair and balanced", you do have problems
with facing reality.
>
>
>
> >
> > > The views of creationists were excluded too, giving the impression of
> > > pseudoscientific venture that wanted itself to be shielded from
> > > questioning.
> > >
> > Shocking. Only *scientists were interviewed for this science program?
> > How unreasonable of them.
>
> I didn't say that. If you have a degree you are a scientist.
No, a degree doesn't make you a scientists any more than having a licence
makes you a driver. Someone with a degree, who won't follow the rules of
scientific inquiry doesn't qualify as a scientist. A person with a law
degree who doesn't follow the rule of law, is not a lawyer. A person with a
medical degree that doesn't practice medicine isn't a physician.
> Scientists who disagree with the big A analysis were not interviewed.
> What a disgrace to modern science.
No genuine working scientist disagrees with the understanding that
Austrailopithecus was in the line of human ancestory.
snipping
> > You hear much that doesn't get said, and read much that isn't written.
> > The narrator may have said something about more meat consumption being
> > a result of a bigger brain, or perhaps a driving force. Whan our
> > ancestors moved out of the woods into the savannah, meat become a more
> > important part of our diet - nice source of calories (mmm... tapir
> > burger).
>
> Bogosity. You aren't going to have any change due to meat consumption.
Wasn't it you who claimed that diet affects the genes? In any case that's
wrong, and you probably misheard what the narrator was saying.
snipping
>
> You evidently liked Jar Jar Binks. I didn't like Jar Jar Binks and how
> dare you even suggest that? For that reason alone you should be
> discredited. So much for ye evolutionists and Jar Jar Binks.
Argumentum ad cinematium................that's unique, if nothing else (and
it appears to be nothing else)
> >
> > > Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> > > see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> > > it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> > > head hunter poles.
> > >
> >
> > So your argument against science is ...bad animation?
>
> It was falsified.
the animation was falsified? By whom? Exactly how do you falsify an
animation?
>
>
> >
> > > Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
> > > Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
> > > human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
> > > doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
> > >
> >
> > This is dangerously close to libel, bucko. Got any evidence besides
> > your ignorance?
>
> You might be surprised! Grin. Do you want to bet $150 buckaroos on it?
Why not just present the evidence? No one is going to pay you any money to
make a fool of yourself again.
Snipping silliness
> Oh, I'm sure some of your Creationists are sincere. I believe my own
> > family was. Of course, Grandpa (the Baptist preacher) thought the
> > Russians invented rock and roll :P
>
> Most of us are sincere. There are some enthusiastic bad apples,
> however.
Said the rottenest apple of them all.
>
> J McCoy
>
DJT
gen2rev
>
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b6su8e$8n8jp$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b6shk8$8kln0$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > > Alt atheism removed
> >
> > > >
> > > > You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported this
> > > > lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your claim, or
> > > > be once again shown to be a liar.
> > > >
> > > If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
> > > look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
> >
> > No. I would be surprised to see you supporting one of your claims, but
> > that's hardly worth $150. Why not just support your claims so that people
> > don't think you are a liar? BTW, the man's name is Johanson, not Johansen.
>
> Because I have to go to the library again.
So in other words, you can't.
> > > I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
> >
> > Why not just provide the evidence?
>
> It'll pay for my bus ride.
Just how far away is the library?
> > > Pay up or..... OK. I'll be nice and not finish that phrase.
> >
> > Pay up? For what? You haven't provided anything that supports your claim,
> > nor did I agree to pay you anythiing. If you support your claim, I will
> > be greatly surprised.
>
> Surprised you will, but I had no plans to visit the library, which is
> in another town. I promise that the next time I'm up there I'll find
> that quote, if that book is still there.
Don't forget to make photocopies!
> Johansen wrote several books,
> and he wrote about it in his talk about his discovery of the specimen.
>
> He's a fraud though.
Based on your say so?
Chris Ho-Stuart
Be completely clear on the terms of your claim when dealing
with a low down disgraceful sonofabitch like nameless.
Read what he said above. He does not actually claim that Lucy's
pelvis was found in some cemetary. There is a vague reference to
looking for a human pelvis... it is not impossible that Johanson
at one time tried to find a real human pelvis for some reason,
and sought same in a location where human remains were known to
be buried. Of course, that is not how Lucy's pelvis was found.
Lucy's pelvis was found crushed and incomplete; and required some
substantial reconstruction.
Chris
gen2rev
Thanks for your cautionary note, but I'm not unfamiliar with this claim,
and I daresay that you'll see my reasoning after a few minutes of
digging (and not in a graveyard). 8)
> Chris
Michelle Malkin
<spammoc.r...@begoneynnaht.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:56:10 +0000 (UTC), J McCoy wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>Is this Nameless himself, returned from blissful (for us) obscurity?
Yep. He's been popping up every now and then for the last
few months belching the same kind of nonsense he always
has. Only now he's on an anti-evolution kick.
--
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
atheist/agnostic list ordainer
EAC Bible thumper thumper
BAAWA Knight who says SPONG!
Steven J.
> convince everyone of the truth of evolution - that is the transition
> of apes into mankind.
>
population over time, or the common ancestry of diverse current
species. The transition of (primitive) apes into humans (who are
derived apes) is only part of it.
>
> The show was replete with enthusiastic phrases
> such as "ascent of man is underway!" This computerized piece of
> fiction titled "Walking with Prehistoric Beasts," was featured on the
> Discovery Channel. While the Discovery Channel provides quality
> how it slipped in, except maybe the computer generated animation of
> walking Australopithecines convinced some of the staff that maybe the
> big A had infact been an ancestor of mankind. Not so long ago on
> talk.origins members were arguing that Australopithecus was not, in
> fact, a direct transition of man. This came up in a thread in which I
> stated an experience that I had:
>
unlikely that more than one was a direct human ancestor. And
presumably not all the australopith-grade hominids have been
discovered; the one that was actually our ancestor may still be
unknown. I doubt very much that computer animation convinced anyone
that the australopiths were human ancestors, although the data behind
the computer simulations may have. In any case, they were certainly
real "prehistoric beasts," and certainly as interesting as modern
chimps, and well worth a mention in a special, whether they were
directly ancestral to us or not.
>
> I was in my high school class when a fellow student had said, "so, do
> you think we came from apes?" And my teacher said, "no. We came from
> a common unknown ancestor." To which, I looked down in my textbook
> and saw the words "Australopithecus," which means SOUTHERN APE. This
> happened a second time in a psychology course that I had at college.
>
descendant of any (other) living species of ape. This is a point
worth making; I've seen arguments over whether humans were descended
from chimpanzees or bonobos, which is rather like asking whether
you're the grandson of you cousin Chuck or his brother Bob. OTOH,
certainly our last common ancestor with the other hominids would meet
any reasonable definition of "ape" -- just not any still-extant
species of ape.
It is true that _Australopithecus_ means "southern ape." The very
australopith- like _Kenyanthropus_ has a name meaning "Kenyan human."
Is it therefore, despite its ape-like cranium, one of us? Is
_Basilosaurus_ a dinosaur rather than a whale, merely because its name
means "royal lizard?" _Paranthropus_, a genus of robust
australopiths, has a name meaning "man off to the side" -- are they
fully human, while their equally-brainy australopith cousins were
"fully- formed apes," merely because of what they're called?
>
> So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
> me that the foreman magnon of the skull in question proved that the
> head was held aloft like a normal human. I wasn't entirely convince. I
> couldn't get a good look at the skull and a comparison ape or monkey
> skull wasn't presented along side and in a fashion that you could
> compare it. Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite
> the well known debate amongst paleontologists that counter the claim.
> The views of creationists were excluded too, giving the impression of
> pseudoscientific venture that wanted itself to be shielded from
> questioning.
>
The foramen magnum is the opening at the base of the skull through
which the spinal cord connects to the brain. In chimps, gorillas,
etc. the foramen magnum is towards the rear of the skull; in
_Australopithecus_, _Paranthropus_, and _Homo_ the opening is directly
under the skull. I have never heard of any controversy about the
position of the foramen magnum in australopiths.
I understand that the views of creationists were excluded. So were
the views of the Raelians (the "space aliens were the intelligent
designer" people), and assorted other eccentrics.
>
> Of course the views I would present in this thread would be silenced
> too.
>
> It was hard for me to buy this garbage. I know that language sounds
> rough, but hearing the narrator say, "increase of meat [consumption]
> will increase brain size]. OK. Yes, that's why a dog has a small
> head in comparison to humans.
>
I believe the point was that brains use a lot of calories per gram of
mass, compared to other tissues. Meat is a highly concentrated source
of calories, and a diet heavy in meat is able to support a larger
brain, if the mutations for a larger brain arise in the population. I
should point out that dogs' brains have actually shrunk under human
selective breeding; we prefer our domestic animals stupid and docile.
>
> The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
> hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
> are. I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
> The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
> exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
> out of some old Star Wars film. The awkward gait that was exhibited
> by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
> the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
> from ape to man. Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> head hunter poles.
>
I don't suppose you've considered that the "contrived and fake" look
had more to do with cheap computer animation, and with the fact that
we are more familiar with human movements than those of other species,
so we spot errors in modelling them more easily. I suspect the
"awkward gait" was an artifact of the tight budget, rather than
something planned to suggest half-evolved bipedal skills.
>
> Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
> Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
> human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
> doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
>
Assuming that you recall this correctly (and, on the basis of past
performance, there's not much reason to assume that), why do you
assume it means Johanson might have fabricated "Lucy?" Lucy's pelvis
is notoriously wide and shallow compared to that of any quadrupedal
ape -- more so, IIRC, even that that of modern humans. Johanson may
have wanted a pelvis to compare Lucy's to, in order to see how it
differed from modern humans. Note that Lucy is missing a number of
bones (including the kneecaps that Johanson is sometimes accused of
finding at another site and adding). Surely if Johanson were
fabricating a hoax, he'd have fabricated something a bit more
complete.
>
> In pseudo science, where facts are missing scoundrels proliferate
> the use of artwork, footnotes and charts. The style of writing is dry
> and abstract. Lengthy fictional accounts are invented to assuage the
> doubts and the knee wobblings. The pseudoscientist, perhaps is
> suffering from the jitters of caffeine extreme, and need to stop
> those jittering bouts of doubt. Perhaps someone sees the naked pseudo
> scientist, the phoney computerized images, but there is left a mocking
> skull of the big A laughing at the con men who pulled a fast one.
>
Are you trying to compose a new "statement of faith" for Answers in
Genesis?
>
> J McCoy
-- Steven J.
Chris Ho-Stuart
[snip]
> The genus _Australopithecus_ includes several species, of which it
> is unlikely that more than one was a direct human ancestor.
That is a strange claim to make.
The genus "Australopithecus" is a classification scheme
for a number of hominids, from several species over a
considerable time span.
Some of the species we call "Australopithecine" were ancestral
to other speces we also call "Australopithecine"; the case for
some of them also being human ancestors is pretty strong.
The talk.origins archive currently lists these species:
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
The first four are all plausible human ancestors. The latter
three are not plausible.
Here is an on-line version of a 1999 paper to Nature
"Australopithecus garhi: A New Species of Early Hominid from Ethiopia"
B. Asfaw, T. White, O. Lovejoy, B. Latimer, S. Simpson, G. Suwa
Nature Volume 284, Number 5414 Issue of 23 Apr 1999, pp. 629 - 635
On-line at
<http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/australopithecus_garhi.htm>
It considers a number of possible phylogenies. Generally, they seem to
have anamensis, then afarensis, then garhi and africanus in parallel,
with humans descended eitehr from garhi or afarensis but not both. If
this is correct, they identify three Australopithecine species as
human ancestors.
Basically, the precise phylogeny is not settled. It may never be settled;
as already we are dealing with a lovely set of transitional forms, and
the differences are often fairly subtle.
Cheers -- Chris
Aron-Ra
> "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote
> > And your point is...? We are apes. The most recent common
> > ancestor between us and chimpanzees was an ape.
> > Australopithecus may be considered an ape, but that does
> > not mean it is necessarily our ancestor.
> What's the difference? I got into this kind of exchange over in
> a Catholic newsgroup last summer. Using the example for that
> exchange:
> Amphibians came from fish so they're fish. And reptiles
> came from amphibians -- which are fish -- so they have to be
> fish. And dinosaurs came from reptiles and reptiles are really
> amphibians which in turn are really fish so dinosaurs are fish.
> And birds came from dinosaurs which came from reptiles
> which are really amphibians which are in fact fish so birds are
> really fish.
> ......on & on until we finally conclude that there's no such thing
> as reptiles, birds or anything else for that matter, besides some
> awkwardly replicating molecules.
You're on the right track there, I think. The term "reptile" has become
so inclusive as to be virtually useless. I think reptile should apply
only to diapsids, but that pterosaurs, dinosaurs and birds shouldn't be
considered reptilian anymore. None of this matters though, because nature
seldom bows to our classifications of it.
> Modern humans did not come from apes. Homo Sapiens, our
> species, came from Homo Erectus (with a likely genetic
> contribution from others).
But modern humans *are* apes. That's just another word for Hominid.
Every definition there is for an ape still applies to us and all of our
ancestors.
Now if you're going by the elder definition, where modern "apes" were all
still classified as Pongids, then you'd be correct. But our definitions
of that have recently changed so that we are indeed apes right now, and
gorillas and chimps are now considered Hominids.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominid
AC
So, you're basically asking us to take your word for it, and sometime you
may post the evidence for this claim.
Why would we trust you, Mr. McCoy? You've already been revealed as a
shameless and unrepentant liar. In fact, if you don't provide the citations
within a reasonable amount of time, I think we can safely add this sad
little episode to the list of your transgressions.
I wonder if St. Peter is also keeping a list.
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
Alan Kellogg
<geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> Well, of course, there are no fossils. No intermediaries. Godidit.
Nah, it was outsourced to Microsoft. (Couldn't have been Apple. If it
had been Apple our arches would no longer fall, but our visual system
would 'screen freeze' every couple of hours and we'd have to hit
restart.)
--
http://www.mythusmage.com
Writing Practice at: http://www.gamingoutpost.com
Alan Kellogg
> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
> > hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
> > are. I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
> > The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
> > exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
> > out of some old Star Wars film. The awkward gait that was exhibited
> > by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
> > the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
> > from ape to man. Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> > see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> > it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> > head hunter poles.
>
> It's just TV, man, it's not real.
Translation: The CGI wasn't that good. The stuff in "Chased by
Dinosaurs" with Nigel Marvin was much better. Maybe the BBC (who did the
show in the first place) will do a remake someday.
Alan
Alan Kellogg
mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote:
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
> news:<b6shk8$8kln0$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > Alt atheism removed
>
> >
> > You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported
> > this
> > lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your
> > claim, or
> > be once again shown to be a liar.
> >
> If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
> look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
>
> I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
>
> Pay up or..... OK. I'll be nice and not finish that phrase.
>
> J McCoy
I have visited the Horton Plaza shopping center here in downtown San
Diego. Horton Plaza has a magazine rack. I also purchase my magazines
from the Borders just two blocks east of here. Does this mean I shoplift
my magazines from the Horton Plaza magazine rack?
Alan Kellogg
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net wrote:
> In article <3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>, J McCoy
> wrote:
> > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
> > news:<b6shk8$8kln0$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> Alt atheism removed
> >
> >>
> >> You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported
> >> this
> >> lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your
> >> claim, or
> >> be once again shown to be a liar.
> >>
> > If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
> > look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
> >
> > I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
> >
> > Pay up or..... OK. I'll be nice and not finish that phrase.
>
> Let me guess, you've got photocopies of the evidence.
Nope, he tried putting two and two together and got a migraine.
Alan Kellogg
freehand...@hotmail.com (Kermit) wrote:
> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message
> This is dangerously close to libel, bucko. Got any evidence besides
> your ignorance?
>
> > In pseudo science, where facts are missing scoundrels proliferate
> > the use of artwork, footnotes and charts.
>
> Damn! I wasn't prepared for that, and I didn't have my irony meter's
> shock mode activated. Damndamndamn. Another $13 blown.
I hear the folks at AUK have found a source of disposable irony meters.
'Bout 99 cents each. You should look into it.
Alan Kellogg
<lucasb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Couldn't the Discovery channel hire a narrator
> that could be taught to pronounce Neanderthal
> properly?
>
> Lucas Bachmann
It was a BBC program originally. You know what the Brits did to English
after we went off to oppress others as we had been oppressed by the
mother country.
Alan Kellogg
<lucasb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Your 4th grade textbook is -how- old?
Alan Kellogg
So Andrewsarchus chowed down on other animals with leaf grinding
chompers, and wolves have forty foot guts.
Alan Kellogg
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> In talk.origins Steven J. <stev...@altavista.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > The genus _Australopithecus_ includes several species, of which it
> > is unlikely that more than one was a direct human ancestor.
>
> That is a strange claim to make.
Chris, you really shouldn't reply to a post after a 12 hour cramming
session.
C. Thompson
> Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 20:32:10 +0000, JTEM wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Modern humans did not come from apes. Homo Sapiens, our
>>> species, came from Homo Erectus (with a likely genetic
>>> contribution from others).
>>
>> the plural) and any other species in our neighborhood of the family
>> tree.
>
> Since you cannot have more than one species with the same name, and
> that is the name of a species, then the plural must add to the entire
> name: Homo erectuses, Homo sapienses, irrespective of what the Latin
> would do. As a parallel - it is John Wilkinses, not Johns Wilkinses.
What if there were two people with the same title and the same last name?
Suppose 2 academics were married to one another- they are the Doctors Jones.
What of courts-martial?
Chris,
who felt like being silly
Ferrous Patella
(John Wilkins):
> Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 20:32:10 +0000, JTEM wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Modern humans did not come from apes. Homo Sapiens, our
>> > species, came from Homo Erectus (with a likely genetic
>> > contribution from others).
>>
>> Modern humans *are* apes. As were Homi Erecti (or however you spell
>> the plural) and any other species in our neighborhood of the family
>> tree.
>
> Since you cannot have more than one species with the same name, and
> that is the name of a species, then the plural must add to the entire
> name: Homo erectuses, Homo sapienses, irrespective of what the Latin
> would do. As a parallel - it is John Wilkinses, not Johns Wilkinses.
Actually, I ran across "Cani familiaris" last night. The author was
Italian, so I wondered if he was right or if it was just a typo.
--
Ferrous Patella
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not
only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt
May 7, 1918
SortingItOut
<snip>
> >
> > > So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
> > > me that the foreman magnon of the skull in question proved that the
> > > head was held aloft like a normal human. I wasn't entirely convince.
> >
> > No, of course not. Why should evidence and clear thinking convince you
> > of anything. For an experiment: lokk at the ceiling for the next 30
> > minutes or so and tell me how your neck feels. I can tell you that
> > simply craning my neck back to read teh monitor thru my lower bifocal
> > lenses is a pain in the neck. Imagine doing it with gravity pulling
> > down in addition.
>
> I can't have some prof telling me what I see, when they could as
> easily shown the comparison skulls together so I could decide for
> myself. And how about competing opinions? Do you get insurance
> without different opinions? No. What would those people at
> Progressive insurance do to you, given your lack of objectivity?
> Science is about debate and reasoning. I don't see some prof
> grandstanding and telling me what to believe as science? That's
> pontification. Believe, ye.
Do you have a scientific criticism of what you were told?
<snip>
> >
> >
> > Yes. You have to spend a little effort :)
> >
> > > I know that language sounds
> > > rough, but hearing the narrator say, "increase of meat [consumption]
> > > will increase brain size]. OK. Yes, that's why a dog has a small
> > > head in comparison to humans.
> >
> > You hear much that doesn't get said, and read much that isn't written.
> > The narrator may have said something about more meat consumption being
> > a result of a bigger brain, or perhaps a driving force. Whan our
> > ancestors moved out of the woods into the savannah, meat become a more
> > important part of our diet - nice source of calories (mmm... tapir
> > burger).
>
> Bogosity. You aren't going to have any change due to meat consumption.
I saw a show on the Science Channel last Friday on this very subject.
They were talking about Homo Ergaster, a meat eater. They said that
the switch to meat opened to door to evolutionary changes such as
increased brain size because meat eaters do not require such a long
gut for digesting food, thus saving much energy-hogging tissue; and
therefore tissue could be added elsewhere (such as in the brain) with
no overall increase energy consumption. True, these changes would
have taken a long time, but a couple of million years is a long time.
It seems plausible enough. At least plausible enough to not make
sweeping statements like yours without scientific evidence to counter
it.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
> > > hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
> > > are. I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
> > > The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
> > > exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
> > > out of some old Star Wars film. The awkward gait that was exhibited
> > > by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
> > > the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
> > > from ape to man.
> >
> > More likely a result of a budget somewhat smaller than a Star Wars
> > movie.
>
> You evidently liked Jar Jar Binks. I didn't like Jar Jar Binks and how
> dare you even suggest that? For that reason alone you should be
> discredited. So much for ye evolutionists and Jar Jar Binks.
I'm not sure what you're going on about here, but do you realize how
hard it is to write software to create a life-like animation? It's
far from trivial, and I think the budget comment above is right on the
money. But blame Australopithecus or the scientists for the bad
animation.
>
>
> >
> > > Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> > > see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> > > it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> > > head hunter poles.
> > >
> >
> > So your argument against science is ...bad animation?
>
> It was falsified.
On what scientific basis is this claim being made? So rather than
allow that a very difficult task was not polished enough, you conclude
that deliberate falsification took place?
<snip>
Floyd
> freehand...@hotmail.com (Kermit) wrote in message news:<1575bfdc.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > convince everyone of the truth of evolution - that is the transition
> > > of apes into mankind.
> >
> > evolution, which is an often-observed fact.
> >
> > > The show was replete with enthusiastic phrases
> > > such as "ascent of man is underway!" This computerized piece of
> > > fiction titled "Walking with Prehistoric Beasts," was featured on the
> > > Discovery Channel. While the Discovery Channel provides quality
> > > programs, I found this to be an exception to that norm.
> >
> > idea of religion, as far as I know".
> >
> > > I don't know
> > > how it slipped in, except maybe the computer generated animation of
> > > walking Australopithecines convinced some of the staff that maybe the
> > > big A had infact been an ancestor of mankind. Not so long ago on
> > > talk.origins members were arguing that Australopithecus was not, in
> > > fact, a direct transition of man. This came up in a thread in which I
> > > stated an experience that I had:
> > >
> > > you think we came from apes?" And my teacher said, "no. We came from
> > > a common unknown ancestor." To which, I looked down in my textbook
> > > and saw the words "Australopithecus," which means SOUTHERN APE. This
> > > happened a second time in a psychology course that I had at college.
> >
> > scientists think it's a horse. This does illustrate once again (and
> > not for the first time in this paragraph) your utter cluelessness
> > regarding science.
>
As is "ape."
> The name precedes modern science.
As does "ape," and for some values of "modern," so does
"Australopithecus." The genus Australopithecus was named in 1927 by
Raymond Dart. He recognised an affinity between the "Taung baby"
skull and other primates. As adults, _A. africanus_ had brains
slightly larger than modern chimps, but teeth that were more like
those of humans, and a somewhat flatter (less prognathic) face than
any living non-human primate.
> However, modern scientists have names Australopithecus, hence the
> foreign language used as a cover.
Latin (or Latinised) names for species have been used since Linnaeus
published _Systema Naturae_ in 1758. There is no "cover" involved in
this practice, since until recently, scientists could expect
reasonably well educated people to have at least a passing familiarity
with the language. Latin is used to name species specifically
_because_ it is an ancient language that is no longer spoken outside
of a few specialist fields, and is thus less prone to change, but is a
written language that is readily understood. Your assertion that the
use of Latin names is in some way devious is just silly. The fact
that *you* didn't know what the term "Australopithecus" meant can not
reasonably be used to impugn scientists. It quite clearly *does* mean
"southern ape," and like "hippopotomous," it is also quite clearly a
misnomer. The members of the genus Australopithecus were different
from any living apes, and they were not restricted to the southern
hemisphere. They were named before their anatomy and the extent of
their distribution were entirely known. Due to the rules of taxonomy,
the name sticks, even though it is not an entirely accurate descriptor
for all specimens; sort of like _Homo sapiens_ in that respect.
> Scientists did not name Mr. Hippo.
>
> >
> > Anyway, we are apes;
>
> I know you are but what am I?
Although I've never met you, judging by your ability to type in
English, I can conclude that you, like everyone else in this group,
are a member of the species _Homo sapiens_. Since the members of this
species are primates that do not have tails, the species fit the
colloquial definition of "apes." There's not much you can do about
that other than learn to live with it; sorry.
>
>
> the teacher should have said (and possibly did -
> > I don't trust your memory, considering your comprehension of these
> > matters (nor, come to think of it, do I trust your veracity)) "we and
> > the other living apes are descended from a common ancestor".
>
> Chimps off the old block?
>
Clever.
>
>
> >
> > Australopithecus seems to be an ancestor, but not immediate ancestor.
> > See
> > http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
> >
> > >
> > > So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
> > > me that the foreman magnon of the skull in question proved that the
> > > head was held aloft like a normal human. I wasn't entirely convince.
> >
> > No, of course not. Why should evidence and clear thinking convince you
> > of anything. For an experiment: lokk at the ceiling for the next 30
> > minutes or so and tell me how your neck feels. I can tell you that
> > simply craning my neck back to read teh monitor thru my lower bifocal
> > lenses is a pain in the neck. Imagine doing it with gravity pulling
> > down in addition.
>
> I can't have some prof telling me what I see, when they could as
> easily shown the comparison skulls together so I could decide for
> myself.
Fair enough. Go to http://www.eskeletons.org/ click on "the gorilla
skeleton" on the left hand side. Use the uppermost pulldown (labled
"skull") to select "female cranium & mandible." Launch the viewer. At
the top of the screen, select "Cranium inferior" from the "view"
pulldown. Note the position of the Foramen Magnum. If you're not
sure which hole is which, click on the "occipital" on the left hand
menu to highlight it. It's the only major foramen in the occipital.
Keeping that window open, return to http://www.eskeletons.org/ and
select the human skeleton. From the "Skull" pulldown, select
"occipital." Select the view "distal" from the View pulldown. Scales
are included in both images, so you can compare their sizes (note that
the photos are to different scales; the gorilla skull is enlarged to
show detail.)
Unfortunately, this site does not (yet) have chimpanzee skulls for
comparisson, and their image link for the inferior (bottom) view of
the gorilla skull in the Comparative Anatomy section is broken, but
you can compare a human skull to a baboon's skull. On the main page,
click "comparative anatomy" (left hand menu, just below "gorilla
skeleton") select two species, human and either gorilla or baboon,
and compare any bones, from any view that you wish (except for the
ones with the broken image links).
> And how about competing opinions?
What competing opinion? I've heard creationists claim that they have
a scientific theory that is being supressed. How about you do them a
favor and present their theory here? I'd be grateful, since all I've
ever heard is the claims, and never the theory itself. Thanks.
> Do you get insurance
> without different opinions? No. What would those people at
> Progressive insurance do to you, given your lack of objectivity?
> Science is about debate and reasoning. I don't see some prof
> grandstanding and telling me what to believe as science? That's
> pontification. Believe, ye.
Fair enough, as soon as someone presents the theory of creationism,
ideally at least mentioning the mechanism by which it works, and
preferably discussing, at least tentatively, how we could distinguish
a created object from an uncreated one, I'll be happy to discuss it.
>
>
> >
> > I suppose you think that fins are not an indication that a creature
> > swam?
> >
> > > I
> > > couldn't get a good look at the skull and a comparison ape or monkey
> > > skull wasn't presented along side and in a fashion that you could
> > > compare it.
> >
> > You could try reading a book on the subject. Or if that's too much
> > work, just look it up on the damn web. We know you have web access.
>
> Just believe what you're told. Evolutionists are allowed to get away
> with this scam every day, every hour!
Not really; I had to not only "believe," but understand the theory and
know the evidence at least as well as the faculty who administered my
comprehensive exams, which means that I had to know the problems and
weak spots particularly well, since those were the areas that needed
investigation. If you can point out the weaknesses, I'll be happy to
discuss them, but "belief" isn't among them. In science, doubt and
skepticism about even the most clearly demonstrated hypotheses are
valued qualities. Nobody gets through graduate school by simply
agreeing with their faculty, I can assure you.
>
>
> >
> > > Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite
> > > the well known debate amongst paleontologists that counter the claim.
> >
> > Um... what claim? That we are descended from australopithecus? There's
> > only so much you can fit in an hour.
>
> Sir Solly Zuckerman did not agree and neither did Oxnard.
They propose an alternative phylogeny, the details are different but
any alternative that actualy attempts to explain the available data is
acceptable as a scientific hypothesis, and can be exposed to testing.
> Creationists don't agree, so what are their reasons?
They have been tricked by con men into believing that the study of teh
natural world is somehow in conflict with their faith, and their faith
is so weak that it can not stand any conflict, so they attempt to deny
the existence of the evidence or explain it away, rather than
understand it.
> You might as
> well let these people debate each other and let us decide.
That's what this group is for. The Trinity Broadcasting Network
doesn't have Richard Dawkins on it, so why should the Discover channel
have Ken Hovind?
> You know,
> Fox news, fair and balance, you decide.
Fox news? Fair? Let's be generous and say "fair to poor."
>
>
>
> >
> > > The views of creationists were excluded too, giving the impression of
> > > pseudoscientific venture that wanted itself to be shielded from
> > > questioning.
> > >
> > Shocking. Only *scientists were interviewed for this science program?
> > How unreasonable of them.
>
> I didn't say that. If you have a degree you are a scientist.
That's not true at all. If you do science, you are a scientist,
whether you have a degree or not. Many scientists had no degrees at
all, and many diploma holders are utter nincompoops. Surely you don't
equate holding a piece of paper with having brains?
> Scientists who disagree with the big A analysis were not interviewed.
> What a disgrace to modern science.
All paleoanthropologists agree that Australopithecus were hominids,
and were either directly ancestral to us, or were a side branch that
split away after we split from the chimps. Those people who claim
that Australopithecus was "just an ape" are ignoring the indisputable
fact that it was *neither* a modern ape, *nor* a modern human, but
something intermediate between the two. They are doing so for
political, religious, and/or financial reasons, not for scientific
reasons. The evidence is simply indisputable; the several species of
the genus Australopithecus were transitional between our ape-like
ancestors and ourselves. Denying the blatantly obvious is not a sign
of scientific acumen, therefore the creationists who make this claim
are not scientists.
>
>
> >
> > > Of course the views I would present in this thread would be silenced
> > > too.
> > >
> > > It was hard for me to buy this garbage.
> >
> >
> > Yes. You have to spend a little effort :)
> >
> > > I know that language sounds
> > > rough, but hearing the narrator say, "increase of meat [consumption]
> > > will increase brain size]. OK. Yes, that's why a dog has a small
> > > head in comparison to humans.
> >
> > You hear much that doesn't get said, and read much that isn't written.
> > The narrator may have said something about more meat consumption being
> > a result of a bigger brain, or perhaps a driving force. Whan our
> > ancestors moved out of the woods into the savannah, meat become a more
> > important part of our diet - nice source of calories (mmm... tapir
> > burger).
>
> Bogosity. You aren't going to have any change due to meat consumption.
The brain requires energy to operate. Current estimates suggest that
the brain consumes between 18-25% of all the calories we consume. It
doesn't run by itself, it must be fueled. Vegetable matter such as
the leafy diet of gorillas has very few calories per mouthful, which
is why gorillas need to eat almost continuously, when they are not
traveling or sleeping. Meat is a richer, more efficient source of
protein, so each mouthful is worth quite a bit more in terms of total
calories. A higher calorie diet permits brain growth and efficient
brain functioning, which in turn allows for more efficient responses
to environmental pressures (including tool making and effective
food-getting strategies). If you honestly don't believe that diet has
an influence on brain function, try subsisting on water and iceberg
lettuce for two weeks. I assure you, by the end of that time, you
will only be able to think about one thing (getting off the bloody
diet!)
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
> > > hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
> > > are. I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
> > > The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
> > > exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
> > > out of some old Star Wars film. The awkward gait that was exhibited
> > > by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
> > > the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
> > > from ape to man.
> >
> > More likely a result of a budget somewhat smaller than a Star Wars
> > movie.
>
> You evidently liked Jar Jar Binks. I didn't like Jar Jar Binks and how
> dare you even suggest that? For that reason alone you should be
> discredited. So much for ye evolutionists and Jar Jar Binks.
Huh? The Walking with Prehistoric Beasts show really did have a lower
budget than any of the Star Wars movies. Personally, I liked Walking
with Prehistoric Beasts better, but there's no question that Star Wars
cost more. Your response is just silly.
>
>
> >
> > > Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> > > see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> > > it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> > > head hunter poles.
> > >
> >
> > So your argument against science is ...bad animation?
>
> It was falsified.
The animation? How do you mean?
>
>
> >
> > > Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
> > > Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
> > > human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
> > > doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
> > >
> >
> > This is dangerously close to libel, bucko. Got any evidence besides
> > your ignorance?
>
> You might be surprised! Grin. Do you want to bet $150 buckaroos on it?
>
I've got a better idea; you publish your accusations in one of the
major newspapers in Arizona, where the Institute of Human Origins is
located. You can find the mailing addresses at
http://www.gy.com/biz/511110/602.htm Submit your accusation as a
letter to the editor, and see what kind of response you receive.
I'll watch.
>
>
> >
> > > In pseudo science, where facts are missing scoundrels proliferate
> > > the use of artwork, footnotes and charts.
> >
> > Damn! I wasn't prepared for that, and I didn't have my irony meter's
> > shock mode activated. Damndamndamn. Another $13 blown.
>
> Don't blow a gasket.
>
>
> >
> > > The style of writing is dry
> > > and abstract.
> >
> > It makes it so hard to concentrate, doesn't it?
> >
> > > Lengthy fictional accounts are invented to assuage the
> > > doubts and the knee wobblings. The pseudoscientist, perhaps is
> > > suffering from the jitters of caffeine extreme, and need to stop
> > > those jittering bouts of doubt. Perhaps someone sees the naked pseudo
> > > scientist, the phoney computerized images, but there is left a mocking
> > > skull of the big A laughing at the con men who pulled a fast one.
> >
> > Oh, I'm sure some of your Creationists are sincere. I believe my own
> > family was. Of course, Grandpa (the Baptist preacher) thought the
> > Russians invented rock and roll :P
>
> Most of us are sincere. There are some enthusiastic bad apples,
> however.
>
> J McCoy
There are, however, several scoundrels who are just involved in
creationism to dupe the gullible out of their money, and others who
aspire to political power, and are just using the sincere creationists
as cannon fodder. Do you have a sure-fire way to detect which is
which?
-Floyd
John Harshman
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> news:1ft3boq.1cbsaz15zaoe9N%wil...@wehi.edu.au by wil...@wehi.edu.au
> (John Wilkins):
>
>
>>Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 20:32:10 +0000, JTEM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Modern humans did not come from apes. Homo Sapiens, our
>>>>species, came from Homo Erectus (with a likely genetic
>>>>contribution from others).
>>>>
>>>Modern humans *are* apes. As were Homi Erecti (or however you spell
>>>the plural) and any other species in our neighborhood of the family
>>>tree.
>>>
>>Since you cannot have more than one species with the same name, and
>>that is the name of a species, then the plural must add to the entire
>>name: Homo erectuses, Homo sapienses, irrespective of what the Latin
>>would do. As a parallel - it is John Wilkinses, not Johns Wilkinses.
>>
>
>
> Actually, I ran across "Cani familiaris" last night. The author was
> Italian, so I wondered if he was right or if it was just a typo.
Typo. It would have been Canes familiares if we were doing that sort of
thing.
Frank Reichenbacher
news:<1575bfdc.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message
news:<3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Just last night I saw a disingenous attempt by evolutionists to try to
<snip>
> >
> > And "hippopottomus" means "river horse". That doesn't mean that
> > scientists think it's a horse. This does illustrate once again (and
> > not for the first time in this paragraph) your utter cluelessness
> > regarding science.
>
> A horse is an arbitrary name.
It's not arbitrary, it is colloquial. And anyway, so is "man." What's your
point?
The name precedes modern science.
> However, modern scientists have names Australopithecus, hence the
> foreign language used as a cover.
A few years ago I had to do some biological surveys on an Indian
Reservation. This required securing permission from the Tribe. In this case
it was necessary for me to make an appearance before the Tribal Council.
In the letter I presented to the Council, I referred to the species of
concern by it's common (or colloquial) name followed by the scientific
(Latin) name in italics as is customary. The presentation actually went very
well, except that I could see one member reading my letter to himself
several times out loud, dwelling on the scientific name especially. It was a
real toungue-twister for someone who is unaccustomed to such terms.
He finally spoke up and asked what these other words were behind the name of
the thing I was applying to look for. I explained that this is the technical
term for the species. He started to go off on some tangent for a while, but
then the other members of the council interjected on my behalf explaining to
him that it was a scientific name and that it was the way scientists
describe these things. He was mollified somewhat, but his curiosity was
piqued and he then proceeded to to quiz me for a good fifteen minutes about
the use and purpose of scientific names. Not only did he grasp the concept,
he also got to a point where he could pronounce the scientific name pretty
well.
Hey John-boy, I don't think there was a high school graduate among them, and
I suspect that my quizzer and several other members probably hadn't made it
through 8th grade. Yet every single one of them understood the utility and
desirability of a separate, distinctly scientific means of communicating the
names of species. This is a simple concept that you are apparently incapable
of grasping. And not only do you not understand it, you resist it as it were
part of some insidious plot to, uh...to...what? What weird shit were
thinking, anyways? What is it that you think scientists could be hiding in a
system of Latin names for plants and animals?
Scientists did not name Mr. Hippo.
>
> >
> > Anyway, we are apes;
>
> I know you are but what am I?
God only knows.
>
>
> the teacher should have said (and possibly did -
> > I don't trust your memory, considering your comprehension of these
> > matters (nor, come to think of it, do I trust your veracity)) "we and
> > the other living apes are descended from a common ancestor".
>
> Chimps off the old block?
Insightful as always.
>
>
>
> >
> > Australopithecus seems to be an ancestor, but not immediate ancestor.
> > See
> > http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
> >
> > >
> > > So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
> > > me that the foreman magnon of the skull in question proved that the
> > > head was held aloft like a normal human. I wasn't entirely convince.
> >
> > No, of course not. Why should evidence and clear thinking convince you
> > of anything. For an experiment: lokk at the ceiling for the next 30
> > minutes or so and tell me how your neck feels. I can tell you that
> > simply craning my neck back to read teh monitor thru my lower bifocal
> > lenses is a pain in the neck. Imagine doing it with gravity pulling
> > down in addition.
>
> I can't have some prof telling me what I see, when they could as
> easily shown the comparison skulls together so I could decide for
> myself. And how about competing opinions? Do you get insurance
> without different opinions? No. What would those people at
> Progressive insurance do to you, given your lack of objectivity?
> Science is about debate and reasoning. I don't see some prof
> grandstanding and telling me what to believe as science? That's
> pontification. Believe, ye.
>
Well of course, why on earth would you want to listen to someone who
actually has a brain?
Do you think that's how anthropologists compare skulls? They just line them
up on a table, stand back and look at them? They have this thing now, you
know, it's very useful so that you don't have to depend on someone's else's
opinion. It's called a "ruler."
It's a long straight, flat piece of metal, wood, or plastic, with little
marks on it. The trick is that the marks are all the same, so all you have
to do is hold it up to something and count the marks. Then someone else can
take a "ruler" and hold it up to the object and count the marks, and they'll
get the same number of marks. Then you can write the number down on a piece
of "paper," and then someone else can "read" it. Is this getting too
complicated for you John-boy? Just to recap, we have "ruler," "paper," and
"read," and if you have all of these things then you don't have to arrange
it so that every dolt who can't read can spend their time in front of the
table studying the bones.
>
> >
> > I suppose you think that fins are not an indication that a creature
> > swam?
> >
> > > I
> > > couldn't get a good look at the skull and a comparison ape or monkey
> > > skull wasn't presented along side and in a fashion that you could
> > > compare it.
> >
> > You could try reading a book on the subject. Or if that's too much
> > work, just look it up on the damn web. We know you have web access.
>
> Just believe what you're told. Evolutionists are allowed to get away
> with this scam every day, every hour!
Reading books is a scam?
>
>
> >
> > > Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite
> > > the well known debate amongst paleontologists that counter the claim.
> >
> > Um... what claim? That we are descended from australopithecus? There's
> > only so much you can fit in an hour.
>
> Sir Solly Zuckerman did not agree and neither did Oxnard.
> Creationists don't agree, so what are their reasons? You might as
> well let these people debate each other and let us decide. You know,
> Fox news, fair and balance, you decide.
Fox News is fair and balanced? Whatever gave you that idea?
>
>
>
> >
> > > The views of creationists were excluded too, giving the impression of
> > > pseudoscientific venture that wanted itself to be shielded from
> > > questioning.
> > >
> > Shocking. Only *scientists were interviewed for this science program?
> > How unreasonable of them.
>
> I didn't say that. If you have a degree you are a scientist.
> Scientists who disagree with the big A analysis were not interviewed.
> What a disgrace to modern science.
Name one scientist with expertise in the analysis of prehistoric human
remains, whose alternative opinion should have been presented.
>
>
> >
> > > Of course the views I would present in this thread would be silenced
> > > too.
> > >
> > > It was hard for me to buy this garbage.
> >
> >
> > Yes. You have to spend a little effort :)
> >
> > > I know that language sounds
> > > rough, but hearing the narrator say, "increase of meat [consumption]
> > > will increase brain size]. OK. Yes, that's why a dog has a small
> > > head in comparison to humans.
> >
> > You hear much that doesn't get said, and read much that isn't written.
> > The narrator may have said something about more meat consumption being
> > a result of a bigger brain, or perhaps a driving force. Whan our
> > ancestors moved out of the woods into the savannah, meat become a more
> > important part of our diet - nice source of calories (mmm... tapir
> > burger).
>
> Bogosity. You aren't going to have any change due to meat consumption.
The power of your intellect simply radiates through everything it touches.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
> > > hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
> > > are. I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
> > > The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
> > > exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
> > > out of some old Star Wars film. The awkward gait that was exhibited
> > > by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
> > > the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
> > > from ape to man.
> >
> > More likely a result of a budget somewhat smaller than a Star Wars
> > movie.
>
> You evidently liked Jar Jar Binks. I didn't like Jar Jar Binks and how
> dare you even suggest that? For that reason alone you should be
> discredited. So much for ye evolutionists and Jar Jar Binks.
>
>
> >
> > > Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> > > see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> > > it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> > > head hunter poles.
> > >
> >
> > So your argument against science is ...bad animation?
>
> It was falsified.
By what means?
>
>
> >
> > > Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
> > > Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
> > > human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
> > > doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
> > >
> >
> > This is dangerously close to libel, bucko. Got any evidence besides
> > your ignorance?
>
> You might be surprised! Grin. Do you want to bet $150 buckaroos on it?
That means no.
>
>
>
> >
> > > In pseudo science, where facts are missing scoundrels proliferate
> > > the use of artwork, footnotes and charts.
> >
> > Damn! I wasn't prepared for that, and I didn't have my irony meter's
> > shock mode activated. Damndamndamn. Another $13 blown.
>
> Don't blow a gasket.
>
>
> >
> > > The style of writing is dry
> > > and abstract.
> >
> > It makes it so hard to concentrate, doesn't it?
> >
> > > Lengthy fictional accounts are invented to assuage the
> > > doubts and the knee wobblings. The pseudoscientist, perhaps is
> > > suffering from the jitters of caffeine extreme, and need to stop
> > > those jittering bouts of doubt. Perhaps someone sees the naked pseudo
> > > scientist, the phoney computerized images, but there is left a mocking
> > > skull of the big A laughing at the con men who pulled a fast one.
> >
> > Oh, I'm sure some of your Creationists are sincere. I believe my own
> > family was. Of course, Grandpa (the Baptist preacher) thought the
> > Russians invented rock and roll :P
>
> Most of us are sincere. There are some enthusiastic bad apples,
> however.
You for instance?
Frank
>
> J McCoy
>
>
> >
> > > JMcCoy
> >
> > --- Kermit of the Apes
> > I speak their language!
>
J McCoy
> > > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> news:<b6shk8$8kln0$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > > > Alt atheism removed
>
> > > > >
> > > > > You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported
> this
> > > > > lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your
> claim, or
> > > > > be once again shown to be a liar.
> > > > >
> > > > If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
> > > > look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
> > >
> > > that's hardly worth $150. Why not just support your claims so that
> people
> > > don't think you are a liar? BTW, the man's name is Johanson, not
> Johansen.
> >
> > Because I have to go to the library again.
>
> What happened to all those photocopies you claim you have?
As I've said before, I have photocopies of references from Gish's book.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
> > >
> > > Why not just provide the evidence?
> >
> > It'll pay for my bus ride.
>
> you need $150 for a bus ride?
$147.75 profit.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Pay up or..... OK. I'll be nice and not finish that phrase.
> > >
> > > Pay up? For what? You haven't provided anything that supports your
> claim,
> > > nor did I agree to pay you anythiing. If you support your claim, I
> will
> > > be greatly surprised.
> >
> > Surprised you will, but I had no plans to visit the library, which is
> > in another town. I promise that the next time I'm up there I'll find
> > that quote, if that book is still there. Johansen wrote several books,
> > and he wrote about it in his talk about his discovery of the specimen.
>
> So, although you have no evidence of your cliam, other than your own faulty
> memory, you accuse a respected scientist of fraud? I have read Johanson's
> book, and he said nothing about prowing around graveyards. So, why don't
> you just admit you were lying, just as you were lying about all the other
> irresponsible claims you have made over the years?
He did admit to sneaking around at tribal burial grounds at night.
He's afraud.
J McCoy
>
> >
> > He's a fraud though.
> >
> > J McCoy
>
> If you are referring to yourself, you are correct.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > DJT
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > J McCoy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DJT
> > > >
> >
J McCoy
> J McCoy wrote:
> >
> > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b6shk8$8kln0$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > Alt atheism removed
>
> > >
> > > You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported this
> > > lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your claim, or
> > > be once again shown to be a liar.
> > >
> > If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
> > look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
> >
>
> state above.
You really want to go through with this?
J McCoy-
>
>
> > Pay up or..... OK. I'll be nice and not finish that phrase.
> >
> > J McCoy
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > DJT
AC
>> J McCoy wrote:
>> >
>> > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b6shk8$8kln0$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>> > > Alt atheism removed
>>
>> > >
>> > > You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported this
>> > > lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your claim, or
>> > > be once again shown to be a liar.
>> > >
>> > If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
>> > look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
>> >
>> > I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
>>
>> I'll take you up on that bet, but I'll hold you to exactly what you
>> state above.
>
> You really want to go through with this?
I think you better, Mr. McCoy. If you have even the smallest amount of
honor left, then I think it is important that you back up your claims.
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
snipping
> > > Because I have to go to the library again.
> >
> > You won't support your lies because you "have to go to the library
again"?
> > What happened to all those photocopies you claim you have?
>
> As I've said before, I have photocopies of references from Gish's book.
And as I've said before, support your claims.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
> > > >
> > > > Why not just provide the evidence?
> > >
> > > It'll pay for my bus ride.
> >
> > you need $150 for a bus ride?
>
> $147.75 profit.
So the bus ride costs $2.25. Bailing out your reputation isn't worth $2.25?
snipping
> > So, although you have no evidence of your cliam, other than your own
faulty
> > memory, you accuse a respected scientist of fraud? I have read
Johanson's
> > book, and he said nothing about prowing around graveyards. So, why
don't
> > you just admit you were lying, just as you were lying about all the
other
> > irresponsible claims you have made over the years?
>
> He did admit to sneaking around at tribal burial grounds at night.
Even if that were true,( which you haven't given any reason to suspect it
is,) what's your point? You have nothing to indicate that Johanson's
finds, which he meticulously documented, were not genuine.
>
> He's afraud.
Johanson wasn't alone when he found that fossil, and there have been a great
many other specimens of A. afarensis found since "Lucy". You have no
evidence that Johanson is a fraud. You can't even support your original
claim that he was "sneaking" aournd a tribal burial ground at night. You
are simply making a false, irresponsible charge against a highly respected
scientist. Is there no limit to your lying? Do you really thing that God
will forgive you for this?
DJT
Chris Ho-Stuart
> In article <3e92...@news.qut.edu.au>, Chris Ho-Stuart
> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> In talk.origins Steven J. <stev...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > The genus _Australopithecus_ includes several species, of which it
>> > is unlikely that more than one was a direct human ancestor.
>>
>> That is a strange claim to make.
>
> Chris, you really shouldn't reply to a post after a 12 hour cramming
> session.
Sorry; I don't get it...
Cheers -- Chris
gen2rev
>
> gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:<3E91EFA5...@crosswinds.net>...
> > J McCoy wrote:
> > >
> > > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b6shk8$8kln0$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > > Alt atheism removed
> >
> > > >
> > > > You have made that claim before, but again you have never supported this
> > > > lie. Johansen did not fabricate a hoax. Provide evidence of your claim, or
> > > > be once again shown to be a liar.
> > > >
> > > If I can prove that Johansen went around in burial grounds at night to
> > > look for a human pelvis would you pay me $150?
> > >
> > > I bet you $150 that I can prove it to you.
> >
> > I'll take you up on that bet, but I'll hold you to exactly what you
> > state above.
>
> You really want to go through with this?
I do.
J McCoy
> In talk.origins gen2rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
> > J McCoy wrote:
> >>
> >> freehand...@hotmail.com (Kermit) wrote in message news:<1575bfdc.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> >> > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >
> >> > > Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
> >> > > Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
> >> > > human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
> >> > > doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > This is dangerously close to libel, bucko. Got any evidence besides
> >> > your ignorance?
> >>
> >> You might be surprised! Grin. Do you want to bet $150 buckaroos on it?
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=3E91EFA5.2B93B56E%40crosswinds.net
> > ?
>
> Be completely clear on the terms of your claim when dealing
> with a low down disgraceful sonofabitch like nameless.
>
> Read what he said above. He does not actually claim that Lucy's
> pelvis was found in some cemetary. There is a vague reference to
> looking for a human pelvis... it is not impossible that Johanson
> at one time tried to find a real human pelvis for some reason,
> and sought same in a location where human remains were known to
> be buried. Of course, that is not how Lucy's pelvis was found.
>
> Lucy's pelvis was found crushed and incomplete; and required some
> substantial reconstruction.
It may not have been Lucy's pelvis. And like I said, Johansen did go
scouting around some burial grounds looking for a human pelvis. The
fraud that he is.
J McCoy
>
> Chris
AC
You have yet to provide a citation. Don't you think that, for once, you
should abstain from such allegations until such time as you can provide
evidence? Do you have even so much as a honorable, humane atom left in your
body? Is there so much as an ounce of common decency left in you, or has
being a fraud for God turned you away from even that?
Norman Sides
As I recall from reading "lucy" years ago, Johanson and Tim White did
sneak into an Afar burial place where skeletons were placed above
ground. This was after they had found Lucy and were doing the
comparative anatomical analysis of the pelvis. They knew lucy's pelvis
was very human in some ways but different in others and they needed a
human pelvis for comparison. They snatched an Afar pelvis just long
enough to make the comparison and then put it back. They might have
gotten shot if they had been discovered sneaking about sacred ground,
but there was nothing *scientifically* wrong or dishonest in what they
did. They were just checking to see if lucy's pelvis was really as
similar as they thought to a human pelvis.
NAS
>
>DJT
>
Glenn
Norman Sides wrote:
> "Dana Tweedy"
>>Johanson wasn't alone when he found that fossil, and there have been a great
>>many other specimens of A. afarensis found since "Lucy". You have no
>>evidence that Johanson is a fraud. You can't even support your original
>>claim that he was "sneaking" aournd a tribal burial ground at night. You
>>are simply making a false, irresponsible charge against a highly respected
>>scientist. Is there no limit to your lying? Do you really thing that God
>>will forgive you for this?
>>
>
> As I recall from reading "lucy" years ago, Johanson and Tim White did
> sneak into an Afar burial place where skeletons were placed above
> ground. This was after they had found Lucy and were doing the
> comparative anatomical analysis of the pelvis. They knew lucy's pelvis
> was very human in some ways but different in others and they needed a
> human pelvis for comparison. They snatched an Afar pelvis just long
> enough to make the comparison and then put it back.
How does one document that?
>They might have
> gotten shot if they had been discovered sneaking about sacred ground,
> but there was nothing *scientifically* wrong or dishonest in what they
> did.
That might depend on the above being documented.
>They were just checking to see if lucy's pelvis was really as
> similar as they thought to a human pelvis.
>
Before you said they *knew*...
If your recollection is correct, that is a damn weak argument.
John Wilkins
But there is only *one* Homo sapiens. All individuals are members of it,
and so are "H.s"s. If there are clones of copies of me, or if my name
refers to a class and not an individual (the many John Wilkinses from
the 1600s to today), then each is an instantiation of that class or now
generic name, and so each are collectively referred to as the plural of
the class name, by convention.
John
Who never does...
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
John Wilkins
> In article <b6shev$8hm4a$1...@ID-174711.news.dfncis.de>, "Geoff"
> <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, of course, there are no fossils. No intermediaries. Godidit.
>
> Nah, it was outsourced to Microsoft. (Couldn't have been Apple. If it
> had been Apple our arches would no longer fall, but our visual system
> would 'screen freeze' every couple of hours and we'd have to hit
> restart.)
No, you are getting confused with Windows NT. OS X does not freeze (but
very rarely one has a panic attack), but God would have prohibited the
use of Apple because those who use it have knowledge of Good, and if
they have used Windows as well, of Evil. And IIRC God had a thing about
us knowing Good and Evil...
John Wilkins
> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote...
> > freehand...@hotmail.com (Kermit) wrote...
> > > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote...
A minor nit, Dr Aranyosi, if I may:
Latin names for species predate (as in go before, not as in eat)
Linnaeus by a long time. At the end of the middle ages, herbals were
giving Latin names for plants ranging from two to ten Latin words.
Bauhin and Tournefort both tended to use Latin binomials before Linnaeus
(the genus/species distinction is ancient - going back to Aristotle's
logic), and John Ray used almost nothing else. Linnaeus' innovations
were to insist on a fixed ranking scheme, and to establish rigid
descriptions of species; in particular plants were described in terms of
their sexual apparatus, a system he developed for flowering plants and
then to other plants. This was a lucky break, because sexual apparatuses
are often involved in keeping plants distinct as species.
As you said, Latin was used as the lingua franca (there's an ironic
phrase these days :-) of the learned world. Luther and Erasmus, for
example, carried on a debate in Latin because they knew that British,
Italian and Spanish readers would be able to follow it. It was more
standardised and understood than modern Arabic is across the Islamic
world. So it was chosen because it was the exact opposite of a "cover".
Now it is just a tradition, and often honoured in the breach than the
observance...
>
> > Scientists did not name Mr. Hippo.
Well yes they did. But the term, which is classical Greek for "river
horse", is a translation of a vernaclular phrase used by (IIRC)
Egyptians in classicla times.
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway, we are apes;
> >
> > I know you are but what am I?
An ape. You are also a primate, a mammal, a vertebrate, an animal, and a
eukaryote. You are a hominid ape, which is a subgroup of "hominin",
which is the current scientific word for the ape clade.
>
> Although I've never met you, judging by your ability to type in
> English, I can conclude that you, like everyone else in this group,
> are a member of the species _Homo sapiens_. Since the members of this
> species are primates that do not have tails, the species fit the
> colloquial definition of "apes." There's not much you can do about
> that other than learn to live with it; sorry.
There are apes that are not Homo sapiens that have a better command of
English than McLiar.
>
>
> >
> >
> > the teacher should have said (and possibly did -
> > > I don't trust your memory, considering your comprehension of these
> > > matters (nor, come to think of it, do I trust your veracity)) "we and
> > > the other living apes are descended from a common ancestor".
> >
> > Chimps off the old block?
> >
>
> Clever.
But not original.
Here is the Definitive Theory of Creationism:
1. Evolution is Wrong.
2. Therefore God did it all
3. Did we mention that evolution is wrong?
Except in Literary Criticism... ;-)
Norman Sides
wrote:
>
>
>Norman Sides wrote:
>
>> "Dana Tweedy"
>
>>>Johanson wasn't alone when he found that fossil, and there have been a great
>>>many other specimens of A. afarensis found since "Lucy". You have no
>>>evidence that Johanson is a fraud. You can't even support your original
>>>claim that he was "sneaking" aournd a tribal burial ground at night. You
>>>are simply making a false, irresponsible charge against a highly respected
>>>scientist. Is there no limit to your lying? Do you really thing that God
>>>will forgive you for this?
>>>
>>
>> As I recall from reading "lucy" years ago, Johanson and Tim White did
>> sneak into an Afar burial place where skeletons were placed above
>> ground. This was after they had found Lucy and were doing the
>> comparative anatomical analysis of the pelvis. They knew lucy's pelvis
>> was very human in some ways but different in others and they needed a
>> human pelvis for comparison. They snatched an Afar pelvis just long
>> enough to make the comparison and then put it back.
>
>
>How does one document that?
The incident is described in Johanson's book "Lucy." What exactly
about the episode do you think needs documenting?
>>They might have
>> gotten shot if they had been discovered sneaking about sacred ground,
>> but there was nothing *scientifically* wrong or dishonest in what they
>> did.
>
>
>That might depend on the above being documented.
You seem to think Johanson and White were up to no good. Are you
trying to imply that the the small and completely fossilized Lucy
pelvis is really that of a recently deceased Afar tribesman?
>>They were just checking to see if lucy's pelvis was really as
>> similar as they thought to a human pelvis.
>>
>
>Before you said they *knew*...
There prior knowledge of anatomy told them the pelvis was similar some
ways to a modern human pelvis and different in some ways. They needed
to measure the differences. That's how science works.
>
>
>If your recollection is correct, that is a damn weak argument.
You think it was wrong for them to make the original informed
supposition? Or were they wrong to check the supposition by making
accurate measurements?
NAS
David Holland
<snipping a lot>
> I can't have some prof telling me what I see, when they could as
> easily shown the comparison skulls together so I could decide for
> myself. And how about competing opinions? Do you get insurance
> without different opinions? No. What would those people at
> Progressive insurance do to you, given your lack of objectivity?
> Science is about debate and reasoning. I don't see some prof
> grandstanding and telling me what to believe as science? That's
> pontification. Believe, ye.
Have a look at these two sites. I'm curious about how you feel about the
data presented and the conclusions he comes to.
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/man/hominid/default.html
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/man/hominid/index.html
I had some trouble with the graphics on the second site, I don't know if it
is at my end or on the web page.
<snip the rest>
raven1
wrote:
Until you document that, or anything else that you claim, you're still
a liar. Citations or retractions, McNameless. Doesn't it bother you to
blatantly lie against one of your "god's" commandments? Or is it OK if
it's for your own agenda?
J McCoy
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:08:19 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Ruskai"
> <spammoc.r...@begoneynnaht.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:56:10 +0000 (UTC), J McCoy wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >Is this Nameless himself, returned from blissful (for us) obscurity?
>
> Yep. He's been popping up every now and then for the last
> few months belching the same kind of nonsense he always
> has. Only now he's on an anti-evolution kick.
So little you know.
J McCoy
J McCoy
Excuse me pseudonym, you may in pitbull fashion accuse me of being a
liar, but not documenting the truth is not lying in itself.
Citations or retractions, McNameless. Doesn't it bother you to
> blatantly lie against one of your "god's" commandments? Or is it OK if
> it's for your own agenda?
What is this? Have you, DLT, and Oldbridge get together to spout some
pseudo religious trip on me?
J McCoy
J McCoy
Gullibility is the trait of an evolutionist. How little do you know.
J McCoy
J McCoy
Are you really sure that you want me to go through with this?
J McCoy
gen2rev
If you can demonstrate that Johanson went to a burial ground at night to
look for a human pelvis, I'll pay you $150. However, if you can't
demonstrate this exact claim, you will pay $150 to whomever I choose.
Now, I fully expect that when you can't demonstrate this exact claim,
you'll whine, twist in the wind, and try to change the terms. That won't
change the fact that you were mistaken, it won't free you from your side
of the bet, and I won't let you get away with it. But hopefully it will
teach you a lesson.
You've got a week.
> J McCoy
engelsman
> Gullibility is the trait of an evolutionist. How little do you know.
Someone (probably one of your JW propworks) told *you*: 'If evolution is
right then if one were to throw a fish on the shore it should grow
lungs.': If that's not a sign of gullibility and lack of knowledge, i
don't know.
Not to mention the total stupidity needed to even have the audacity to
post this nonsense and claim you are not the one being pig-ignorant.
>
> J McCoy
>
I've been thinking lately: am i also a gravitationalist mcboy?
Alan Kellogg
mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote:
> It may not have been Lucy's pelvis. And like I said, Johansen did go
> scouting around some burial grounds looking for a human pelvis. The
> fraud that he is.
>
> J McCoy
The pelvis in question has been firmly established as Australopithecine.
Since, according to McCoy, it came from a tribal burial ground, this
must mean he thinks the locals are Autralopithecines. Which makes McCoy
a racist.
So not only is he libelling a reputable scientist, he's libelling an
entire tribe.
Alan
--
http://www.mythusmage.com
Writing Practice at: http://www.gamingoutpost.com
Alan Kellogg
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
I was thinking of OS 9 and before. OSX is the Apple operating system
after encountering Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Alan Kellogg
For this you want a cookie?
Alan Kellogg
Actually formulating a coherent thought would be a good first step.
Mark W
"Alan Kellogg" <mythu...@cts.com> wrote in message
news:mythusmage-E96B2...@nntp.cts.com...
AC
Quit stalling, Mr. McCoy. Provide the citations or admit that you just made
it up. But quit stalling.
AC
JTEM
JTEM
"John Harshman" <harshman....@pacbell.net> wrote
> JTEM wrote:
> > Modern humans did not come from apes. Homo Sapiens, our
> > species, came from Homo Erectus (with a likely genetic
> > contribution from others).
> Why isn't it possible for modern humans to come from more
> than one ancestor?
Hello?
David Sienkiewicz
You already asked that, John.
*I*'d like to see it. If you can do it, you'd have already done it.
I think you're lying. Prove me wrong - if you can.
J McCoy
> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> snipping
>
> > > > Because I have to go to the library again.
> > >
> > > You won't support your lies because you "have to go to the library
> again"?
> > > What happened to all those photocopies you claim you have?
> >
> > As I've said before, I have photocopies of references from Gish's book.
>
> And as I've said before, support your claims.
>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
Why should I worry about this when it is simply the truth?
J McCoy
Dana Tweedy
> > >
> > >It may not have been Lucy's pelvis. And like I said, Johansen did go
> > >scouting around some burial grounds looking for a human pelvis. The
> > >fraud that he is.
> >
> > Until you document that, or anything else that you claim, you're still
> > a liar.
>
> Excuse me pseudonym, you may in pitbull fashion accuse me of being a
> liar, but not documenting the truth is not lying in itself.
No, making a false claim, and refusing to document it, is lying.
>
>
> Citations or retractions, McNameless. Doesn't it bother you to
> > blatantly lie against one of your "god's" commandments? Or is it OK if
> > it's for your own agenda?
>
> What is this? Have you, DLT, and Oldbridge get together to spout some
> pseudo religious trip on me?
Do you have a problem with Christians telling you to stop lying? Do you
really think that God is going to forgive your lies?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>
> Gullibility is the trait of an evolutionist. How little do you know.
>
> J McCoy
I noticed you still haven't provided any evidence to back up your claim.
BTW, if you want to talk about "gullibility" perhaps we should review you
uncritical acceptance of Wyatt's claims to have found the Ark. Not even
other Creationists bit on that fraud.
DJT
>
J McCoy
> In article <3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>,
> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote:
>
> > Michelle Malkin <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:<cnj49v0crpljufgd3...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:08:19 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Ruskai"
> > > <spammoc.r...@begoneynnaht.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:56:10 +0000 (UTC), J McCoy wrote:
> > > >
> > > >[snip]
> > > >
> > > >Is this Nameless himself, returned from blissful (for us) obscurity?
> > >
> > > Yep. He's been popping up every now and then for the last
> > > few months belching the same kind of nonsense he always
> > > has. Only now he's on an anti-evolution kick.
> >
> > So little you know.
>
> For this you want a cookie?
>
> Alan
Please. I like pecan and chocolate chips. "Famous Amos".
J McCoy
Frank Reichenbacher
Maybe it won't affect you now, but you will eventually have to answer to God
for your lies.
Frank
>
>
> J McCoy
>
Ferrous Patella
I believe what JH is getting at is multiple generantions of ancestors. Go
back far enough and you get (non-hominid) apes.
--
Ferrous Patella
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not
only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt
May 7, 1918
Frank Reichenbacher
Obviously you are lying or you would provide the evidence.
Frank
J McCoy
>
> > While the Discovery Channel provides quality
> > programs
>
> *snicker*
>
> > I was in my high school class when a fellow student had said, "so, do
> > you think we came from apes?" And my teacher said, "no. We came from
> > a common unknown ancestor." To which, I looked down in my textbook
> > and saw the words "Australopithecus," which means SOUTHERN APE. This
> > happened a second time in a psychology course that I had at college.
>
> And your point is...? We are apes. The most recent common ancestor between
> us and
> chimpanzees was an ape. Australopithecus may be considered an ape, but that
> does
> not mean it is necessarily our ancestor.
The program said so. That was a bad program, then?
>
> > So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
> > me that the foreman magnon of the skull in question proved that the
> > head was held aloft like a normal human. I wasn't entirely convince. I
> > couldn't get a good look at the skull and a comparison ape or monkey
> > skull wasn't presented along side and in a fashion that you could
> > compare it. Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite
> > the well known debate amongst paleontologists that counter the claim.
> > The views of creationists were excluded too, giving the impression of
> > pseudoscientific venture that wanted itself to be shielded from
> > questioning.
>
> Excluding creationism in no way hinders the efforts of science. In fact
> creationism
> is self-exclusionary.
So is evolutionism. Evolutionists maintain blacklists of creation
scientists who have PH.Ds and have graduated from places like
Berkeley.
When a creationist wants to submit his junk for
> review, bring
> it on. Until then, forget the conspiracy theory. It makes you look kooky.
Like I said, even if you had a degree from Harvard you couldn't get a
paper submitted. Even if you wrote papers that were accepted as a
pseudonym, and were accepted 1000 times, if you wrote a paper that
supported creationism it would not even make the peer review process.
>
> > Of course the views I would present in this thread would be silenced
> > too.
>
> You're right! I can't hear anything!
Of course not, speaking literally, there are no sounds coming out of
your computer. But do you think I had meant to be understood
literally, by the context?
>
> > It was hard for me to buy this garbage. I know that language sounds
> > rough, but hearing the narrator say, "increase of meat [consumption]
> > will increase brain size]. OK. Yes, that's why a dog has a small
> > head in comparison to humans.
>
> I am not familiar with this theory. I have heard that increased brain size
> confer certain advantages and problem solving requirements of hunting.
Looks like this program was written against vegetarianism.
> > The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
> > hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
> > are. I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
> > The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
> > exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
> > out of some old Star Wars film. The awkward gait that was exhibited
> > by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
> > the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
> > from ape to man. Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> > see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> > it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> > head hunter poles.
>
> It's just TV, man, it's not real.
I know that. Evolution is a TV program?
>
> > Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
> > Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
> > human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
> > doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
> >
> > In pseudo science, where facts are missing scoundrels proliferate
> > the use of artwork, footnotes and charts. The style of writing is dry
> > and abstract. Lengthy fictional accounts are invented to assuage the
> > doubts and the knee wobblings. The pseudoscientist, perhaps is
> > suffering from the jitters of caffeine extreme, and need to stop
> > those jittering bouts of doubt. Perhaps someone sees the naked pseudo
> > scientist, the phoney computerized images, but there is left a mocking
> > skull of the big A laughing at the con men who pulled a fast one.
>
> Well, of course, there are no fossils. No intermediaries. Godidit.
The creator did do it. That is one of the most sophisticated thoughts
that a civilization could come up with, if in fact that it had come up
with it. To believe in a God that created a universe such as this is
the ultimate.
Otherwise, sitting in front of a vat of amino acids, with men in white
scurrying around dumping chemicals into the vat sounds like the
moronic thing to do. If you can imagine these ultra near-sighted
scientists climbing a mountain on their knees. In a Jerry Lewis voice
imitation, they say, "we don't see the truth." Their eyes are inches
above the dirt. "So you see the truth, Ralph"? Ralph pulls out his
magnifying glass. "No, not yet." As they ascend the mountain of
information, finally, after many years they reach the top. And
standing on the top of the mountain were Moses, the prophets and many
theologians.
Thanks Robert Jastrow.
J McCoy
AC
Why do I get this feeling, Mr. McCoy, that you have absolutely no intention
of providing any evidence for this slanderous claim of yours?
Ferrous Patella
<j_dee...@hotmail.com>:
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote
>
>> Modern humans *are* apes.
>
> Well, "Primates."
>
Yes, and apes. Most taxonomists put humans in Hominidae, the great apes.
Bill Hudson
wrote:
Bet noted. I'll be watching too.
Frank Reichenbacher
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<b6shev$8hm4a$1...@ID-174711.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > While the Discovery Channel provides quality
> > > programs
> >
> > *snicker*
> >
> > > I was in my high school class when a fellow student had said, "so, do
> > > you think we came from apes?" And my teacher said, "no. We came from
> > > a common unknown ancestor." To which, I looked down in my textbook
> > > and saw the words "Australopithecus," which means SOUTHERN APE. This
> > > happened a second time in a psychology course that I had at college.
> >
> > And your point is...? We are apes. The most recent common ancestor
between
> > us and
> > chimpanzees was an ape. Australopithecus may be considered an ape, but
that
> > does
> > not mean it is necessarily our ancestor.
>
> The program said so. That was a bad program, then?
I think it means that you have the comprehension of an Australopithecus. I
suspect the program was good.
>
>
> >
> > > So I watched this program with interest as I watched a professor tell
> > > me that the foreman magnon of the skull in question proved that the
> > > head was held aloft like a normal human. I wasn't entirely convince. I
> > > couldn't get a good look at the skull and a comparison ape or monkey
> > > skull wasn't presented along side and in a fashion that you could
> > > compare it. Additionally, no counter opinions were offered, dispite
> > > the well known debate amongst paleontologists that counter the claim.
> > > The views of creationists were excluded too, giving the impression of
> > > pseudoscientific venture that wanted itself to be shielded from
> > > questioning.
> >
> > Excluding creationism in no way hinders the efforts of science. In fact
> > creationism
> > is self-exclusionary.
>
> So is evolutionism. Evolutionists maintain blacklists of creation
> scientists who have PH.Ds and have graduated from places like
> Berkeley.
We maintain blacklists of ignorant cranks like you. Cranks whose inane
rantings don't belong in scientific publications.
>
>
>
> When a creationist wants to submit his junk for
> > review, bring
> > it on. Until then, forget the conspiracy theory. It makes you look
kooky.
>
> Like I said, even if you had a degree from Harvard you couldn't get a
> paper submitted. Even if you wrote papers that were accepted as a
> pseudonym, and were accepted 1000 times, if you wrote a paper that
> supported creationism it would not even make the peer review process.
We dealt with that in the posting you plagiarized from David Buckna on 3/25.
You are wrong. You know you are wrong. Intentionally spewing that which you
know to be untrue is called "lying."
>
>
> >
> > > Of course the views I would present in this thread would be silenced
> > > too.
> >
> > You're right! I can't hear anything!
>
> Of course not, speaking literally, there are no sounds coming out of
> your computer. But do you think I had meant to be understood
> literally, by the context?
And how would we be silencing you? Your post appeared, idiotic though it is.
Dozens of replies have been posted to it. How is that silencing it?
>
>
> >
> > > It was hard for me to buy this garbage. I know that language sounds
> > > rough, but hearing the narrator say, "increase of meat [consumption]
> > > will increase brain size]. OK. Yes, that's why a dog has a small
> > > head in comparison to humans.
> >
> > I am not familiar with this theory. I have heard that increased brain
size
> > confer certain advantages and problem solving requirements of hunting.
>
> Looks like this program was written against vegetarianism.
Don't you even try to reason these things out?
>
>
> > > The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
> > > hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
> > > are. I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
> > > The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
> > > exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
> > > out of some old Star Wars film. The awkward gait that was exhibited
> > > by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
> > > the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
> > > from ape to man. Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> > > see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> > > it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> > > head hunter poles.
> >
> > It's just TV, man, it's not real.
>
> I know that. Evolution is a TV program?
Riiiggghhttt.
>
<snip remaining nonsense>
>
> J McCoy
>
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<b6shev$8hm4a$1...@ID-174711.news.dfncis.de>...
> > And your point is...? We are apes. The most recent common ancestor
between
> > us and
> > chimpanzees was an ape. Australopithecus may be considered an ape, but
that
> > does
> > not mean it is necessarily our ancestor.
>
> The program said so. That was a bad program, then?
The program was not presented as a scholarly work, but popular
entertainment. Was it "bad"? Only if you feel popularizing science is
Bad.
snipping
> >
> > Excluding creationism in no way hinders the efforts of science. In fact
> > creationism
> > is self-exclusionary.
>
> So is evolutionism. Evolutionists maintain blacklists of creation
> scientists who have PH.Ds and have graduated from places like
> Berkeley.
What evidence do you have of this "Blacklist"? Your "creation scientist"
from Berkely (obviously Duane Gish) has excluded himself, by refusing to
follow the rules of scientific inquiry. Can you give even one paper that
Gish submitted that was rejected by a legitamate journal?
>
> When a creationist wants to submit his junk for
> > review, bring
> > it on. Until then, forget the conspiracy theory. It makes you look
kooky.
>
> Like I said, even if you had a degree from Harvard you couldn't get a
> paper submitted.
You have said that, but like usual, you haven't supported your claim.
Hint, journals don't check to see what degree, or what school a person
attended, they check the strength of the idea being presented. People
without even a Bachelor's degree have gotten published in scientific
journals.
> Even if you wrote papers that were accepted as a
> pseudonym, and were accepted 1000 times, if you wrote a paper that
> supported creationism it would not even make the peer review process.
Again, you have made this claim, but never supported it. In fact, it's been
shown that Creationists are not bothering to submit articles. Any cry of
censorship rings hollow when no one is even trying to get published. The
fact that Creatonism won't make peer review, should tell you something about
the quality of Creationist arguments.
>
>
> >
> > > Of course the views I would present in this thread would be silenced
> > > too.
> >
> > You're right! I can't hear anything!
>
> Of course not, speaking literally, there are no sounds coming out of
> your computer. But do you think I had meant to be understood
> literally, by the context?
What makes you think the Bible is intended to be taken literally?
>
>
> >
> > > It was hard for me to buy this garbage. I know that language sounds
> > > rough, but hearing the narrator say, "increase of meat [consumption]
> > > will increase brain size]. OK. Yes, that's why a dog has a small
> > > head in comparison to humans.
> >
> > I am not familiar with this theory. I have heard that increased brain
size
> > confer certain advantages and problem solving requirements of hunting.
>
> Looks like this program was written against vegetarianism.
Looks like you don't know what you are talking about.
>
>
> > > The upright walking animated australopithecus goes counter to the
> > > hunched over galloping apes that some paleontologists claim that they
> > > are. I don't know what you think, but it looked contrived and fake.
> > > The natural beauty and grace that you see in real animals were not
> > > exhibited in the animation. It looked like a freak of nature, a zoid
> > > out of some old Star Wars film. The awkward gait that was exhibited
> > > by the contrived animated figures was probably invented to indicate
> > > the imperfection that would have resulted from a supposed transition
> > > from ape to man. Note that this is counter to all creatures that we
> > > see today. There is no balance in the fictional Australopithecus and
> > > it reminds me of a stick pole with a head perched atop, reminiscent of
> > > head hunter poles.
> >
> > It's just TV, man, it's not real.
>
> I know that. Evolution is a TV program?
Evolution is a scientific theory. The presentation that you didn't like was
a TV program. Can you see the difference?
>
>
> >
> > > Whenever I think of Australopithecus I'm reminded how the founder of
> > > Lucy claimed in his book that he had infact been scouting in native
> > > human burial grounds one night to get a human pelvis. It therefore
> > > doesn't seem out of place for Johansen to fabricate a hoax.
> > >
> > > In pseudo science, where facts are missing scoundrels proliferate
> > > the use of artwork, footnotes and charts. The style of writing is dry
> > > and abstract. Lengthy fictional accounts are invented to assuage the
> > > doubts and the knee wobblings. The pseudoscientist, perhaps is
> > > suffering from the jitters of caffeine extreme, and need to stop
> > > those jittering bouts of doubt. Perhaps someone sees the naked pseudo
> > > scientist, the phoney computerized images, but there is left a mocking
> > > skull of the big A laughing at the con men who pulled a fast one.
> >
> > Well, of course, there are no fossils. No intermediaries. Godidit.
>
> The creator did do it.
Why couldn't the creator have done it by Evolution?
> That is one of the most sophisticated thoughts
> that a civilization could come up with, if in fact that it had come up
> with it. To believe in a God that created a universe such as this is
> the ultimate.
The ultimate what? To believe that God created is wisdom. To believe that
God would not leave evidence of his creation is folly.
>
> Otherwise, sitting in front of a vat of amino acids, with men in white
> scurrying around dumping chemicals into the vat sounds like the
> moronic thing to do.
Since no one is doing that, what's your point?
> If you can imagine these ultra near-sighted
> scientists climbing a mountain on their knees. In a Jerry Lewis voice
> imitation, they say, "we don't see the truth." Their eyes are inches
> above the dirt. "So you see the truth, Ralph"? Ralph pulls out his
> magnifying glass. "No, not yet."
Scientists are not looking for any ultimate truth. They are looking to
understand the world, by examining the evidence we can see.
> As they ascend the mountain of
> information, finally, after many years they reach the top. And
> standing on the top of the mountain were Moses, the prophets and many
> theologians.
Who may or may not have the "truth" themselves.
This rather clearly illustrates your ignorance of how science works, and
your bigotry against people who know more than you do. Why are you
holding to this anti-intellectual fantasy? Do you really think that
scientists are all near sighted Jerry Lewis clones? Good grief.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Because you know you are lying. Again, it's not me you have to face for
judgement.
Johanson did not fake his finds. He clearly and carefully documented his
work, and you, and anyone else can examine his notes, and his methods.
Bringing up a red herring like a supposed trip to a African grave yard,
(which you STILL haven't supported) means nothing. You are making an
irresponsible claim about a respected scientist, a charge you know to be
false. That is lying plain and simple.
God doesn't forgive lying for his sake. He's not going to be impressed with
your attempts to decieve.
DJT
>
>
> J McCoy
>
NA Sides
wrote:
>"Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b6vd5q$9f1ks$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
What exactly is your claim? Johanson does describe in his book "Lucy"
how he "borrowed" and returned a pelvis from an Afar tribal bone
repository. This was *after* the Lucy skeleton had been recovered,
documented and a comparative anatomical analysis begun. The fossilized
pelvis seemed to be more human-like than ape-like and Johanson and
White needed a human pelvis so that they could accurately document the
similarities and differences. You appear to be claiming some kind of
fraud on their part, but It's obvious from Johanson's account that he
was simply doing a careful comparative analysis. In trying to imply
that the little and completely fossilized Lucy pelvis is actually that
of a recently deceased Afar tribesman, you and Glen are being
disingenuous and remarkably silly.
NAS
>
>
>J McCoy