ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/21/85)
[]
And now it's time to play "Classify that reason".
I've really fallen behind on this, and this update will be too short
to change much. Oh well.
Just to remind you all what the categories are we have
1) Arguments in favor of creationism
2) Irrelevant points
3) Incorrect points
4) Arguments against evolution having occurred
5) Arguments which point out significant gaps in our current understanding
of evolution.
The updated score is
category articles total
1 14 1
2 3,4,7,11,16,17 6
3 2,6,9,10,12,13,15,18 8
4 - 0
5 1,5 2
It's been a while so let me quote the thesis of point 18.
> 18. Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like men have been
> found are overstated [a-c]. It is now universally
> acknowledged that Piltdown man was a hoax [d]. The
> fragmentary evidence that constituted Nebraska man was a
> pig's tooth. Prior to 1978, the known remains of
> Ramapithecus consisted merely of a handful of teeth and
> jaw fragments. It is now known that these fragments were
> pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey [e] so as to
> resemble portions of the human jaw [f]. Ramapithecus was
> just an ape [g]. The discoverer of Java man later
> acknowledged that Java man was similar to a large gibbon
> [h,i] and that he had withheld evidence to that effect
> [j-m]. Peking man is considered by many experts to be the
> remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and
> exploited for food by true man [n,o]. Furthermore, Skull
> 1470, discovered by Richard Leakey, is more human-like and
> yet older than Java man, Peking man, and the
> Australopithecines [p,q]. Detailed computer studies of the
> Australopithecines have conclusively shown that they are
> not intermediate between man and apes [r]. The
> Australopithecines, which were made famous by Louis and
> Mary Leakey, are actually quite distinct from both man and
> apes. Lucy, a type of Australopithecine, was initially
> believed to have walked upright in a human manner. Recent
> studies of Lucy's entire anatomy, not just her knee
> joints, now show that this is highly improbable [s] and
> that she probably swung from the trees [t,u]. For about
> 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal
> man was stooped and ape-like. Recent studies show that
> this was based upon some Neanderthal men who were crippled
> with arthritis and rickets [v-x]. Neanderthal man,
> Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man were completely human.
> Artists' depictions, especially of the fleshy portions of
> their bodies, are quite imaginative and are not supported
> by the evidence [y]. Furthermore, the dating techniques
> are questionable.
This statement mixes together some uncontroversial points with some that
are so wrong that if I had a category for outrageous lies then #18 would
surely qualify. Some of the more noticeable ones are:
1) Skull 1470 is *not* more human like than "Java Man" or "Peking
Man" both of which are homo erectus. The striking thing about
this skull was that it was dated at more than 3 million years
and yet has the characteristics of homo habilis, the earliest
species that clearly belongs to the genus homo. Other specimens
of habilis date around 2 million years. Skull 1470 has since
been redated by other people as being close to 2 million years.
The stratigraphy of the area is *very* convoluted. The redating
was done on the basis of the kinds of pigs and horses found at
that site in the same stratum. From more reliably dated sites
that fixes the stratum as having been laid done not more than
2 million years ago.
In general, reason #18 is most bizarre in treating homo erectus
as a couple of poorly known specimens instead of a couple dozen
specimens with many more fragments. The comments about the
australopithecines are also deliberately deceptive. For reasons
having do to with a series of specialized adaptations the later
types (africanus and robustus) are poor candidates for human
ancestors. This objection does not apply to "Lucy" in particular
or afarensis in general. I am aware of some claims that the
australopithecines did not walk erect. These claims seem
implausible to me since the hip joints are well adapted for walking
erect. However, whatever the truth of that the essential point is
that they show the adaptation that makes it possible for people
to walk erect.
For those who are interested in a popular introduction to this
material, as well as some intriguing anatomical illustrations,
I urge you to read the book "Human Ancestors" which is an
anthology of readings from the Sci Am. as well as the book "Lucy".
One last point, Neanderthal man is now considered to have been
homo sapiens. The statement that he was completely human is
a matter of definition. He stood erect. He made complex tools.
His brain capacity was not less than ours. However, his brain
structure was different from ours. His skull showed strong
residual ridges over the eyes which would make him stand out in
any modern crowd. Finally, he was immensely stronger than any of
us. In fact, the subspecies seems to have been adapted to hunting
large animals by holding on to them and bashing them over the head.
[One of the brain differences is that their motor areas were much
better developed than modern man's.] Human? Well, sort of. Sounds
more like a troll than a person.
"Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac
Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texasethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (06/03/85)
[]
I have to give up my project of classifying the 116 reasons. I don't
really have the time and I keep missing some of them. In addition,
the project has lost all interest for me. The "authors" are not
responding to comments and the reasons are almost entirely beneath
contempt. Total nonresponse would be most consistent with my signature
line, but I'll probably be unable to resist the temptation to respond
to some of the astronomical notes. [If I'm here when they come in].
--
"Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac
Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texasbeth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (06/07/85)
From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac), Message-ID: <183@utastro.UUCP>: >Total nonresponse would be most consistent with my signature >line, but I'll probably be unable to resist the temptation to respond >to some of the astronomical notes. [If I'm here when they come in]. You'll be here. This afternoon I attended a presentation by a creationist (which was totally without meaningful content, so I'm not even gonna post anything that he presented), and he passed out copies of the paper that Ron Kukuk is posting a bit at a time (_The_Scientific_Case_For_Creation_, Walter T. Brown, Jr.). Item 36 was just posted, and Item 37 begins the astronomical stuff. (But don't hold your breath - it doesn't get much better.) -- --JB Life is just a bowl.
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (06/08/85)
> From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac), Message-ID: <183@utastro.UUCP>: > >Total nonresponse would be most consistent with my signature > >line, but I'll probably be unable to resist the temptation to respond > >to some of the astronomical notes. [If I'm here when they come in]. > > You'll be here. This afternoon I attended a presentation by a creationist > (which was totally without meaningful content, so I'm not even gonna post > anything that he presented), and he passed out copies of the paper that > Ron Kukuk is posting a bit at a time (_The_Scientific_Case_For_Creation_, > Walter T. Brown, Jr.). Item 36 was just posted, and Item 37 begins the > astronomical stuff. (But don't hold your breath - it doesn't get much > better.) > > --JB Life is just a bowl. *** REPLACE THIS LINEAGE WITH YOUR MESSIAH *** Alas, I *won't* be here. I leave in three days for a trip of about four weeks, during which time I am unlikely to check up on the net. Have nice June. Mail to utastro!ethan and I'll respond when I get home. Flames to /dev/null since I wouldn't respond in any case. -- "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas