It demonstrates a belief system that is not falsifiable.
Skull 1470 as originally dated falsified evolution.
--Dave
It demonstrates a belief system that is not falsifiable.
I think you should wait until we get to that subject before you make a whole lot of false assumptions as to what I know?
--Dave
You introduced the subject. And judging from your past record you have not been very convincing that you understand these subjects.
Richard Leakey
“There is now clear evidence that in eastern Africa a large brained, truly upright and bipedal form of the genus Homo existed contemporaneously with Australopithecus more than 2.5 million years ago.”
"Ancient bones found in Africa have been assembled into a skull that may extend man's immediate ancestry back more than one million years earlier than previously believed. The fragments, making up a skull with striking resemblances to that of modern man, were found in a layer of material that had been deposite about 2.6 million years ago.
Richard Leaky, co-leader of the expedition that found the bones, said the skull seemed to displace two other man-like creatures widely thought to represent the early stages in man's development. One of them, a beetle-browed type known as Homo erectus lived far more recently—a million years ago—yet is less like modern man than the lately found skull.
The other reputed ancestor, Australopithecus, an ape-like "man" that walked relatively erect, lived 2.5 to 3 million years ago. It now appears to have been a contemporary of the more modern-looking type, rather than ancestral to the men of today." --The New York Times, November 1972
Skull KNM-ER 1470 and leg fragment KNM-ER 1481 originally dated 2.5 to 3 m.y.a. resemble modern humans and were more likely than Afarensis Lucy to have left the Laetoli foot prints dated just over 3 m.y.a.
The changes made in the dating of skull 1470 since the original dates were established demonstrate how theory comes before facts in the theory of evolution. Putting 1470 along side "Lucy" takes australopithecines out of the picture of human evolution and provides evidence for creation.
--Dave
Homo rudolfensis (also Australopithecus rudolfensis) is an extinct species of the Hominini tribe known only through a handful of representative fossils, the first of which was discovered by Bernard Ngeneo, a member of a team led by anthropologist Richard Leakey and zoologist Meave Leakey in 1972, at Koobi Fora on the east side of Lake Rudolf (now Lake Turkana) in Kenya.
The scientific name Pithecanthropus rudolfensis was proposed in 1978 by V. P. Alekseyev who later (1986) changed it Homo rudolfensis. for the specimen Skull 1470 (KNM ER 1470). It remains an open debate whether the fossil evidence represents sufficient for postulating a separate species, and if so whether this species should be classified as within the Homo or Australopithecus genus.
On 8 August 2012, a team led by Meave Leakey announced the discovery of a face and two jawbones belonging to H. rudolfensis.
We will see. Any comment on skull 1470?
--Dave
From the wiki article which explains this all very clearly. You see unlike you Dave, wiki attempts to clarify issues.
This skull has been placed in the genus homo more recently, rather than its original classification of Australopithecus. This does not, nor did it falsify evolution. There is no reason that species from both genus could not have lived on the earth contemporaneously.
So again, all we have is more misinformation/misrepresentation from Daft_Dave.
I welcome your efforts to impress us with your vast knowledge of these subjects. Unlike you Dave, I do not fear the truth or accurate reporting of evidence.
I already said the dating of 1470 was changed, it changed from 2.6 to 1.9 million years ago. As we will see a number of changes have been made regarding the evolution of man. The skull dated at 2.6 refuted evolution of man and that's why it was changed.
--Dave
Well then you have an issue with the clowns that gave us misinformation about Neanderthal, made up Piltdown and Nebraska man.
--Dave
So does it actually falsify the ToE?Skull 1470 as originally dated falsified evolution.
--Dave
That may be your revisionist history of the scenario. But the reality is that the skull being either in the genus Homo or Australopithecus does not falsify evolution. Neither does the change of when it is believed to have lived. This is another example of why people just laugh at you. You do not even realize when you are wrong.
What do you call a fraud who accuses another less fraudulent discipline of being "fraudulent"?
If the skull had been originally classified pithecus, there would have been no controversy. If a homo being next to pithecus was no problem for evolution, again there would have been no controversy.
--Dave
Nothing can falsify the belief itself.alwight said:So does it actually falsify the ToE?DFT_Dave said:Skull 1470 as originally dated falsified evolution.
Dave? ... How was the date determined? I don't think they actually dated the skull itself, nor the sedimentary later it was found in?alwight said:Can we not be fairly sure now that the current estimated date, perhaps with more reliable techniques,...
So does it actually falsify the ToE?
Can we not be fairly sure now that the current estimated date, perhaps with more reliable techniques, is reasonably accurate, or is it your point that dating fossils is a dishonest conspiracy by "evolutionists" to make all fossils fit the ToE?
If however this skull is now reasonably accurately dated and if I can presume that it doesn't actually falsify the ToE then is there an actual point here?
Do you not find yourself simply desperately only looking for possible inaccuracies, rather than the accurate, in the rather forlorn hope (imo) that this will better support your own presuppositions and beliefs?
Incompetent science or is it a conspiracy?
For you to be in any way correct then it seems to me there is either gross incompetence or an unethical global conspiracy going on within the scientific community, both of which seem vanishingly unlikely and far too impractical to be true imo.
Which do you think it is or is there an alternative I haven't thought of? :think:
The frauds which aren't many, and the bad interpretations which are.... are mostly committed by evolutionists.Hedshaker said:And lets not forget who exposes the frauds when they occur
The frauds which aren't many, and the bad interpretations which are.... are mostly committed by evolutionists.
What exposes this...is real science
And lets not forget who exposes the frauds when they occur. Not the Creationists, not the religionists, but the science community themselves. And when it's falsified it's done.
Imagine one religionist claiming to falsify another. Well you can. It's called TOL :rotfl:
The age of the site at 2.6 m.y.a. for skull 1470 was confirmed by "potassium argon" testing and "uranium decay" which had been predated, which is why they were looking for fossils at that location to begin with. There are no better methods for dating, only other methods. We could argue the reliability of dating methods but not that this site was not well tested.
I would say that evolution was an "incompetent conspiracy".
--Dave
Excuse me, but Creationists have been calling the theory of evolution and every aspect of it a fraud from the beginning.
Have you ever heard of the Protestant movement, you know the one that refuted, that is falsified, the Catholic church.
--Dave