More quotes debunking evolution
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Jeremiah85
New member
:BRAVO: Now how do I get my Philosophy teacher to understand this? :bang:
MartianManhuntr
New member
Jefferson said:
The Neanderthals were the descendants of Cain. That's why Neanderthals are so ugly. That's why Neanderthals couldn't farm.
Oxnard's work has been widely criticized and is contradicted by the work of many other scientists. Rak and Howell were the first to criticize Oxnard's work. In 1978, they published their paper (1) objecting to some of Oxnard's research. The main criticism of Oxnard's work is that he used measurements from incomplete, fragmented parts of the bones. He also failed to describe some of the key topographic features of the bones, which are important in comparitive analysis. Research which followed Oxnard's paper used more complete portions of the skeleton and sought to do a more thorough analysis. Since that time, there have been many papers which refute Oxnard's work. Here's a recent paper that was published which agrees with Howell's assessment (which contradicts Oxnard's research).
"A quantitative and qualitative reanalysis of the endocast from the juvenile Paranthropus specimen l338y-6 from Omo, Ethiopia.
...In this paper, we test criterion 3 by quantifying the endocranial cerebellar and occipital morphology reproduced on the Omo L338y-6 endocast, and comparing it to seven endocasts from South and East African early hominids. Our preliminary results show that metric analysis of this specimen cannot be used to sort it preferentially with either robust or gracile australopithecines. Finally, we demonstrate that, contrary to previous reports, the Omo L338y-6 endocast reproduces an enlarged left occipital sinus (criterion 4). This observation is consistent with the original attribution of the Omo specimen to robust australopithecines (Rak and Howell [1978] Am J Phys Anthropol 48:345-366). Furthermore, if Omo L338y-6 was a robust australopithecine, this discovery extends the occurrence of an enlarged O/M sinus system to one of the earliest known paranthropines."
Further, some of Oxnard's more recent research using the same methods sought to reassess the relationship of certin species of orangutans to humans. He concluded that one species was closer to humans than another. Yet the two species have now been identified as a single species, and thus Oxnard's methods are severely flawed.
Was any of that mentioned on the radio show? Or was it ignored.
(1) Rak, Y. Howell, FC. Cranium of a juvenile Australopithecus boisei from the Lower Omo Basin, Ethiopia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 48: 345-366.
Last edited:
I fail to see how Enyart's statements "debunk evolution"? Aside from the fact that he cherry picks his facts and then twists them to make a claim he believes supports his position. A little thought by those who don't rush right to the front of Bob's Kool-Aid stand would be helpful.
That's completely deceptive. The smallest difference between Neandertal mtDNA and human mtDNA is 22, if you take the complete negative margin of error. Different Neandertal's had different substitutions, ranging from 22 to 36 (min-max). The average for human-neandertal substitutions is 25.6 ± 2.2. Scientists estimated, based on those figures, that the nearest common ancestor of humans and neadertals was 500,000 to 700,000 years ago (while humans shared one closer to 100,000 years ago).
What you also failed to mention was that Neadertal mtDNA probably did not contribute, at least directly, to human DNA (and vice versa).
Here's a good study to get you started: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020057
"The retrieval of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from four Neandertal fossils from Germany, Russia, and Croatia has demonstrated that these individuals carried closely related mtDNAs that are not found among current humans. However, these results do not definitively resolve the question of a possible Neandertal contribution to the gene pool of modern humans since such a contribution might have been erased by genetic drift or by the continuous influx of modern human DNA into the Neandertal gene pool. A further concern is that if some Neandertals carried mtDNA sequences similar to contemporaneous humans, such sequences may be erroneously regarded as modern contaminations when retrieved from fossils. Here we address these issues by the analysis of 24 Neandertal and 40 early modern human remains. The biomolecular preservation of four Neandertals and of five early modern humans was good enough to suggest the preservation of DNA. All four Neandertals yielded mtDNA sequences similar to those previously determined from Neandertal individuals, whereas none of the five early modern humans contained such mtDNA sequences. In combination with current mtDNA data, this excludes any large genetic contribution by Neandertals to early modern humans, but does not rule out the possibility of a smaller contribution."
Last edited:
Bob's Neandertal Symphony Orchestra
Bob's Neandertal Symphony Orchestra
(Originally posted in the "Noah's Flood on Mars" thread)
Near the end of the show, starting at 25:07 he says:
Bob's Neandertal Symphony Orchestra
(Originally posted in the "Noah's Flood on Mars" thread)
Near the end of the show, starting at 25:07 he says:
I would be interested to see if Bob can substantiate that claim from original sources. Hearing him make that claim,. I suspect he is the latest in a long line of creationists who fell for a prank in Discover magazine when it made a similar statement as part of a 1997 April Fools joke (not the first one, either). Like most anything that seems to bolster the creationist case, such claims, even though originally made in jest, are adopted into the creationist lore as gospel truth and take on a life of their own. Bob can take comfort in knowing he is not alone in passing on this fable. Even the ICR has issued apologies for originally suckering into the claim of multiple musical Neandertal instruments. Bob (and his apparent source – AIG), just haven’t caught onto the joke yet (after 8 years).
Good catch ThePhy. Let's hope Bob will correct himself about all of this on the air.
This is what happens when you get your science news from creationist literature. Both the quotes from Bob's show that were in the original post were wildly misleading to the point of being dishonest. This is a huge problem in christian circles. There are a select few christians who actually read science journals and understand science journals. These select few then relay the information back to the general christian population, among whom it spreads like a disease. All it takes is one of those "select few christians" to be intentionally dishonest or misleading, and the rest of the flock follows suit.
There are two options for Bob. Either he knew what he was talking about and was misleading about it, or he didn't know what he was talking about and was unintentionally misleading. In either case, he needs to be more responsible with information.
This is what happens when you get your science news from creationist literature. Both the quotes from Bob's show that were in the original post were wildly misleading to the point of being dishonest. This is a huge problem in christian circles. There are a select few christians who actually read science journals and understand science journals. These select few then relay the information back to the general christian population, among whom it spreads like a disease. All it takes is one of those "select few christians" to be intentionally dishonest or misleading, and the rest of the flock follows suit.
There are two options for Bob. Either he knew what he was talking about and was misleading about it, or he didn't know what he was talking about and was unintentionally misleading. In either case, he needs to be more responsible with information.
SteveG.
New member
After imbibing the dreck of "creationist" organizations such as ICR and AIG for the better part of two decades, I took a peek at some "heretical" though reputable scientific publications and discovered just how bad the so-called "science" of those organizations really is. I also discovered just how dishonest they often were (and are) with regard to how they portrayed many aspects of the issue (palonium halos, dino cave drawings anyone?). I was also very dismayed by how uncharitable they were towards anyone who had different opinions, even fellow Christians. Sad indeed.........
- Status