Nov. 8, 2011: An artist’s rendering of a Tegopelte, a foot-long arthropod that lived 500 million years ago. Researchers suggest that Tegopelte was a fearsome predator or perhaps a quick-moving scavenger, capable of “rapidly skimming across the seafloor” with only a few of its many legs touching the ground at a time. Source: Marianne Collins
Today we will be briefly examining the Tegopelte from Fox News’ “Eyepoppers Science Slide Deck” and how this image and caption falls short of the goal of proving evolution theory.
Nov. 8, 2011: An artist’s rendering of a Tegopelte, a foot-long arthropod that lived 500 million years ago. Researchers suggest that Tegopelte was a fearsome predator or perhaps a quick-moving scavenger, capable of “rapidly skimming across the seafloor” with only a few of its many legs touching the ground at a time.
It has been a while since we touched on worldview timelines so I will refresh us once again with them here.
According to the Theorist:
- Approximately 16 Billion Years ago the Big Bang occurred
- Approximately 4.6 Billion Years ago the earth was formed as a hot molten mass
- Approximately 3.4 Billion Years ago the earth cooled down and organisms began to swirl the formerly pre-biotic soup.
According to the Bible:
- The earth was formed approximately 7,000 years ago based on the genealogical dates from Adam to Abraham
- 4,400 years ago was the Noahic Worldwide Flood
- 2,000 Messiah Jesus died for the sins of the world
Therefore, since the caption gives the date of 500 million years, you immediately know that the writer of the caption is working according to the evolutionist’s timeline and not according to the Young Earth Creationist timeline found in the Bible.
Nov. 8, 2011: An artist’s rendering of a Tegopelte, a foot-long arthropod that lived 500 million years ago.
I. Drawings instead of Discoveries
Again with the drawings. Why not show us a living or fossilized example. Having to “imagine” the way something may have looked is not hard (or even good) science.
II. How Circular Reasoning is Used in Age Assessments
If you ask them how they know the Tegopelte is 500 million years old, they will tell you that they know the age of the Tegopelte by the strata layer in which it was found.
However, ask them how they date the age of the strata layer, and they will tell you by the index fossil found in the layer.
Dating the fossil by the layer and the layer by the fossil is circular reasoning that destroys the foundations of the imaginary geologic column which exists only one place on earth–the textbook!
III. No dating method can accurately date something 500 million years old.
Carbon 14 and other dating methods are shaky at best with aging items that are only thousands of years old, let alone several hundred million.
This makes perfect sense from a Young Earth Creation worldview since nothing is that old.
IV. If you find a fossil in limestone, how do you know if it is 100 million year old Jurassic Limestone or 600 million year Cambrian Limestone?
V. Age Limiting Factors
I have covered in a myriad of articles the fact that the universe and earth have what are called age-limiting factors. What that means is, there are many testable and observable aspects that place age dating or limiting factors on the creation.
For instance, if you found a sunken treasure ship on the ocean floor and wanted to determine when the ship sunk, if the gold coins were stamped “1750″, then you know that the ship had to have sunk after 1750. The ship certainly could not have been sunk prior to 1750 because the coin had not yet been struck.
The same observations can easily be made to prove wrong the theorist’s timeline by the creation all around us.
A. Moon’s Distance to Earth – Proof the earth is less than 1 million years old
Age Limiting Factors: Earth’s Moon
B. Erosion Rates – Proof the earth is thousands not billions of years old
Age Limiting Factors: Erosion Rates
C. The Geomagnetic Field – Proof the earth is less than 25,000 years old
Age Limiting Factors: The Geomagentic Field
D. Population proves thousands of years not billions
Population Under-Crowding: Silent Witness to a Young Earth
E. Red Giants to White Dwarfs in Under 2,000 years
Age Limiting Factors: Red Giants
======================
For more in this series:
1. This is a criticism I’ve heard before, and it perplexes me. What about drawing a fossil invalidates the analysis of that fossils? As far as I can tell this could only really happen in two ways
a) If there were no fossils found and the reconstruction is all the information there is
b) If the reconstruction was the basis of some (or all of) the research.
Yet the 0.154 seconds it takes for google to return a search proves (a) false for this instance – there are two relatively complete specimens of this creature. The reconstruction is not all we have to go on. A little bit more reading reveals (b) to be wrong too – none of the scientific papers regarding Tegopelte are based in any way on the reconstruction.
As such, I have difficulty seeing what the problem is. Unless the critique is that none of the fossils were mentioned in the news article, in which case surely you should be saying this is bad sciencereporting, not bad science.
2. The use of index fossils or “biostratigraphy” isn’t a practice as common as creationists would have you believe. Listening to many of them you might be led to think most dates given are based on this cyclical reasoning.
In reality, this is wrong on two counts. First, biostratigraphy is only used where no other dating techniques can be, it is not the norm. Second, it is far from cyclical.
The principle isn’t that the fossil ages the rock and the rock ages the fossil, but rather you find a fossil in a datable scenario – maybe embedded with a coin from 1750
. Thus you know how old it is, and so if you find it elsewhere you can conclude that this other context is probably from around that time too.
So in reality it is not a circle of rock to fossil to rock, but of datable rock to fossil to other fossil in undatable rock.
3. The reliability of carbon dating is of little relevance to this discussion, as its ability to age thousands of years.
Different techniques are useful for different time frames. Some are accurate for millions of years in the past but give poor dates for things that happen recently (i.e. u-series dating). Others give good dates for recent events but are of little use when dealing with things of significant age (i.e. carbon dating).
If that is a bit confusing, hopefully this clears things up
http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/images/comparison_of_time_ranges.gif
As you can see, whether radiocarbon dating is useful for millions of years is of little relevance to whether other methods are. Your criticism is invalid.
4. Simply put, not all limestone is the same. There are ways to tell them apart.
Adam,
Thank you so much for taking the time to read my article and for your thoughtful questions and information. I sure hope you’ll look around my site and offer ideas on other topics as well. I address your comments below in numbered fashion for orderliness and ease of reading.
1. My criticism stems from the fact that since evolution never occurred, obviously there is not a single piece of legitimate evidence for it and as such, no non-hoax discoveries have ever been furnished. Every single “discovered” missing link from Nebraska Man, constructed from a pig tooth to Java Man and Lucy have all proven to be hoaxes. Why should deception be necessary to prove something that’s true?
As an Anthropology Student, you may be surprised to discover that Colin Patterson, former Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History who wrote a book entitled Evolution, failed to include a single photographic example of transitional forms in his book, and when asked about it by letter by Luther Sunderland, he responded with the following:
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
This is a man who is sitting on the world’s largest fossil collection and he says there is no evidence for evolution.
You asked a good question. “What about drawing a fossil invalidates the analysis of that fossils?” But then you go on to defend two possibilities that amount to creating evidence out of thin air:
“a) If there were no fossils found and the reconstruction is all the information there is”
If there were no fossils found, from where/what are we getting the information for our constructed evidence? This is what Colin Patterson asked.
“b) If the reconstruction was the basis of some (or all of) the research.”
This is my point entirely. The reconstruction always is the basis for all the “research”. See any of my other Science vs. Evolution articles for more examples.
Bad science reporting? Agreed. But the bagel doesn’t roll too far from the carriage.
2.) “The rocks do date the fossils but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” (J.E. O’Rourke)
“evolution is documented by geology, and geology is documented by evolution.” (Larry Azar)
You can say that dating the fossil by the rock and the rock by the fossil is not circular reasoning, but I trust my readers will see it for what it is.
3.) I have studied many, many dating methods. The problem they all ultimately have is if something is of a known age, the testing method is believed to not work. When dating something of an unknown age, the methods are assumed to have worked. But ultimately, if anything is revealing an age of 500 million years, is it obviously a false reading as the many age-limiting factors I listed and published prove.
4.) Give me some ways.
If you ask the Anthropologist for the proof of evolution, he’ll tell you the Geologist has it. If you ask the Geologist, he’ll tell you the Biologist has it. I’ve discovered that Evolution is like a shell game. The only problem is…there ain’t a pea under any of ‘em!
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my comments. I too shall post my thoughts numerically so as to relate them to the original post, but within each section I will distinguish between the comments directly relevant to your writing and the other topics you have brought up in your comment. Hopefully that way we can avoid being side-tracked by tangents.
1.
I think you misunderstand my point. The hypothetical situations (a) and (b) I mentioned were not an attempt to “defend” the use of reconstructions but rather reasons a reconstruction might invalidate the science. If an artist’s imagination formed the basis of research then one would rightly be wary of the conclusions such research might reach.
However, it is fairly easy to find out that in this case the reconstruction was not the foundation of any of the work done into Tegopelte. Thus the existence of the reconstruction does not invalidate the research done into the specimen since it was no way involved in the work. Whilst you assert it does, I invite you to read any of the scientific papers on the topic and point out where the reconstruction is referenced as a source of evidence.
——————————————————————–
“Every single “discovered” missing link from Nebraska Man, constructed from a pig tooth to Java Man and Lucy have all proven to be hoaxes”
I find this point highly contentious at best, so ask what is your evidence that every one of the >800 hominin specimens recovered is an intentional fraud.
“This is a man who is sitting on the world’s largest fossil collection and he says there is no evidence for evolution. ”
If you examine the quote carefully, you’ll note at no point does he say there is no evidence for evolution. Indeed, if you look at the book he is discussing you’ll find he lists plentiful examples of such evidence including fossil transitional forms. His point here is that direct ancestry is something that can be very difficult to identify. For example, if you were to find a fossil that looked like however you might expect a transitional form to look how do you know it was its descendants that gave rise to modern creatures? It may well be that its lineage died out and it was its brother or sister etc. whose descendants went on to become the animals we see today.
Of course, this is an issue that is known about and why a scientific paper will never – unless the evidence is very good – proclaim something to be the direct ancestor of a living lineage. It is also why he didn’t feel comfortable including any examples in his book. Instead, these creatures are members of the transitional lineage, even if they themselves are likely not the direct ancestors of modern groups. Thus they are still provide perfectly good evidence for evolution.
“See any of my other Science vs. Evolution articles for more examples.”
You certainly have written some very interesting posts and I may well take a look at them in the future, time permitting.
“the bagel doesn’t roll too far from the carriage.”
The argument by association is a fallacy; your folk sayings carry no weight in the scientific arena.
2.
Something is only circular reasoning if all the data it relies on is contained within itself. For example “I know x because of y; and I know y because of x” would be circular. However, “I know x because of y; and I know y because of z” would not be a circular argument for it is founded on additional external information.
Now, if you look at the actual methodology behind biostratigraphy you’ll notice it is actually an example of the latter, non cyclical reasoning. “You know how old layer x is because fossil y was found in it. You know how old fossil y was because it was found in layer z. You know how old layer z is because it was dated via some other method.” That last point is key, since it shows biostratigraphy is not circular as it is founded on additional, external information.
————————————————————————
“J.E. O’Rourke”
If you go read his original paper (and manage to decipher its rambling content) you’ll not he provides no support for this position so his quote is not of much use for you. Simply finding someone else who agrees with you does not render your point valid.
“evolution is documented by geology, and geology is documented by evolution.”
The full quote reads “Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?” Importantly, this it is worth noting that this is a genuine question. It was published in an article called “Biologists, Help” and was a plea for experts to explain to him how biostratigraphy actually works (Azar himself being a philosopher, not knowing how it is done). Finding someone who is asking for a misconception to be rectified does not mean that misconception is valid.
3.
Firstly, it is worth noting that many methods are not expected to work on young samples. The fact they then do not work says nothing about the reliability of those methods. If anything, it’s a point in their favour as it is an example of a prediction these dating methods made coming true. Secondly, some radiometric techniques can be applied to young samples of a known age and when they are they give accurate answers.
See http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/libby.htm for example.
4.
As you correctly noted, my field is not geology. I can offer no more technical knowledge than you could gain by simply researching the question as I have done. As such, I’ll simply leave you with a few places to start such research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_limestone
I appreciate the response, Adam!
You have made several challenges. However, in over 20 paragraphs of writing, you have yet to furnish a single proof for your theory. Instead, you’ve simply attacked my objections. Understanding that evolution is a religion which must be accepted by faith, it is perfectly understandable why no theorist is ever able to “put up”. However, since you are the one defending evolution, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
Therefore:
1.) Please furnish the evidence that the Tegopelte evolved. What creatures before and after it have been conclusively linked to the Tegopelte and how? Please don’t give me a link to some science paper that requires me to hunt the proof down for you.
2.) Before proven as frauds, evolutionists were giddy and thrilled to parade these “missing links” as examples of conclusive evidence to modern humans. Now that their deception has been uncovered, serious minded scientists everywhere should relegate them to where they belong–the trash heap of history, and not make further excuses for their validity as “members of the transitional lineage.” Please furnish the evidence of evolution linking primates to humans.
3.) Regarding age dating, if all the matter in the universe is the result of a swirling mass that exploded 16 billion years ago, how is it that celestial bodies are considered different ages? If I blew up a 16 billion year old boulder and turned it into pea gravel, what Scientific Law explains how the pieces could possibly date differently than the original or different individually from each other as are the planets?
4.) In the words of Michael Scott, “Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.”
You said there were ways to tell limestone apart. Neither link provided this proof. Please show me ways you can distinguish 100 million year old Jurassic Limestone from 600 year old Cambrian Limestone. They won’t necessarily be different colors as this website suggests.
Unfortunately it would seem what I was trying to avoid by making distinction between relevant topics and tangents has happened none the less, and it seems you’ve become side tracked. As such I’ll try and reiterate what I was saying.
If you go back and read my original post you’ll note I’m making 4 points.
1. As the reconstruction was not the basis for research into Tegopelte it does not invalidate the research.
2. Biostratigraphy is not circular, relying on additional external sources of information.
3. The reliability of carbon dating is irrelevant to this topic since it was not involved at any point in the research.
4. There are different kinds of limestone.
If you look carefully, you’ll notice none of them are the theory of evolution. Thus I think it is unfair and slightly disingenuous for you to suddenly criticise me for not defending evolution. It is not the issue I was raising.
Now, if you want to raise the issue of evolution I would be more than happy to discuss it. First, however, I would like my 4 points dealt with since those were my original arguments. You cannot just switch the focus of a discussion and ignore criticism.
So before continuing onto another area can you please either acknowledge my four points as accurate or provide some evidence to the contrary. The only effort you made towards that in your most recent post is to dispute the source for number 4. That is fair enough, but insufficient to resolve the entire discussion.
—————————————————————————-
1.
Very little is known about Tegopeltemaking its evolutionary relationships difficult to construct. Carrying the defining characteristics of trilobites it is clear that it is related to them in some way, but quite how is unknown.
It does appear to be a close relative of one other trilobite species (Saperion glumaceum ) since the only difference between them is that Tegopelte has a smooth margin.
http://www.trilobites.info/SAPERION.GIF
http://www.trilobites.info/TEGOPELTE.GIF
However, again, with such limited information quite how those two species are related isn’t apparent.
2.
Before moving on, please answer my question. “What is your evidence that every one of the >800 hominin specimens recovered is an intentional fraud.”
3.
A clock doesn’t count from time immemorial, but rather since it was last reset at either midnight or midday. Similarly, chronometric techniques don’t purport to count down since matter was formed but rather since it was “reset.” Carbon dating, for example, is counting since the age an organism stopped taking in fresh C-14 (i.e. death) whilst optically stimulated thermoluminescence dating is counting how long has passed since an element was exposed to sunlight.
4.
Wikipedia is a good place to startresearch. Since you seem to have no interest in continuing it, I shall do the work for you and thus present a defining description of the limestone associated with Tegopelte
“Carbonate units associated with both the Burgess Shale and Kinzers formations contain large, generally concordant, near-surface cavities that contain herringbone calcite cements that show no significant enrichment in the potential calcite inhibitor ions such as reduced Fe, Sr, S, Pb, and Zn. The abundance of micro-inclusions of dolomite suggests that Mg may have been the calcite inhibitor ion responsible for herringbone cement in these Cambrian occurrences. Another distinctive mineralogical feature is the presence of doubly-terminated, euhedral, zoned, authigenic quartz as a conspicuous part of a carbonate host-rock replacement assemblage.”
Powell, Wayne. 2009. ‘Comparison of Geochemical and Distinctive Mineralogical Features Associated with the Kinzers and Burgess Shale Formations and Their Associated Units’.Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 277(1–2): 127–140.
Adam,
I’m quite flabbergasted that you believe I have changed the topic because I have been defeated by your argumentation. A careful review of our exchange reveals that you have failed to make your case in three lengthy attempts. Now you are accusing me of suddenly changing the debate to evolution? I can hardly take that charge seriously. The major thrust of my website is to cast down vain reasoning as it applies to science, particularly the theory of evolution and the propaganda used to promote it. I mentioned evolution in the title “Science vs. Evolution: Deconstructing the 500 Million Year Old Tegopelte” and throughout the article, even laying out the evolution theorists worldview timeline and how it contrasts with the Biblical one. Every single response from me in our exchange was rifled out an evolutionary barrel. Therefore, I cannot wrap my mind around how you think I’m suddenly switching the topic to evolution. If ever there was a one beat drum, I’m poundin’ it!
1.) I am glad we are agreed that there is no evidence that this creature evolved. That was the entire point of my article.
2.) Asking me to invalidate an unknown numbered collection of hominids is akin to saying, “Watermelons are blue on the inside before you cut them open. Prove I’m wrong.”
As I mentioned early, I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. I don’t have to prove an unknown number of specimens fraudulent. YOU need to prove just ONE is legitimate as evidence for an evolutionary link to modern man, and of course you already admitted that you cannot do so.
3.) Please explain to me how matter became “reset” and what triggered the resetting mechanism after nothing exploded and produced everything? Where/what would the “reset” be in my boulder to pea gravel analogy? Telling me we cannot date from time immemorial does not address how the planets can be different ages if they originated from the same spinning mass of matter, much less explain from where the matter, energy and laws derived.
4.) I believe you already conceded this point.
And that, I believe, brings up to date. And my other posts seem to have made it to other parts of the website. Excellent, I’ll continue with this discussion soon.
I’m not suggesting that you’ve changed the topic because you were defeated, just that you have changed the topic. Which you have. Whilst evolution is a related topic it is not directly pertinent to the issue since whether it is true or false has no impact on the validity of my original 4 criticisms. I have little doubt a young earth creationist could, if the mood struck them, come on here and argue the same 4 points. “Oh yes, biostratigraphy is wrong but not because it is circular since it isn’t.” Or “there are ways to tell limestone apart.”* Evolution could be wrong and my criticism of your argument would be valid. Thus evolution is a moot point and by continually trying to change the topic to it you do nothing to defend yourself against those original 4 critiques.
1.
We don’t know its evolutionary relationships. That doesn’t mean it didn’t evolve. Provided it was not the first organism to live then it was the product of evolution since all living things fulfil the criteria needed for it to occur.
2.
The burden of proof is that the individual making the claim has to provide evidence for the claim. You’ve made the very clear claim that “Every single “discovered” missing link from Nebraska Man, constructed from a pig tooth to Java Man and Lucy have all proven to be hoaxes” and so I ask what is your evidence for that position.
3.
Each technique measures a different “clock” and so there are as many ways something can be reset as there are methods. I’m not particularly inclined to go over the dozens and dozens of such resets, so I’ll simply list 3 prominent ones as examples.
Thermoluminescence dating measures the number of electrons trapped in material. The quantity of electrons is reset when the material is exposed to heat or sunlight as the energy from these sources excites the electrons, allowing them to escape from the pits they are trapped in.
Radiocarbon dating measures the amount of C-14 left in the remains of organic tissue. This is topped up whilst the organism is alive since they consume food with C-14 in it. After they die this stops and the C-14 decays away.
Potassium-Argon dating measures how potassium has decayed into argon. This is reset when the rock melts as all the argon escapes and so the accumulation of argon starts again.
All of these methods, despite relying on differing principles and techniques all converge on the same date. The odds of this arising by coincidence are astronomical.
4.
So you now understand that there are ways to differentiate the limestones?
——-
*YECS do on rare occasion criticise each other for being very wrong. Answers in Genesis has a list of arguments that should be avoided (http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use). It includes some you have used in the past, such as mammoths being flash frozen and moon dust proving a young earth. If a representative from them had appeared on your blog and criticised those positions, would continually bringing up evolution make you right? No. Same situation here.
Well Adam, I didn’t intend to leave you in the lurch on this one, but I don’t see that we are any longer advancing the discussion since we are no longer even in agreement on the topic. I feel like we have been discussing tires, engines, mufflers, brake pads and steering columns, but you’re saying we weren’t discussing automobiles.
1. (Adam said) “We don’t know its evolutionary relationships. That doesn’t mean it didn’t evolve.”
That’s perfectly fine if you want to believe that, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, there is no evidence and therefore should not be paraded as science.
You also said, ““Evolution could be wrong and my criticism of your argument would be valid. Thus evolution is a moot point”
However, if we revisit your original initial objection:
“What about drawing a fossil invalidates the analysis of that fossils?”
Well, if evolution is wrong, how then could the analysis be correct? Therefore, if evolution is false, so is the dreamed up pictures promoting it, which was exactly my original point.
============================================
2. (Adam said) “The burden of proof is that the individual making the claim has to provide evidence for the claim. You’ve made the very clear claim that “Every single “discovered” missing link from Nebraska Man, constructed from a pig tooth to Java Man and Lucy have all proven to be hoaxes” and so I ask what is your evidence for that position.”
A. Nebraska man, originally constructed from a tooth, found by Harold Cook in 1922, actually turned out to be from a pig. It was found in Sioux county Nebraska. He built an entire man (and woman) from one tooth.
B. Piltdown man was a hoax. Found in Piltdown England by a catholic priest (Pierre duchardan) and others. They took a human skull and ape jawbone. They filed them down to make them fit together, treated them with acid to make them look old, buried them in a gravel pit, and then “discovered” them. It was in the textbooks for 40 years, and over 500 masters and doctorate papers were written on it. All that work and expense over a hoax.
C. Heidelberg Man was built up from a jawbone, a large chin section, and some teeth. Most scientists of the day have rejected it because it’s similar to the jawbone found in modern man. Still, many evolutionists believe he’s 250,000 years old.
D. Peking Man: Made from pieces of skull found in the 1920’s in Peking, China. All evidence was lost in WW2. People found a bunch of monkey bones in a cave, along with a bunch of human tools. They said that monkeys were making the tools (or maybe the tools were being used on the monkeys). Most people were never told that the remains of at least 10 humans were also found with these “monkey” bones, so they could not possibly be a missing link. All evidence of Peking man has completely disappeared.
E. New Guinea Man dates back to 1970.
F. Cro-Magnon Man is described as being “one of the earliest and best established fossils…at least equal in physique and brain capacity to that of modern man”. Which basically makes him the same as modern man.
G. Neanderthal man, named after the Neander Valley, which was named after Joacchem Neander, who was a Christian and wrote the hymn “Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of Creation”. In 1856 they found the skeleton of a man. (proven later to be an old man with arthritis). The guy’s back was bent over, but they classified him as human at first, probably drowned in the flood of Noah. After Darwin’s book came out, they reclassified it (because they couldn’t find any evidence for evolution) as a transitional form of human from ape. It had a thick forehead, which was probably because of extreme age. If he did come from the flood, he could have been several hundred years old. They have found about 300 such humans, but they are not transitions from apes.
H. Rhodesia man: Dr. Cuozzo said, “You must understand that this skull really cries out disease. The teeth are badly decayed, and the bones of the vault of the skull are extremely thick. There are many features that testify of Acromegaly or excess secretion of growth hormone in adulthood” (Buried Alive, Jack Cuozzo, p. 72). Jack was a dentist from New Jersey, and went to Europe to study the various skeletons that were in the museums. He found that they were assembled very poorly, and even made to look apelike, by leaving the jaw disconnected from the skull (not in the socket).
I. Lucy: found in 1974 in Ethiopia. There was only 40% of the skeleton. The head was crushed. Was 3 ft tall. Some kind of monkey. Said it was transitional because of the knee joint, and thighbone, which was angled to the side, which resembled a human. But the knee was not even from “Lucy”, it was found a year earlier, 70 meters lower in the rock, and over a mile away. The knee was actually called the “Hadar” knee. Monkeys that climb trees, have angled femurs, it’s the ones that stay on the ground that have the straight ones. The St. Louis Zoo has Lucy on display with human hands and feet. No feet or hand bones were found. The purpose of the display is not for education, but for indoctrination in evolutionary theory. “The various australopithecines (Lucy) are, indeed, more different from both African Apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other”. (Dr. Charles E. Oxnard in fossils, teeth and sex – new perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227).
J. Oldest Footprints: Found two adults and a child’s footprints in volcanic ash at Laetoli in Tanzania. It proves that hominids were walking upright some 3.75 million years ago. The footprints are described as “remarkably similar to those of modern man.” “The form of his foot was exactly the same as ours.” “Weight bearing pressure patterns in the prints resemble human ones.” “Footprints, so very much like our own.” (Footprints in the ashes of time, mary leakey, national geographic april 1979, p, 446-457. Russell H. Tuttle (University of Chicago) did the most extensive study of the Laetoli footprints as well as studying the footprints of more than 70 habitually barefoot people and found, “The 3.5 million year old footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are.” (Russell H. Tuttle, “The pitted pattern of Laetoli Feet.” Natural History, Mar 1990, p 64.). “If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our own genus, homo.” (Russell h. tuttle, “The pitted pattern of Laetoli Feet.” Natural history, mar 1990 p. 64.). Evolution has blinded them into seeing that these were ordinary humans, and that they were not 3.5 million years old. Because of this problem, national geographic put dark skinned ape like creatures on top of the footprints, to make it look like pre-human transitional creatures. (Mary leaky, national geographic, April 1979, p 446-457). They even added a toe separation, which was not found in the original footprints. This is an ape type foot. A total lie.
K. Java Man: Originally called Pithecanthropus erectus – meaning erect ape man, and now called Homo erectus and dated by evolutionists at 500,000 years old was made from a few scraps of bone found in 1891 in Java, Indonesia. Dutch anatomist Dr. Dubois (1858-1940) believed in evolution and had gone to look for missing links between man and apes. Dubois took an ape’s skull cap, and three human teeth plus a thigh bone (found a year later and 50 feet away) from a human and informed the world he had found the “missing link.” He hid the fact that he had also found 2 normal human skulls in the same area. His deceit was revealed 30 years later.
============================================
3. (Adam said) “All of these methods, despite relying on differing principles and techniques all converge on the same date. The odds of this arising by coincidence are astronomical.”
When I demonstrate for you a REAL example of astronomical proportions, like pi and e underpinning Biblical verses, using the same formula across different languages, separated by thousands of years, you rubbish it. When it comes to flawed dating methods that we have agreed in other threads are not without problems, your chips are all in.
According to Willard Libby who invented radio carbon dating, it would take a brand new earth 30,000 years for the C14 in the atmosphere to reach equilibrium. Since the earth’s atmosphere has not yet reached equilibrium, that proves the earth is less than 30,000 years old.
=========================================
4. (Adam said) “So you now understand that there are ways to differentiate the limestones?”
No. I assumed you conceded the point when I perceived that your evidence (wiki link) made no mention of it. Please elaborate how herringbone calcite cements vary in their enrichment in calcite inhibitor ions and what abundances of micro-inclusions of dolomite actually tell us regarding the geologic column, the age of layers and how samples are subsequently dated therein?
———————–
I’ve noticed that you are quick to avail yourself of creation resources to disprove other Christian writings, but tell me, what areas of illumination have Answers in Genesis made in your own thinking and considerations regarding evolution?
I originally commented in the hope that I could get you to understand that these arguments against evolution were not valid. Whilst I didn’t expect, nor attempt to try, to convince you of evolution I had hoped some headway could be made against the arguments you were presenting. Evolution could still be wrong and so could you. I suspect you don’t believe you are infallible, after all, so I reckon something productive could come of that discussion whilst merely trying to argue evolution would probably go nowhere.
In a sense I feel some progress has been made. Elsewhere I’ve seen you criticise news articles for not providing pictures, rather than using the existence of such pictures to doubt the science itself. That’s fine, the media believing people will only respond to exciting pictures rather than actual findings is a concept that probably should be critiqued (although I ultimately have no problem with reconstructions being used to spice things up). However, it would be nice to put a lid on this issue if you could please just plainly state that the existence of reconstructions does not invalidate what is being reconstructed. It could still be wrong but it is not because of the reconstruction since that isn’t part of the scientific analysis but a bi-product of it.
It would certainly be nice to have at least one aspect of our disagreement be resolved.
I’m breaking this post up into individual sections because it is so long. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.
The hominin finds you cite are a tiny fraction of the fossils scientists have recovered. As such I’ve included a brief summary of current thoughts regarding the particular species these finds represent. These summaries are not meant to be exhaustive but will hopefully provide some context and background information you find interesting and informative.
Nebraska man
The story behind Nebraska man is more complex than you suggest. It was indeed found by Mr Cook (in 1917, not 1922) but he did not make any proclamations about its relevance to human evolution nor any reconstructions of it. Wanting an identification he sent it to a scientist called Osborn, who sent casts to other scientists along with his conclusion it may be a new species of ape (not necessarily a human ancestor).
However he expressed uncertainty over this, noting that it was not very well preserved and this skepticism was echoed by the scientists he sent the casts too. Except for one who, whilst still not completely convinced of its reliability, wrote an editorial about it as a possible human ancestor in a newspaper which commissioned the reconstruction to go along with it. The vast majority of scientists remained unconvinced with Osborn himself even writing “such a drawing or ‘reconstruction’ would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate.” Even the scientist who that article eventually admitted “the suggestion that the Nebraska tooth…may possibly indicate the existence of Mankind in Early Pliocene times is…still wholly tentative”
So we’re left with a tooth that was ultimately discovered to be that of a pig. This was no real blow to evolutionary theory given people were already highly skpetical of its relevance to human evolution.
Piltdown man
Unlike Nebraska man Piltdown did fool a great many scientists for a good length of time. However eventually the strength of the fossil record cast doubt upon the find prompting the more thorough examination which discovered it was a hoax. New hominin fossils from Asia made it seem like an anomaly (indicating human ancestors did not look like Piltdown man and did not evolve in England) and by the 1930s – 20 years before it was uncovered as a hoax – many had started to suggest it was not a human ancestor but some other ape.
The whole affair is something of an embarrassment although it did ultimately trumpet the self-correcting nature of science and the strength of the fossil record.
Homo heidelbergensis
“Heidelberge man” refers to the mandible recovered from near Heidelberg, Germany. It is the type specimen for the species Homo heidelbergensis. It is an intact lower jaw (not, as you seem to imply, an individual “jawbone, a large chin section, and some teeth “) and…not much else. That said numerous other H. heidelbergensis specimens have been recovered so our knowledge of the species is not as incomplete as the mandible might suggest.
The mandible itself is significantly different from modern man, hence why it was identified as a new species. In particular it is significantly larger and more robust but has no chin. Also, its teeth fall outside the limit of human variation. This image is a comparison of a human mandible with the Heidlberg find. They are clearly different.
Homo heidelbergensis is chronologically and anatomically very similar to us. It lived relatively recently (from 1-0.4 million years ago), had a large brain, made complex tools (being the first species to make spears) and is generally very “human like”. There’s even circumstantial evidence it was capable of language. However it still retains a set of features that distinguish it from modern humans, such as the aforementioned jaw.
The current status of H. heidlbergensis is in flux at the moment. Spanish finds appear to transition into Neanderthals, prompting many to conclude the species was their ancestor. However Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London is arguing that these Spanish finds are closer to Neanderthal than H. heidelbergensis and so are actually archaic Neanderthals. If he is vindicated (which seems likely) this would remove the evidence for H. heidelbergensis as only ancestral to the Neanderthals. The remaining evidence is more midway between humans and Neanderthals, indicating that it was our common ancestor.
Homo erectus
Peking man is the name given to a series of hominin finds (mostly skull bones) from Peking. Although they were lost during the war many casts were made which have since revealed that the specimens fit perfectly into the range of Homo erectus (which is now known from many tens of specimens) and so are without a doubt part of that species. Compare a drawing of the cast (centre) with two pictures of other Homo erectus skulls. The only Peking finds were of Homo erectus; no other monkey or human bones were found.
Java man is another Homo erectus individual found in Java. The find consisted of a skull cap, teeth and a thigh bone (found 12m away, not 50). Doubt has been cast on the latter two with some thinking the teeth are from an ape (since they are decidedly not human) and the femur from a human. The skull cap however remains distinctly non-human but resembles no extant ape species either. It does fit rather nicely within Homo erectus (as this picture of the skull cap overlain on another fossil shows) indicating it was a member of that species. The nearby human skulls were not hidden, being published in various reports. They were believed to be much younger than the H. erectus skull cap.
Homo erectus lived ~1.8 million years ago and lasted for a million years or so. In many ways it was quite human, walking tall and upright (hence its “erect” name) and capable of running for long distances. With this ability it spread across the globe, departing Africa and spreading as far (as Peking and Java man indicate) as Asia. It was the first species to use fire and make symmetrical tools and evolved a larger brain. When it first appeared it was ~600cc, by the time it went extinct it was up to 1000cc. Anatomically speaking it also has a range of derived traits, similar to us. However it was still very far removed from anything remotely human and sits as a nice transition between early Homo and us, who its African descendants evolved into (possibly via H. heidelbergensis).
New Guinea Man
I can find very little information about this find, aside from passing creationist references to it. The only human fossil from New Guinea to my knowledge is that of a 5,000 year old human that has never been proposed as a transitional form. If you have more information I would be very interested to hear it.
Cro-Magnon man
“Cro-Magnon” is the name the French give to Upper Palaeolithic European humans (i.e. people living in the continent from ~40-12,000 years ago). Given that they are humans they aren’t cited as transitional fossils.
Humans arrived in Europe ~40,000 years ago. They either brought with them or soon developed the Upper Palaeolithic, the most advanced technology developed to that point. It includes examples of the first ceramics, art and bows and arrows.
Homo neanderthalensis
Osteoarthritis leaves behind two features which would be detectable on bone: smoothing and/or rough outgrowths. These cannot explain the many differences between us and Neanderthals and so no specimen has, to my knowledge, been a human with arthritis that was mistakenly identified. Not even the type specimen from Neander. This criticism seems to stem from creationists trying to explain the outdated notion that Neanderthals were hunched over. They weren’t.
Explaining Neanderthals as just old humans isn’t able to account for most of the differences between us either, although it could perhaps account for some skull proportions and thickness. However these measurements are internally inconsistent giving ages from ~130-350 years old depending on which part of the skull you measure. As such this does not provide a very good explanation for the differences between humans and Neanderthals.
Neanderthals were originally perceived as brutish, animalistic ancestors to humans. Now they are known to be our cousins and almost every bit as intelligent as we are. They made art, traded, cooked food just like their human contemporaries.
Archaic Homo sapiens
Rhodesia man appears to be an example of archaic Homo sapiens and was indeed diseased. Pitting indicates that the individual had a severe infection which probably killed them. However people without without acromegaly can get tooth decay (and it was very common before the advent of modern dental care) so Dr Cuozzo’s reference to it appears to be little more than poisoning the well in favour of a person riddled with other disease, such as acromegaly. However acromegaly does not explain the various differences between the Rhodesia skull and modern humans. Contrast, for example, the skull of a human with the condition (right) and the fossil skull. Whilst acromegaly can produce a range of features there is no example of someone looking like Rhodesia man. I don’t even know if such a change is possible.
Archaic Homo sapiens is the label given to the finds which aren’t human enough to be considered a member of our species but aren’t different enough to fit into another. They represent the ancestral population from which humans derived.
Australopithecus africanus
The knee associated with Lucy is the femur they found with her. The Hadar knee is separate and not part of considerations as to whether Lucy’s knee is transitional or not. Her femur is transitional, having an inwards angle like modern humans do (to stabilise the centre of gravity). It is not the only transitional aspect of Lucy, with the rest of her femur also appearing to be quite human (but nowhere near fully human) and her hip is also on the path to human-ness as well.
Other members of her species have also revealed that they had a range of other such features, including their upper jaw and teeth. However a good part of their anatomy, particularly the rest of their skull, is quite ape like. Australopithecus africanus is no ordinary monkey possessing a range of traits on the path to humanity. However it is still quite a way off from being anywhere near fully human.
The mix of archaic and derived traits in A. africanus leads many to conclude that it was the ancestor of our genus, Homo (or at least closely related to the ancestor). It was perfectly capable of bipedal locomotion and a study by my university have suggested that Lucy would’ve been perfectly capable of making the Laetoli footprints. However, I am aware there is some debate on the issue which I’m not especially familiar with. As such I can’t say for sure whether this research’s conclusion is correct but it does indicate that it is not impossible for A. africanus to have made those footprints.
The images I posted appear not to be working, so here are the full links.
Heidelberg mandible compared to a modern human:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mauer.jpg
Peking man compared to Homo erectus
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/peking.gif
Java man compared to Homo erectus
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/overlay1
A human with acromegaly (right)
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/krigbaum/ANT4468/ANT4468/Human%20Growth%20Hormone_files/image002.jpg
Rhodesea skull
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Broken_Hill_Skull_(Replica01).jpg/220px-Broken_Hill_Skull_(Replica01).jpg
Lucy femur and pelvis
http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/pelvis3
Lucy maxilla (upper jaw)
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4068/4304100268_d78230f118.jpg
One I forgot
Homo erectus (to compare with peking man)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.jpg
And
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_med.jpg
Java man compared to Homo erectus needs a .jpg at the end of the link. Also, here is a working link for Rhodesea man.
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/userfiles/image/variants_4039.jpg
Could you please add them and delete this comment?
The Bible numbers involve taking thousands of sets of numbers and performing random mathematical procedures on them to produce a set of what is essentially noise. That noise is then scoured for some meaningful quirk when in reality it is just random numbers. Contrast this with the scientific method behind the dating with its steps to remove bias, ensure lack of contamination and scour the data to see if it is actually statistically significant. The two techniques are hardly comparable.
Further, I’m not sure Libby came up with the 30,000 figure. It seems to be derived from work by a creationist called Melvin Cook who used data from a researcher called Lingenfelter to calculate the figure for how long it would take to reach equilibrium. However, this model is based on a steady state of carbon production. We now know that the rate at which carbon is produced can vary which in turn dismantles the model proposed by Cook.
A limestone is defined as simply a rock mostly made of calcite. Within this is the scope for a large range of variation. It could contain additional fossils, the calcite could be present in different forms, the calcite could be the product of different size fossils and so on. Each formation is a unique variation allowing for that rock to be identified.
I read the Institute for Creation Research more than AiG simply because they output less so it is easier to keep up with them. Their articles typically fall in the form of “fact; such fact is too complex to have evolved/hasn’t evolved for a long time/disagrees with what evolution would predict. Therefore God.” Given their discussion of the fact is invariably wrong all I’ve really learnt from them is a bunch of facts. For example, Enceladus has massive geysers (ICR were attempting to argue the mass of Enceladus was insufficient to sustain these geysers for billions of years but had simply missed a 0 out from their calculations. Upon realising their mistake they took down the article but have offered no retraction, instead pretending it never existed).
However, whilst I’ve only learnt a handful of facts from them I have learnt quite a bit by researching whether they are indeed to complex, in stasis etc. The other week I read a horse evolution paper I would’ve otherwise passed by to see if really implied that genetics disagreed with morphological analysis (rendering comparing two species anatomy to see if they are related pointless). It didn’t (there were two competing morphological analyses and genetics helped identify which was accurate rather than refuting them all) but I still learnt a fair bit about recent horse evolution. Like the fact there was a mass extinction of various horse species within the last 10 million years. Didn’t know that.