Why can't creation scientists tell the difference

[McCulloch]

Comparison of Skulls
Jim Foley asks a good question. Creationists, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Why is it that the "Creation Scientists" cannot agree on which skulls belong to apes and which ones belong to humans?
KNM-ER 1813, Homo habilis considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Mehlert (1996) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be ape.
Java Man, Pithecanthropus I, Homo erectus considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) to be ape and by Mehlert
(1996) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Peking Man, Homo erectus (was Sinanthropus pekinensis) considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) and Gish (1979) to be ape and by Mehlert (1996) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Homo habilis (or Homo rudolfensis) considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) and Mehlert (1996) to be ape and by Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) and Turkana Boy", Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) both considered to be ape by Cuozzo (1998) and human by the rest of the gang.

[micatala]

jcrawford wrote:
Here's a nice quote from Dean Falk in Lubenow's 1992 edition of Bones of Contention: "The evidence presented shows that KNM-ER 1805 should not be attributed to Homo ... the shape if the endocast from KNM-ER 1805 (basal view) is similar to that of an African pongid... "

KNM-ER 1805, 1813 and OH 62 are all Australopithicine ape fossils unless neo-Darwinists want to make the racial claim that 3 foot chimpanzees were the first species of human beings in Africa.

OK. You are including these three specimens on the non-human side. Is this based solely on height, or are there other considerations?

No, since Bernard Wood suggests that none of the Homo habilis fossils represent human ancestors and may be more properly recognized as australopithecines. (Lubenow)

Who is Bernard Wood, and what reason does he have for saying none of the Homo habilis fossils represent human ancestors? I am trying to see what the objective criteria are by which creationists determine some fossils are in the Homo genus and some not.

However, the question does not revolve around why creationists have different opinions about the human fossils but rather the problem of why neo-Darwinist evolutionists continue to insist that the first African people on earth originated from the ancestors of non-human African apes.

No, the thread is specifically about why creationists cannot seem to agree on which fossils represent 'humans' and which 'apes.'

Evolutionary biologists have concluded that all people on earth, including those who currently live in Africa, have descended from non-human ancestors because this is the most logical explanation based on the fossil evidence, the geological evidence, the molecular evidence, the genetic evidence, and the evidence related to geographical dispersion of fossils over time. The real question is why do creationists insist on denying the evidence that this has occurred.

I think I have already shown I don't have blinders on. I, and I think even moreso evolutionary biologists, are certainly willing to change their conclusions should the evidence warrant. We (not that I am claiming I also am an evolutionary biolgist! ) are also willing to be frank about when our conclusions are highly tentative and when they are more sure. I don't see that you have any basis for this suggestion of bias or 'tunnel-vision'.

[Jose]

As we might have expected, jcrawford has turned this thread into a discussion of Lubenow's silly book. Here's a typical quote from the darned thing:

The facts of the big picture are that first, fossils that are indistinguishable from modern humans can be traced all the way back to 4.5 m.y.a., according to the evolution time scale. That suggests that true humans were on the scene before the australopithecines appear in the fossil record.

Second, Homo erectus demonstrates a morphological consistency throughout its two-million-year history. The fossil record does not show erectus evolving from something else or evolving into something else.

Third, anatomically modern Homo sapiens, Neandertal, archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo erectus all lived as contemporaries at one time or another. None of them evolved from a more robust to a more gracile condition. In fact, in some cases (Neandertal and archaic Homo sapiens) the more robust fossils are the more recent fossils in their respective categories.

Fourth, all of the fossils ascribed to the Homo habilis category are contemporary with Homo erectus. Thus, Homo habilis not only did not evolve into Homo erectus, it could not have evolved into Homo erectus.

Fifth, there are no fossils of Australopithecus or of any other primate stock in the proper time period to serve as evolutionary ancestors to humans. As far as we can tell from the fossil record, when humans first appear in the fossil record they are already human. It is this abrupt appearance of our ancestors in morphologically human form that makes the human fossil record compatible with the concept of Special Creation.

This segment is sufficient to reveal that Lubenow has no clue at all how evolution works. He's laboring under the false impression that species gradually change from one to another, with intermediate characteristics along the way. He labors under the misconception that the formation of a new species requires the disappearance of its ancestral species, and that the two can never coexist. He has absolutely no notion of genetics or population biology. How can anyone expect him to be able to say anything intelligible about evolution, when his understanding of it is virtually nonexistent?

And this guy is supposed to be a real specialist on the darned fossils. If the specialist can't tell the difference between a human skull and the skull of a different kind of ape, and thinks that a 4.7 MYA skull is indistinguishable from an anatomically modern skull, then it's no wonder that the general pack can't tell the difference either.

Of course, it's much, much easier to build great theories like Lubenow's when you allow yourself to conclude that the data say whatever you want them to. It's a pity that so many people have been taken in by him.

[juliod]

It's a pity that so many people have been taken in by him.

But how many have? I mean, these threads are basically JC against everyone, with no one agreeing that he even has a case.

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

juliod wrote:

Quote:
It's a pity that so many people have been taken in by him.

But how many have? I mean, these threads are basically JC against everyone, with no one agreeing that he even has a case

Thanks for rubbing it in juliod. Both of you do make an excellent point.
We can even agree on JC definitions what ever they are he just keeps repeating the same unsupported mantra. His evidence is from some one who wrote a books poorly and it seems it is JC only book.
I wanted to ask where he thinks all the "races" came from? But his book seems it is from "sin" after the "fall". That sounds racist to me.
I am wondering if the creationist are avoiding this topic. I would think those that believe in intelligent design would have fled. There seems to be a lack of something here. It was nice to get some sites that were informative. There was also some great post full of information. Then there was JC out there someplace with his bones.

[Jose]

It's a pity that so many people have been taken in by him.

But how many have? I mean, these threads are basically JC against everyone, with no one agreeing that he even has a case.

DanZ

A good point, as always. I just checked Amazon's reviews, which currently include 4. One from someone who knows some science, and said the book is a joke. Two are from creationists who were taken in by him. The last is from a creationist who thinks the book is an embarrassment, and suggests reading something by real scholars like Behe. So, it looks like 3 out of 5 readers can't tell the book is bunk.

Then I did a Google search, looking for anything other than creationist sites pushing the book. After 10 pages, finding little but the talk.origins discussion and a bazillion creationists, I gave up. I infer from this that Lubenow has taken in a lot of people. Of course, he's preaching to the choir as they say, so it's possible that his usual audience has no interest in assessing his book for errors.

[Cathar1950]

Is bazillion a number? My son and I were discusing it the other day.
What comes after trillian?
Any way back to the subject. The book is not much to brag about. I think an Atheist could do a better job of defending creationism.

[jcrawford]

Who is Bernard Wood, and what reason does he have for saying none of the Homo habilis fossils represent human ancestors? I am trying to see what the objective criteria are by which creationists determine some fossils are in the Homo genus and some not.

http://home.gwu.edu/~bwood%20/main.htm

Evolutionary biologists have concluded that all people on earth, including those who currently live in Africa, have descended from non-human ancestors because this is the most logical explanation based on the fossil evidence, the geological evidence, the molecular evidence, the genetic evidence, and the evidence related to geographical dispersion of fossils over time. The real question is why do creationists insist on denying the evidence that this has occurred.

Creationists have concluded that neo-Darwinist biological theories of human evolution are inherently racist because there is no scientific evidence that early and archaic Homo sapiens and Asia and Europe did not evolve into the modern Asian and European ethnic populations which we see in evidence today. Such theories may be popular because of their political correctness here in America but many evolutionists of European and Asian descent hold the modern American African Eve theory in scientific disrepute.

I think I have already shown I don't have blinders on. I, and I think even moreso evolutionary biologists, are certainly willing to change their conclusions should the evidence warrant. We (not that I am claiming I also am an evolutionary biolgist! ) are also willing to be frank about when our conclusions are highly tentative and when they are more sure. I don't see that you have any basis for this suggestion of bias or 'tunnel-vision'.

Obviously, you have a deep-rooted faith in neo-Darwinism and cannot see the racial implications inherent in theories about the genetic superiority of a breed, tribe or race of Homo sapiens migrating out of Africa to the ultimate detriment by mass extinction of the descendents of early and archaic Homo sapiens in Asia, Europe and all other parts of the world.

World conquest and domination by neo-Darwinist race theorists in the field of genetics may not concern you socially, morally or politically, but most people in the world still have a right to object to unsubstantiated theories about their ancestral origins being imposed on their children in public schools by modern practitioners of scientific indoctrination.

Creationists have no problem with neo-Darwinist race theories and teachings in private enterprise and instututions. We just don't think that such racist theories and beliefs should be funded by tax dollars in public institutions like schools, libraries and museums.

[jcrawford]

As we might have expected, jcrawford has turned this thread into a discussion of Lubenow's silly book. Here's a typical quote from the darned thing:

The facts of the big picture are that first, fossils that are indistinguishable from modern humans can be traced all the way back to 4.5 m.y.a., according to the evolution time scale. That suggests that true humans were on the scene before the australopithecines appear in the fossil record.

Second, Homo erectus demonstrates a morphological consistency throughout its two-million-year history. The fossil record does not show erectus evolving from something else or evolving into something else.

Third, anatomically modern Homo sapiens, Neandertal, archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo erectus all lived as contemporaries at one time or another. None of them evolved from a more robust to a more gracile condition. In fact, in some cases (Neandertal and archaic Homo sapiens) the more robust fossils are the more recent fossils in their respective categories.

Fourth, all of the fossils ascribed to the Homo habilis category are contemporary with Homo erectus. Thus, Homo habilis not only did not evolve into Homo erectus, it could not have evolved into Homo erectus.

Fifth, there are no fossils of Australopithecus or of any other primate stock in the proper time period to serve as evolutionary ancestors to humans. As far as we can tell from the fossil record, when humans first appear in the fossil record they are already human. It is this abrupt appearance of our ancestors in morphologically human form that makes the human fossil record compatible with the concept of Special Creation.

This segment is sufficient to reveal that Lubenow has no clue at all how evolution works.

This segment reveals that Lubenow knows and shows how neo-Darwinist evolutionists artificially work the human fossil record in favor of African ape ancestry to the common detriment of African, Asian and European people and their human ancestors, since there is no scientific evidence of the ancestral genetic superiority of any of these population groups.

At least, I haven't seen any fossil or other evidence in rebuttal of Lubenow's 35 year scholarly research on the human fossil record presented on this forum, except for the oft repeated mantra of "evolution works," and creationists don't understand "the theory" of how it works.

Please arrange the human fossils in a progressive order of evolutionary descent from ancestral apes for us, Jose, and show us exactly where Lubenow is wrong. You may appeal for help from your fellow-neo-Darwinists on the board, if you like, because you'll need all the help you can get in order to prove modern Asian, African and European descent by 'natural selection' from some breed of African Homo sapiens whom neo-Darwinists claim originated from non-human ape ancestors once upon a time in mythical African natural history.

[jcrawford]

It's a pity that so many people have been taken in by him.

But how many have? I mean, these threads are basically JC against everyone, with no one agreeing that he even has a case.

DanZ

Lots of creationists would agree with Jesus Christ that Lubenow presents a very good case for the Lord's creation of everything in heaven and on earth in His own good time, even if no one else here does.

[jcrawford]

I am wondering if the creationist are avoiding this topic. I would think those that believe in intelligent design would have fled. There seems to be a lack of something here.

Yes indeed. There does seem to be a lack of Christian creationists and other intelligent designers posting on this forum. Do you suppose they find a discussion of neo-Darwinist racism too abhorrent to participate in?