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.

[McCulloch]

Getting back on topic, Jose, can you tell which of the fossils McCulloch posted are human?

But that is not the topic. The topic is why do the creationist scientists have such difficulty distinguishing. If humans evolved from non-human primates, then distinguishing between human and non-human primates would be expected to be a difficult task. If humans were created separately (and devinely) then one would expect that distinguishing would be a relatively simple task. I really do not care which ones are human and which ones are other apes.

[McCulloch]

Lubenow and I have already correctly identified the fossils [...]

How is it that jcrawford knows that Lubenow's identification is correct and the others are incorrect? Has a consensus been reached among the experts? Is there some indisputable property that Lubenow has found that the others have missed? Did almighty God whisper in his ear?

[jcrawford]

Lubenow and I have already correctly identified the fossils [...]

How is it that jcrawford knows that Lubenow's identification is correct and the others are incorrect? Has a consensus been reached among the experts? Is there some indisputable property that Lubenow has found that the others have missed? Did almighty God whisper in his ear?

If no consensus has been reached among the experts, then any of the scientists Lubenow references as documented sources for identifying the fossils are as good as any others.

That's the problem with modern evolutionist theory regarding the ancestors of human beings. There is no consensus about the origins of the human fossils and all we hear now, ad nauseum, is "African Eve did it! African Eve is our one common human ancestor!"

Neo-Darwinist ancestors are beginning to look and sound like creationist's ancestors.

[jcrawford]

Getting back on topic, Jose, can you tell which of the fossils McCulloch posted are human?

But that is not the topic. The topic is why do the creationist scientists have such difficulty distinguishing.

Creation scientists obviously have the same difficulty neo-Darwinsts do. Especially when all we are looking at are photographs of plaster casts of skulls originally reassembled and reconstructed by neo-Darwinists from shattered bone fragments.

If humans evolved from non-human primates, then distinguishing between human and non-human primates would be expected to be a difficult task.

How so? All neo-Darwinists have to do is find some fossilized form of 'primitive' African pygmy bones and say, "See, we told you so!"

If humans were created separately (and devinely) then one would expect that distinguishing would be a relatively simple task.

How so? Human beings come in all shapes, sizes and other anatomical physical differences through the course of history and show great morpological variety in the human fossil record. The cranial capacity of humans today ranges from 700cc through 2000, so why should we be surprised when Homo floresiensis shows up with 350cc and some neanderthals with 1650? Brain size is no more indicative of evolutionary stages of development than it is of the development of one's own intelligence.

I really do not care which ones are human and which ones are other apes.

Lose by default then.

[McCulloch]

If no consensus has been reached among the experts, then any of the scientists Lubenow references as documented sources for identifying the fossils are as good as any others.

True, but honesty would preclude anyone from claiming that one particular one was the true one.

[McCulloch]

If humans were created separately (and devinely) then one would expect that distinguishing would be a relatively simple task.

How so? Human beings come in all shapes, sizes and other anatomical physical differences through the course of history and show great morpological variety in the human fossil record. The cranial capacity of humans today ranges from 700cc through 2000, so why should we be surprised when Homo floresiensis shows up with 350cc and some neanderthals with 1650? Brain size is no more indicative of evolutionary stages of development than it is of the development of one's own intelligence.

Let's spell it out one more time. There are two models under consideration here. Neo-darwinist evolution and special creation. In the first model, changes over long periods of time result in the evolution of our species. Over the evolutionary time scale, as the species of primates evolve closer to Homo sapiens, they become more difficult to distinguish from Homo sapiens. This difficulty is predicted by the evolutionary model. Special creation posits that a supernatural being, created Homo sapiens in a process separate from the creation of the other primates. This model would predict that distinguishing between Homo sapiens and other primates would be relatively less difficult.

I really do not care which ones are human and which ones are other apes.

Lose by default then.

If jcrawford would read the first post he would realize that properly identifying the skulls is not at issue here. The fact that the alleged experts have difficulty identifying the skulls is the relevant issue. One might say that it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately distort the issue being debated in order to prematurely declare victory.

[jcrawford]

If no consensus has been reached among the experts, then any of the scientists Lubenow references as documented sources for identifying the fossils are as good as any others.

True, but honesty would preclude anyone from claiming that one particular one was the true one.

Aw, c'mon, McCulloch. Scientists have got to at least express an educated opinion about which fossils are human and which are ape, especially in view of the fact that science is 'self-correcting' even when some scientists aren't. According to your POV, "honesty would preclude anyone from claiming that one particular" neo-Darwinist theory was the true one. In that event, any old zoology professor can come along and falsify all of them since if none of them are true, they are easily falsified by even an amateur sleuth like me.

[jcrawford]

If humans were created separately (and devinely) then one would expect that distinguishing would be a relatively simple task.

How so? Human beings come in all shapes, sizes and other anatomical physical differences through the course of history and show great morpological variety in the human fossil record. The cranial capacity of humans today ranges from 700cc through 2000, so why should we be surprised when Homo floresiensis shows up with 350cc and some neanderthals with 1650? Brain size is no more indicative of evolutionary stages of development than it is of the development of one's own intelligence.

Let's spell it out one more time. There are two models under consideration here. Neo-darwinist evolution and special creation. In the first model, changes over long periods of time result in the evolution of our species. Over the evolutionary time scale, as the species of primates evolve closer to Homo sapiens, they become more difficult to distinguish from Homo sapiens. This difficulty is predicted by the evolutionary model. Special creation posits that a supernatural being, created Homo sapiens in a process separate from the creation of the other primates. This model would predict that distinguishing between Homo sapiens and other primates would be relatively less difficult.

I really do not care which ones are human and which ones are other apes.

Lose by default then.

If jcrawford would read the first post he would realize that properly identifying the skulls is not at issue here. The fact that the alleged experts have difficulty identifying the skulls is the relevant issue. One might say that it is intellectually dishonest to deliberately distort the issue being debated in order to prematurely declare victory.

Do you want to re-hash this all over again after reading my last reply to you? Your OP was simply an attempt to discredit creationists and I am showing you that neo-Darwinists themselves historically get human fossils all mixed up with ape fossils. Sometimes on purpose, it seems.

Piltdown Man
Java Man
Peking Man
Rhodesian Man
The Taung Skull
OH 62
KNM-ER 1805 and 1813
KNM-ER 1470
Homo habilis
Lucy

[Jose]

Getting back on topic, Jose, can you tell which of the fossils Mcculloch posted are human?

An interesting question. They all bear unmistakable similarities to modern human skulls, so it's pretty clear that they are all of the hominid branch of the great apes. Does this make them "human"?

What the similarities say to me, especially in the light of the differing statements of various creationists, is that transitional fossils are quite plentiful. In fact, it is probably valid to say that nearly all fossils are transitionals, except in those instances (like the last pteranosaurs) where the lineage died out.

If no consensus has been reached among the experts, then any of the scientists Lubenow references as documented sources for identifying the fossils are as good as any others.

This is an unwarranted logical leap. Lack of consensus does not mean that any opinion is equally valid. As you very rightly point out,

Human beings come in all shapes, sizes and other anatomical physical differences through the course of history and show great morpological variety in the human fossil record. ... Brain size is no more indicative of evolutionary stages of development than it is of the development of one's own intelligence.

there is considerable genetic variation in any population. Therefore, the trick is to determine what the range of characteristics is for any particular species, so that one can assess whether differences between specimen results from variation within a species or between species. With extinct species for which the mating test is unavailable, and with fossils for which DNA samples do not exist, the only criteria anyone can use is morphology.

So, let's suppose that there is still discussion concerning which specimen should be classified as one species or another. Let's suppose that it's difficult to make a clear distinction. At worst, that makes it even more clear that human ancestors go back well before Oct 26, 4004 BC. Perhaps we don't have the true lineage worked out from fossils. That's no surprise, since we don't have fossils of all human ancestors that ever lived.

That's the problem with modern evolutionist theory regarding the ancestors of human beings. There is no consensus about the origins of the human fossils and all we hear now, ad nauseum, is "African Eve did it! African Eve is our one common human ancestor!"

There is no consensus about the details. However, the broader outline is pretty darned clear. As you know, creationists like to jump on controversies about details and pretend that these indicate that there are controversies about the big picture. Also as you know, this is misleading; there are no controversies about the big picture (except, of course, between scientists and those creationists who prefer scripture to science).

The African Eve story is completely independent of fossils, of Darwin, and pretty much of everything else. It is a separate study of DNA sequences, which provides its own separate line of reasoning. The fact that it happens to produce the same conclusion as paleontology is fairly remarkable.

But you might note that the evolutionary biologists are not jumping up and down and shouting "African Eve! African Eve!" Rather, Lubenow and his disciples are jumping up and down and shouting "Racism!" Lubenow and his disciples seem to think that the fact that we have a common ancestor somehow makes our genetic lineage racist.

Neo-Darwinist ancestors are beginning to look and sound like creationist's ancestors.

Well, you know, they are the same ancestors...that is, if creationists are the same species as scientists. I believe the critical test has been done in a few instances, suggesting that we could extrapolate and say that we are.

[jcrawford]

Getting back on topic, Jose, can you tell which of the fossils Mcculloch posted are human?

An interesting question. They all bear unmistakable similarities to modern human skulls, so it's pretty clear that they are all of the hominid branch of the great apes. Does this make them "human"?

Very funny. Forget I asked, Jose.

The African Eve story is completely independent of fossils, of Darwin, and pretty much of everything else. It is a separate study of DNA sequences, which provides its own separate line of reasoning. The fact that it happens to produce the same conclusion as paleontology is fairly remarkable.

Jose, are you so naive as to expect Lubenowists to also believe what you naively believe about the African Eve Model? Lubenow provides evidence that the african eve myth was only created to counter the obvious racial implications of the Multiregional Continuity Model.

But you might note that the evolutionary biologists are not jumping up and down and shouting "African Eve! African Eve!" Rather, Lubenow and his disciples are jumping up and down and shouting "Racism!"

But Jose, you just finished raving about the "remarkable" African Eve Model, which Lubenowists loudly proclaim is just another racist neo-Darwinist theory.

Lubenow and his disciples seem to think that the fact that we have a common ancestor somehow makes our genetic lineage racist.

No, we just think that neo-Darwinist theories, scenarios and models about who that common ancestor was are inherently racist.