Scientific thinking and common sense

[Eloi]

I have noticed that sometimes people with a scientific mind, people who have studied a lot and know a lot of information about different sciences, do not notice simple things that do not escape the attention of ordinary people, even if they have studied less or almost nothing.

For example, the fact that the animals that evolutionists call "lower" in the evolutionary scale still live alongside humans, and that others supposedly fitter, because they are located in a higher position in the evolutionary line of man, no longer exist.

Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985017

To what extent do you think the "wisdom" of this system of things can cloud a person's mind?

[benchwarmer]

Talking about "a gullible person's mind"...

Does anyone else not see the irony here?

Someone quotes an article from a religious website on a scientific theory which is not what the actual science says and then calls those who believe the actual science gullible. Hmmm...

Eloi, I suggest a better attack would be to quote a peer reviewed science article (there are plenty to be found on various subjects) and then show the issues you find therein. At least then we are dealing with the actual science.

Much like many atheists will quote from the Bible when attacking various issues related to Christianity. We're not likely going to quote unrelated, non relevant articles and expect to gain any traction. Would you give a second thought to a random rant from an atheist's blog on what Jesus was actually saying? I would hope not, I think you would probably expect a chapter and verse from the Bible.

[The Barbarian]

As I said: a lot of people don't see the obvious, even if they think they are "wiser" than most people ...

And as I said; 1953 - 1912 = 41 (1953 was the year the Piltdown man hoax was definitively demonstrated. AND 1912 was the year Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man: the Piltdown Man.)[/quote]

Not for very long. Darwinists debunked that one. We don't know who faked it, but scientists debunked it, largely because it was suspicious from the start. It contradicted evolutionary theory, which says that primitive humans should have a man-like body and an apelike skull. And the fake had a large skull, and an apelike jaw. It was an embarrassment, which is what led to a closer look that removed it. As you noted, many scientists were suspicious from the start:

As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from the American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded that Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.

[Goat]

I have noticed that sometimes people with a scientific mind, people who have studied a lot and know a lot of information about different sciences, do not notice simple things that do not escape the attention of ordinary people, even if they have studied less or almost nothing.

For example, the fact that the animals that evolutionists call "lower" in the evolutionary scale still live alongside humans, and that others supposedly fitter, because they are located in a higher position in the evolutionary line of man, no longer exist.

Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985017

To what extent do you think the "wisdom" of this system of things can cloud a person's mind?

There are very many bad assumptions for this argument. First of all, when it comes to evolution and biology, there is no 'lower' or 'upper' on an evolutionary scale. THere might be more 'primative', but that just means that the forms existed longer ago, they are not higher or lower.

There is no reason to think that just because there was a divergence that the original stock species would die out. An analogy would be 'if Americans descended from Eurpoeans,why are there still Eurpoeans. That assumption just does not match observations.

[Eloi]

Ditto: with your attitude, you don't even realize the truth within the initial question of the topic: I never asked why there are monkeys today or why there are no HOMOs-blah.

The fact is: there are chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans AND THERE ARE NO HOMOs-blah even if supposedly they had evolved more than those others. Why?

It seems that your answers come from machines; they are mechanical, and are intended only to disqualify others, to divert the subject and to build strawmen ... but not to answer questions or analyze what is the truth behind the debates.

That is why Jesus said to Jehovah:

Luke 10:21 (...) “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved."

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #14]

Ditto: with your attitude, you don't even realize the truth within the initial question of the topic: I never asked why there are monkeys today or why there are no HOMOs-blah.

Who are you responding to? There have been several posts and you are evidently responding to a specific person, but without any post reference or mention of who that is we have no way to know. Who is "your" in the above comment? Are we supposed to guess?

[Goat]

Ditto: with your attitude, you don't even realize the truth within the initial question of the topic: I never asked why there are monkeys today or why there are no HOMOs-blah.

The fact is: there are chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans AND THERE ARE NO HOMOs-blah even if supposedly they had evolved more than those others. Why?

It seems that your answers come from machines; they are mechanical, and are intended only to disqualify others, to divert the subject and to build strawmen ... but not to answer questions or analyze what is the truth behind the debates.

That is why Jesus said to Jehovah:

Luke 10:21 (...) “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved."

You are assuming that the other great apes are 'less evolved', and man is 'more evolved'. That is not what the TOE says. The other great apes evolved to fit their environment.

Appealing to religious writing have nothing to do with the state of understanding from biology. The misrepresentation of scientific thought is a demonstration that your arguments are weak,

[Tcg]

As I said: a lot of people don't see the obvious, even if they think they are "wiser" than most people ...

And as I said; 1953 - 1912 = 41 (1953 was the year the Piltdown man hoax was definitively demonstrated. AND 1912 was the year Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man: the Piltdown Man.)

Not for very long. Darwinists debunked that one. We don't know who faked it, but scientists debunked it, largely because it was suspicious from the start. It contradicted evolutionary theory, which says that primitive humans should have a man-like body and an apelike skull. And the fake had a large skull, and an apelike jaw. It was an embarrassment, which is what led to a closer look that removed it. As you noted, many scientists were suspicious from the start:

As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from the American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded that Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.

The quote at the top of this post which is attributed to me is actually from Eloi.

[Eloi]

The Piltdown Man fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution.[38] Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils such as the Taung child found by Raymond Dart during the 1920s in South Africa were ignored because of the support for Piltdown Man as "the missing link," and the reconstruction of human evolution was confused for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown Man caused a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+ papers written on the topic.[39]

References:
38. "Natural History Museum: "Piltdown Man – the greatest hoax in the history of science?"". Archived from the original on 24 May 2013. Retrieved 9 July 2013.
39. Washburn, S.L. (1953). "The Piltdown Hoax". American Anthropologist. 55 (5): 759–62. doi:10.1525/aa.1953.55.5.02a00340 – via Wiley Online Library.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man#Influence

[brunumb]

The Piltdown Man fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution.[38] Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils such as the Taung child found by Raymond Dart during the 1920s in South Africa were ignored because of the support for Piltdown Man as "the missing link," and the reconstruction of human evolution was confused for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown Man caused a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+ papers written on the topic.[39]

References:
38. "Natural History Museum: "Piltdown Man – the greatest hoax in the history of science?"". Archived from the original on 24 May 2013. Retrieved 9 July 2013.
39. Washburn, S.L. (1953). "The Piltdown Hoax". American Anthropologist. 55 (5): 759–62. doi:10.1525/aa.1953.55.5.02a00340 – via Wiley Online Library.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man#Influence

There are frauds in all fields of life. In this case science revealed it and, no doubt, learnt from the experience. It does not mean that every scientist is a fraud or that science is ultimately wrong. Do the frauds encountered in religion make all those promoting religious beliefs frauds? Would you accept that religious beliefs are therefore false based on that premise? So I ask you, what is your point?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #18]

The Piltdown Man fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution ...

Why are you so obsessed with the Piltdown Man hoax? It has nothing to do with the OP, and nothing to do with how anyone thinks about or works on evolution today. What's the point in continuously bring up an irrelevant historical hoax? Your OP (ie. this thread) asks why the extinct members of the genus Homo are no longer around but we still have chimps, etc. Piltdown Man has no connection to that in any way.

The extinct members of the genus Homo are no longer around for the same types of reasons other extinct species are no longer around ... they fell victim to environmental changes, food shortages, were outcompeted (eg. by us), or a host of other things that all species are subject to. That's the answer to your OP question ... Piltdown Man had no role in any of that.