ApostateAbe presents...
Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/ ... ngbond.jpg
Episode III: Fossils
Many of you young-Earth creationist forum regulars have probably seen the image from TalkOrigins.org displaying various hominid fossil skulls with characteristics progressing from those of a chimp to modern man, If you haven't seen them, click on one of the following links to see them:
Small
Large
Maybe after you saw it, you glazed over it without much thought. For that reason, I have made an animated version to bring to your attention the signigicant constituents of the series (brain size, mouth protrusion, and eyebrow protrusion):
Important note: Don't misunderstand this series of skulls. They are not meant to illustrate that humans evolved from chimps (we didn't). They don't illustrate a direct lineage. They display primarily the distant "uncles" or "cousins" of humans and chimps alike. And the purpose is to dilineate various intermediate forms between chimps and us.
Also note that the skulls are ordered chronologically. See the key below the TalkOrigins image listed "(A)" through "(N)." Also see this link for a timeline of various hominid fossil discoveries with lines indicating the proposed family tree. The ages of each fossil were determined, either directly or indirectly, by standard radiocarbon dating (C14). Paleontologists (fossil scientists) and paleoanthropologists (human fossil scientists) do not date skulls based on their visible features. A sample is gathered from at least one strata (rock layer) of each digging site and sent to a C14 lab to be chemically dated. The dated strata is used as the basis for dating the surrounding layers along with the fossils found in them.
If you distrust radiocarbon dating, that's fine, but it is somewhat irrelevant. Paleontologists don't have their own radiocarbon dating labs. There are over 130 radiocarbon dating labs around the world including only 14 in the United States. The labs take samples from many sorts of scientists such as geologists, archeologists, historians, and anthropologists (source). So they are largely independent from the theories and ideologies of paleontologists. If you grant at least enough trust in the integrity of C14 lab chemists that they ascribe their dates independent of the opinions of their paleontologist clients, then it should strike you as amazing, given each skull's features, that the dates correlate so well with what is expected from the theory of common descent. If you don't grant even that small amount of trust in lab chemists, then I won't argue with you, because there is hardly any use arguing with a conspiracy theory. I am not saying that you must be wrong simply because it is a conspiracy theory--it is just that I can't argue with you without writing a long dissertation about it.
So what else do young-Earth creationists say about this remarkable series of skulls?
Young-earth creationists say:
The fossils are frauds.
We already have called attention to the colossal fraud perpetrated by, or in the name of, Charles Dawson, anthropologist of England, in foisting off on the public (and the world of science as well) the "Piltdown Man." (see "The Great Piltdown Hoax," Published by Smithsonian Institute). True science cannot be blamed for such a forgery, but the whole affair shows that MANY SCIENTISTS CAN EASILY BE DECEIVED.
--Fred John Meldau,
Why We Believe in Creation not in Evolution.
ApostateAbe says:
There are reportedly over 4000 hominid specimens catalogued, ranging from 150
Homo erectus to 500 Neandertals (source:
Mark Isaak). To call a few of them frauds would be worthy of thought, but to call all or even most of them frauds based on the idea that there have been a couple of shams in the past, such as Piltdown Man, once again smacks of conspiracy theorism, or at least it implies the grossest of incompetence widespread among a large field of scientists. Science has evolved since the Piltdown Man. Fossil discoveries are well-documented, repeatedly photographed, intensely studied and publicly reported for wide scientific review. There is extremely little opportunity for prolonged fraud.
Young-earth creationists say:
If not frauds, the skulls are either completely human, an existing (or recent) species of ape, or some other mammal.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.
--Paul S. Taylor of
ChristianAnswers.net.
ApostateAbe says:
Since the number of hominid specimens are very many, the attempts to explain them are also very many. The main problem is that many of such attempts are outright false or misleading. For example, it is not "admitted" by evolutionary scientists that Neandertals get their stooped posture from disease. The idea that so many Neandertal skeletons are afflicted with disease is merely the assertion of creationists (which is a poor explanation for over 200 Neandertal fossils). The stooped posture is no longer believed; it was a stereotype that was overturned in 1957 (
Jim Foley).
There is a second problem, which is that creationists can't agree which of the disputed fossils are ape and which are human, indicating that distinctions between ape and human among the proposed intermediate forms are just as vague as evolutionists contend (see
Foley.
CONCLUSION:
Another smoking gun, this time embedded in the encrusted corpses of the ancients.
CREDITS:
---
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.,
Jim Foley, and
Mark Isaak of TalkOrigins.org.
---
James Bond Multimedia
---
WinAce of Christian Forums
--- ApostateAbe, atheist extraordinaire