Slashdot Mirror
Ancient Skull Unearthed in Africa
BrianGa writes "This BBC article reports on
a skull which scientists say is the most important discovery in the search
for the origins of humankind since the first
Australopithecus ape-man remains were found in Africa in the 1920s.
The newly discovered skull finally puts to rest any idea that there might be a single missing link between humans and chimpanzees, they say. Analysis of the
ancient find is not yet complete, but already it is clear that it has an
apparently puzzling combination of modern and ancient features."
of the jury, I am just a simple caveman. Your "scientists" found me frozen in an ice flow and unthawed me. /. I wonder if little men are inside my screen writing messages to me.
Your ways frighten and confuse me. When I read
But there is one thing I do know, that picture of the skull is my dead brother!
Read 15 Answers to Creationist Nonesense in this month's Scientific American.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
And in the interest of fairness, will moderators be willing to equally mod up the rebuttal to SciAm's article?
Note: posted anonymously so no "karma whore" charge can be leveled on asking for mod-up.
After thinking things over a bit, it occurs to me that my earlier post was too focused on your factual errors. While it is important to point out the errors of fact and logic that riddle creationist argument, so we won't end up with yet another generation of citizens who belief this guff, sometimes it's worth stepping back and pointing out a more basic problem that plagues creationist rhetoric, and which your post illustrates very nicely.
... So, I hope you understand now. This is stuff that is observed and verified. It is not the realm of guesswork but on solid, verifiable observances. ... Just so you know, I've barely touched on the surface of overwhelming evidence for creation ... As you may or may not guess, I get very tired of idiots pretending that there is no evidence for creation. ... Because it's all out there, you've just closed your mind off to understanding it
> Creation arguments are very well founded in evidence. Creationism makes some predictions about what should be observed, as does evolution.
Sadly, in spite of the big talk, you did not actually present any evidence for creation. As with virtually every other creationist argument you spend most of your time trying to explain away the evidence for evolution rather than trying to present evidence for creation.
For example -
> fact: Language in it's earliest form is it's most complex form. It has a much larger vocabulary, better formed grammar, and many more nuances in the language. The most recent forms of language have the least complexity, the smallest vocabulary. So, language is sufferring from entropy, it's getting simpler.
Beyond the fact that this simply isn't true, it wouldn't be evidence for creation even if it were true. The creation story offered in Genesis I doesn't give the slightest hint about how language should change over time. It portrays Adam and Eve created as adults - at least that's the traditional interpretation - and portrays them as using language when we first meet them. Other than Adam's role in naming the species, we aren't given any hint as to whether they were created already capable of speech, or taught speech by god, or made it up themselves. We certainly aren't given any model of language that would predict how it changes over time.
Unless of course you want to substitute a more general "biblical literalism" for "creationism per se", in which case your model for language change must come from the Babel story, from which you would predict that -
- language change is catastropic
- language change is the result of direct divine intervention
- all languages are mutually unintelligible
- all languages stand in random relationships to each other
Unfortunately, everything but the divine intervention is very clearly refuted by the evidence, which is readily accessible. (A single book or a single semester in historical linguistics will easily suffice.)So you haven't actually presented any evidence for creation here - let alone for biblical literalism - however much you may have fooled yourself to the contrary.
Moving right along...
> prediction of evolution: mutations should occasionally produce beneficial changes.
Ah, this is an even better illustration of the "creationist evidence syndrome". Here you aren't even pretending to give any evidence for creation; you're simply trying to refute evolution.
> Let's look at some creationist assumptions
Ah, at least you're going to try to give some evidence for creation this time...
> Looking at the difference between the mtdna between two women, you can calculate how far back they came from the same woman
Other than the factual error with that claim, you're doing much better, i.e. you're actually talking about creationism for a change.
However, even your "facts" were true it would not be the blow to the theory of evolution that you think it would. We look at mDNA to see how recent the most recent common female ancestor of all humans was. The theory of evolution doesn't say that it has to be ancient; if it turned out to be recent, that's just one constraint on our model of poplation turnover and dispersion. FYI, mDNA can fall out of the gene pool, just a surnames fall out of populations that use them. Basic genetics tells us that the most recent common ancestor is merely an ante quem for the origin of a species - you don't even need to invoke evolution to figure that out.
Unfortunately for you, dating mDNA isn't going to select between creation and the theory of evolution - unless the date is too old for the creationist claims. And the actual facts about the so-called "mitochondrial Eve" are completely at odds with the creationist model of the universe, so this rare foray into evidence that actually has a bearing on creation (instead of just another attempt to refute the theory of evolution) is an unmitigated disaster for creationists. (Which is why, as I mentioned in my other reply, the savvy creationists have quit trying to support their beliefs with actual evidence, since it has turned out to be easily refuted in every instance.)
Then what?
> Ooh, here's a good evolutionary assumption: prediction: since the moon is millions of years old...
Whoops - you're supposed to be offering evidence for creation, not evidence against evolution... or the age of the moon.
And BTW, I've read Genesis many times, and never saw a word about what the moon's surface should be like. Again, this isn't evidence for creation, because there's nothing in the creation story that gives the slightest hint about what the moon should be like. A moon made of green cheese would be perfectly congruent with creation. (Indeed, it would be perfectly congruent with the theory of evolution too, since the ToE doesn't say any more about the moon that Genesis I does.)
> Example: Creationists also believe natural selection occurs.
Again, nothing you can say about natural selection is evidence for creation, because there's not the slightest hint in the creation story that natural selection occurs. Saying that creationism is compatible with natural selection is every bit as meaningful as saying that astronomy is compatible with the fact that beans make you toot. They're compatible for the simple reason that they don't place any constraints on each other.
And again, if you want to look at a more general "biblical literalism" rather than "creationism per se", it appears that whoever wrote the bible didn't have the faintest clue about basic genetics. The notion of erecting stripped staves in front of your flock while they bonk is not the kind of story invented by someone who understands genetics, let alone the more subtle operation of natural selection. (Lurkers: please take the time to read Genesis XXX:31-43 to see what the biblical model of genetics is.)
> Now, this kind of stuff is what creationist arguments predict, and it is what they observe.
Alas, out of your five arguments only one made any attempt to actually provide evidence for creation, and it was egregiously wrong - the evidence actually refutes the traditional creation model.
> As you may or may not guess, I get very tired of idiots pretending that there is no evidence for creation.
If there is any evidence for creation, the world's biggest mystery is why creationists can't produce it
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade