I bought Audio Hijack, but i dont use it anymore because of APE's injecting code into everything, I havent tried AH 2 yet so I dont know how scriptable it is... but yes I want to be able to d/l real streams of talk shows. If anyone knows of an app under OS X i would love to hear it, but AH doesn't seem to do it yet.
Now that is sweet. I have been looking for something similar, now if I will just sit down and write some scripts to d/l the radio programs I cant recieve over air, I would be golden.
Only problem with Audio HiJack is its continued use of the APE system. I refuse to have anything running from a 3rd party on my machine that can and will inject code into every running app. Audio HiJack 2 is better about this and doesn't always need APE but it does for some things.
A couple of quick points for you, free speech is indeed limited, classic example People cannot greet a person named "Jack" in an airport loudly "hi! Jack" nor can you shout out the word fire in a public establishment (unless there really is one) Secondly you say you are a fundamentalist Christian and so I assume you mean you ascribe to the 5 fundamentals of the faith as ascribed at the Niagara conference in the early part of the last century, bully for you, but remember this is america we are talking about where critical thnking is at an all time low. The number of people who simply react or grasp any "facts" they are presented with that support their argument is seemingly on an exponential rise, so yes I think a very large population of the USA would gladly suspend reason to claim falwell.org was related to Jerry Falwell. I hate to be disparaging but one would think that/.rs would be at least middlin top of things and yet look at the continual slants in postings.
try reading my other post on the situation... for server as I stated it is seperate. I know this as it showed up still after installing 10.3.5 but again that is server you workstation users have things different:)
Well I run server and I installed 10.3.5 rebooted then installed libPNG which showed up separately. But then My machines all run server BTW anyone want to buy a pair of XServes (2 x dual 1ghz + extra P/S, Drive Module, Fan and Proc Board? $3600 US currently co-hosted in Dallas Infomart) email listed is legitimate.
Impact: Malicious PNG images can cause application crashes and could execute arbitrary code
Description: A number of buffer overflows, null pointer dereferences and integer overflows have been discovered in the reference library for reading and writing PNG images. These vulnerabilities have been corrected in libpng which is used by the CoreGraphics and AppKit frameworks in Mac OS X. After installing this update, applications that use the PNG image format via these frameworks will be protected against these flaws.
No Decent and Indecent should Not be left up to the courts it is supposed to be up to the local community. What is decent in my local community of 800 is not the same thing that is decent in San Francisco. The buckle comes in when you have national broadcasts, and so the FCC is supposed to decide that based on the public's input, it is not for some court to decide.
Yes you would but understand that 1) court actions take time, time that you will not be bringing in an income 2) you have to be able to afford a lawyer or you will have to get one on contingency, 3) even if you win (and you should) you are now a person who has sued a former employer. 4) the new employer wants someone now and now in 2-3 years when the lawsuit is over plus they typically don't want to spend a ton of money on legal fees when they can get a replacement on the cheap comparatively. Remember most civil lawsuits in the US are handled out of courts and it is usually about who can afford the legal fees leading up to it.
It also varies state by state. There are some states where MCAs are not legally enforceable period. Of course this doesn't stop the former employer from trying to sue the new employer and the new employer then dropping you like a hot potatoe. Not that I know anyone to whom this has ever happened **Cough** me **Cough**
Yeah some bits are showing up I was simply refering to the core itself, which according to my dev notes on darwin 7.1, is still based on BSD 4.4. In all hoesty while I use BSD I am not a BSD dev and have not paid enough attentioning to versioning on FreeBSD (likely since i mainly use openBSD [all hail theo])
Most likely you are looking at initial bits coming in to play around 10.4.3 and a switch to the freeBSD 5.X line sometime around 10.5 so for a timeline.. I would wager 9 months for the first bits and 2 years for many of the others. Remember Darwin is still based off og the 4.4 stable branch tools and apps slated for Darwin 8 (Tiger Core) include:
a bunch of things that slashdot's lame lameness filter wouldn't let me post after 3 tries so I am giving up
Note these are MINOR version numbers thus mysql 21 is actually 4.0.21
I seem to remember NT 3.5, 3.5.1 and 4 running on PPC, Alpha and MIPS, and have all been able to run on MP systems. So I would say that your statement that "Windows (fill in your version here) has always been an x86 only OS" even with your mentioning of Alpha is so far wrong as to make me wonder as tot he veracity of other comments you have made. NT on Alpha even with the requisite 32 -> 64 bit code morphing was really quite a nice system. I ran it quite regularly until the summer of 2000, and if i still had access to it I likely still would.
Inherent most likely, overt most likely not. There certainly was an active alteration of fact and from a scientific perspective that is very wrong, however I see it as more of a trying too beef up a case rather than invent one from scratch. Unfortunately beefing up a case that is incorrect leads potentially to some dire consequences.
The primary issue comes down to one of two models there either is macro evolution or there was a creator, note that I am not saying (for the point of this post) that the creator has to be God, listen to Art Bell / George Norrie enough (great radio when you need a laugh and can't sleep) and you will hear all kids of hypothesis for creation though most involve aliens or such ilk. Also not I have no significant argument against genetic drift or so called micro evolution but of course it doesn't result in new species but rather populations which exist at the extremes. (take a Scandinavian Viking vs. an Australian Aborigine same species, 2 extremes of genetic drift one designed for a cold wet climate the other for a hot dry one. anyway this second part is off the thread, I just felt you might be interested to see the extent of my viewpoint to the inside rather than the extreme outlying beliefs. In any case both sides have a vested interest at the polar ends to set things to one side or the other, I suppose that was the point I was arriving at.
Time for more pain killers I had emergency oral surgury yesterday morning then had to do an oral history final last night... not a good combination let me tell you.
Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, referred to below, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. To my knowledge, this technique has not been applied to the most famous australopithecine, commonly known as "Lucy."
"... the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." Zuckerman, p.78.
"Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but... [although] the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions.
The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form..." Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the Graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973-1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), "Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones," The American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, May 1979, p.273.
Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?" Nature, Vol.258, 4December 1975, pp.389-395.
"For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable." Zuckerman, p.93.
"His Lordship's [Sir Solly Zuckerman's] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. 'They are just bloody apes,' he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa." Lewin, Bones of Contention, pp.164-165.
"This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the 'knuckle-walker' condition, not unlike the extant African apes." Richard E.F. Leakey, "Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya," Nature, Vol.231, 28May 1971, p.245.
n. "The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] is not in people but in chimpanzees." Bruce Bower, "Evolution's Youth Movement," Science News, Vol.159, 2June 2001, p.347.
o. "Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions." Fred Spoor et al., "Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion," Nature, Vol.369, 23June 1994, pp.645-648.
Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens. W.B.
p. William L. Jungers, "Lucy's Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis," Nature, Vol.297, 24June 1982, pp.676-678.
None of those can really be shown as a truly transitional fossil. I would also encourage people to remember one of the oldest and still truest definitions of a species. If any 2 creatures can bread and produce a viable and fertile offspring then they are of the same species. If they cannot or produce a non fertile offspring (like a mule) then they are of different species. this put a bit more of a wringer on things if applied logically since the transitionary forms should not show immediate jumps in structure or genetics. This is why for example archaeopteryx cant be a transitional form since there is such a large number of changes from scales to flighted feathers. It would be difficult to justify non flighted feathers as they are very complex in and of themselves, but flighted feathers just springing into existence no to show evolution we would have to see a transitionary form or fossil showing feather like scales.
I never said Archaeopteryx was a fake I said that evidence shows it is not a transitional form and then I went on to repeat what has been said about its feathers especially in relation to flighted vs. flightless birds.
As for palaeontologists exposing hoaxes, of course they were as it is their area of study. Similar evidences I have found are generally garnered by persons within their own field of expertise
Fossilisation was originally supposed to be a process that took an inordinate amount of time. Mt. St. Helens showed the process of fossilisation can take place in a matter of years rather than centuries or millennia, this was why I brought it up. Further incidents show plants requiring cross pollination to have appeared 100 million years before they were supposed to have been evolved, and there is a recorded instance of a living muscle being carbon dated as having been dead for several thousand years (though I would have to look to find that reference)
I will only comment on copyright here. The portion I quoted was not an entire work it was in fact a portion and the credits were listed in the exact manner prescribed by the original author. In fact the portion was pulled dirextly from an artyicle on their site regarding fair use.
Doing Grad work is quite a bit difficult w/o a 4 year degree though in some fields and at some schools it is possible, and for your information here is a link to ICL
I started "throwing around qualifications because of the parents comment that creationists couldn't pass science classes at a decent school, thus I put forth the argument that I as a creationist not only did pass those classes, but went on to do Grad work in a respected research field and was qualified to teach the same classes that they were saying I couldn't pass. I am not one to flaunt credentials normally. [As a side note regarding credentials when it comes to my CV (effectively a resume) I try to play down my experience in most things otherwise they will not even bring me in to talk about p/t and or contract jobs (I have gone back to school starting this summer with an eye on post grad and post doctoral work] You will also find in my other posts that none of this qualifies me for this discussion as an expert in the specific field but it does give me sufficient background to look at the underlying facts and arguments.
For me there is far too much circular logic in evolutionary theories, and far too many people trying to make a name for themselves and falsifying evidence to do so. The evidence is often overturned but not until years later and it is never removed from lower materials. Lucy and archaeopteryx are prime examples of that Lucy's evidence was faked and that was shown to and then accepted by the scientific community right around 20 years ago. Lucy still is touted as truth however in books, museums and in common(esque) conversation. As for archaeopteryx, it was a full true bird, not some primitive mixture of lizard and avian stock or transitional form. I can understand why evolution proponents would believe this as until 1993 no full fossil of an archaeopteryx had ever been found. However below is a clip from a book titles Biomechanics in Evolution (p194).
"The most striking feature of Archaeopteryx is its well-developed feathered wings.  These wings are not significantly different in size and shape from those of modern birds such as magpies or coucals, and they give every indication that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird.  The feathers also appear to be strong evidence of flight ability . . . . In Archaeopteryx the feathers are remarkably similar to those of modern birds.  They have a stiffened central shaft to transmit aerodynamic forces generated over the feather vanes to the body, and this would not be expected if the feathers had no mechanical function.  More significantly, the feather shaft is set asymmetrically against the vanes of the feather.  This permits the feather to distort optimally to compensate for bending in flight due to aerodynamic loads, and is important in both gliding and flapping flight. . . vane asymmetry is characteristic of modern flying birds, but the feathers of most modern flightless birds are symmetrical."
There are other issues such as time to cause fossilisation, time to lay down strata, original ratios of elements (K/Ar etc.) which were used to derive each other. we say that this fossil exists in this time frame because we found it in this strata That was al well and fine so long as there was no real evidence saying it wasn't since after all part of science is accepting what fits the model until something changes that model) Then we look at information that has been gathered in the past 20 years or so and apply the same logic to it and suddenly you find that Mt St Helens last erupted over 100,000 years ago and that there were trees, houses and dogs around it at the time. When this comes up you have to take a look and wonder again since we can logically derive that a house built in the past 60 years was not in fact built over 100,000 years ago. The same kind of thing goes with stratification and fossilisation, we have always (in modern reckoning) that for something to b
The evidence is all around you but here are some thoughts (Also from H Hanegraaff since the site was cached already)
The idea that God created the world and life is often thought to have been disproved by evolutionary theory. Is there any scientific evidence for creation?
The truth is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation. Let me attempt to point out just some of this evidence here. First, the scientific community is now almost unanimous in affirming that the universe had a beginning. This is usually referred to in scientific terms as "The Big Bang Theory." Of course, this implies that someone or something brought the universe into existence.
Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been "finely tuned" to make life possible. For example, the elementary forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the atom are precisely what they need to be. The earth's size, distance from the sun, rotational period, composition, and many other factors are all just right. The chances of there being even one planet where all of these factors converge by accident are very slim indeed.
Thirdly, the evidence is mounting that life on earth simply could not and did not come into existence through natural processes in a primordial "soup." For example, the experiments to prove that it could have happened are suspect because little progress has been made possible due to the ingenious designs on the part of experimenters.
Fourthly, the genetic code of all biological life on earth contains evidence of intelligent design. This is because the genetic code contains information comparable to the information in complex computer programs as well as information in books.
Fifthly, the fossil record continues to be an embarrassment to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The many transitional forms which Darwin predicted would be found simply have not surfaced. This fact has forced evolutionists to modify Darwin's Theory, often in absurd ways. In short, it is the theory of naturalistic evolution which is in serious trouble scientifically today, while the Biblical teaching of creation never looked better.
On the evidence for creation, that's the CRI perspective. I'm Hank Hanegraaff.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
A list of recommended readings on creation and evolution is available from CRI in our bibliography on Science and the Bible (DC740/$0.25). We recommend Scaling the Secular City by J. P. Moreland (advanced reading) (Baker) (B128/$13), especially chapters 1, 2, and 7 and What is Creation Science? by Henry M. Moris and Gary E. Parker (SB890/$12). These resources are available through CRI. For shipping and handling information, please call CRI or refer to our Resource Listing. To place a credit card order, call toll-free (888) 7000-CRI. To receive a free copy of our Resource Listing, fax us at (714) 858-6111 or write us with your request at P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-7000.
I.e., you have the equivalent of what USAians would call an Associate's Degree in the laminar flow of water from a community college or trade school, and that makes you competent to reject all the science done by all the biologists who have spent their careers studying evolution?
I have to say that your the first person I know of that has ever called Imperial College London a trade school... And as a matter of note since you are apparently unable to read properly the work I did in laminar flow was grad work not immediately following my O, A/S, A and S levels, and thus well beyond an associates degree. Oh and the grad work well it was done under the supervision of Dr Robert Higgins probably the foremost expert on high pressure water at the time. But to answer your implied insult, no this would not specifically make me competent to reject all this "work" on evolution. rather having a working brain in my head that has been trained in logic and scientific methods along with a hefty portion of scepticism does.
> I certainly could point out as many fallacies/issues with old earth studies and evolution as you could conceive of with creationism.
Please do so. Actually, you don't even need to point out "many" for us; the five or ten most critical ones would suffice to make your point.
Sure just as soon as you learn a skill called reading comprehension. I believe it is taught in 7th grade in the US.
Not if you can't come up with a name other than AC:) Post as as yourself, or contact me off-line ( email is legit). In the mean time here is a very short overview of some of the frauds that have been perpetuated over time and while later shown false still appear in texts and in the minds of people (note not my work but rather part of a written work of a researcher by the name of H. Hanegraaff)
At one time it was thought that we came from the Neanderthal. Neanderthals were discovered from 1848 to 1856 and for years they were considered to be apemen. But now we know, there's no argument here, that they're just plain ordinary people.
And then, of course, the apeman that I introduced to you early on, Java man. Java man was discovered by a Dutchman. I'm a little embarrassed by that because I'm a Dutchman myself. His name was Eugene Dubois. The bones were found in 1891-1892 on the Indonesian Island of Java in Southeast Asia along the banks of the Solo River. And there was an interesting assortment. He found a leg bone, a skullcap, a jaw fragment and three teeth. And that's what he concocted Java man from. Interestingly enough some of the teeth were old and some young. The bones belonged to ape, female and male.
It was an interesting conglomeration and the reason that people didn't catch on to it is because the find of Dubois was kept from scholars for about 30 years. He also, of course, withheld the discovery of modern human remains, which were found in the same stratum as Java man. Of course that would have ruined his claims that Java man was the ancestor of modern day humans. Finally, enough pressure was placed on him that the actual bones were allowed to be examined and the discrepancies were found. And eventually, enlightened America as well as the world found out that this was a hoax.
Unfortunately hoaxes die hard. Time Magazine ran a cover story entitled "How Man Became Man". Richard Leaky is on the cover. It starts off ridiculing Christians and Creationists and then goes on to present Java man as though it were fact.
Then, of course, there's Piltdown man. This was a discovery by Dawson in 1912. It was shown to be a hoax in 1953. This is a deliberate fraud. There were obvious file marks on the teeth. Stone tools, supposedly used by Piltdown man were actually shaped by steel instruments. That should have been a dead giveaway. The bone fragments were stained to make them look older and yet despite this in 1915 Doctors Arthur Woodward and Arthur Keeth, who were the two most eminent Paleoanthropologists in England declared that Eoanthropous, another name for Piltdown man, represents "more closely than any human form yet discovered the common ancestor from which the Neanderthal and modern types have been derived".
This was just 1915. Now they had a motive. They were later charged with perpetrating the fraud in the first place. Yet this fraud was used for over 40 years to prove to school children that evolution was a fact and all kinds of doctrinal dissertations were based on Piltdown man.
And then of course there's Nebraska man. One tooth found on a farm in Nebraska... one tooth. But, with a little imagination, the tooth was imagined to be part of a jawbone. The jaw bone part of a skull. The skull part of a skeleton and by the time the story hit the London newspaper, we not only had a picture of Nebraska man but we had a picture of Nebraska mom complete with fur; All from one tooth. Imagine what they could have done had they found a skeleton; my they might have printed a yearbook.
And then there was Peking man. The skulls found in caves outside of Peking, China. To wit Peking man before World War II. There's nothing human about them but they were in good shape. The skulls in the back were bashed in just a hair. Other than that, great shape. Tools were buried in the same area and the deduction was made. Ah-Ha! This must be a tool-using ape. Hence, an apeman. Great logic, right. No one stopped to consider tha
Slashdot Mirror
I bought Audio Hijack, but i dont use it anymore because of APE's injecting code into everything, I havent tried AH 2 yet so I dont know how scriptable it is ... but yes I want to be able to d/l real streams of talk shows. If anyone knows of an app under OS X i would love to hear it, but AH doesn't seem to do it yet.
Now that is sweet. I have been looking for something similar, now if I will just sit down and write some scripts to d/l the radio programs I cant recieve over air, I would be golden.
Only problem with Audio HiJack is its continued use of the APE system. I refuse to have anything running from a 3rd party on my machine that can and will inject code into every running app. Audio HiJack 2 is better about this and doesn't always need APE but it does for some things.
A couple of quick points for you, free speech is indeed limited, classic example People cannot greet a person named "Jack" in an airport loudly "hi! Jack" nor can you shout out the word fire in a public establishment (unless there really is one) Secondly you say you are a fundamentalist Christian and so I assume you mean you ascribe to the 5 fundamentals of the faith as ascribed at the Niagara conference in the early part of the last century, bully for you, but remember this is america we are talking about where critical thnking is at an all time low. The number of people who simply react or grasp any "facts" they are presented with that support their argument is seemingly on an exponential rise, so yes I think a very large population of the USA would gladly suspend reason to claim falwell.org was related to Jerry Falwell. I hate to be disparaging but one would think that /.rs would be at least middlin top of things and yet look at the continual slants in postings.
try reading my other post on the situation ... for server as I stated it is seperate. I know this as it showed up still after installing 10.3.5 but again that is server you workstation users have things different :)
Well I run server and I installed 10.3.5 rebooted then installed libPNG which showed up separately. But then My machines all run server BTW anyone want to buy a pair of XServes (2 x dual 1ghz + extra P/S, Drive Module, Fan and Proc Board? $3600 US currently co-hosted in Dallas Infomart) email listed is legitimate.
No Decent and Indecent should Not be left up to the courts it is supposed to be up to the local community. What is decent in my local community of 800 is not the same thing that is decent in San Francisco. The buckle comes in when you have national broadcasts, and so the FCC is supposed to decide that based on the public's input, it is not for some court to decide.
True, but I really did use punchcards as a kid
Heh when I was a kid we didn't have command lines we used punch cards.
Yes you would but understand that 1) court actions take time, time that you will not be bringing in an income 2) you have to be able to afford a lawyer or you will have to get one on contingency, 3) even if you win (and you should) you are now a person who has sued a former employer. 4) the new employer wants someone now and now in 2-3 years when the lawsuit is over plus they typically don't want to spend a ton of money on legal fees when they can get a replacement on the cheap comparatively. Remember most civil lawsuits in the US are handled out of courts and it is usually about who can afford the legal fees leading up to it.
It also varies state by state. There are some states where MCAs are not legally enforceable period. Of course this doesn't stop the former employer from trying to sue the new employer and the new employer then dropping you like a hot potatoe. Not that I know anyone to whom this has ever happened **Cough** me **Cough**
Yeah some bits are showing up I was simply refering to the core itself, which according to my dev notes on darwin 7.1, is still based on BSD 4.4. In all hoesty while I use BSD I am not a BSD dev and have not paid enough attentioning to versioning on FreeBSD (likely since i mainly use openBSD [all hail theo])
I seem to remember NT 3.5, 3.5.1 and 4 running on PPC, Alpha and MIPS, and have all been able to run on MP systems. So I would say that your statement that "Windows (fill in your version here) has always been an x86 only OS" even with your mentioning of Alpha is so far wrong as to make me wonder as tot he veracity of other comments you have made. NT on Alpha even with the requisite 32 -> 64 bit code morphing was really quite a nice system. I ran it quite regularly until the summer of 2000, and if i still had access to it I likely still would.
Inherent most likely, overt most likely not. There certainly was an active alteration of fact and from a scientific perspective that is very wrong, however I see it as more of a trying too beef up a case rather than invent one from scratch. Unfortunately beefing up a case that is incorrect leads potentially to some dire consequences.
... not a good combination let me tell you.
The primary issue comes down to one of two models there either is macro evolution or there was a creator, note that I am not saying (for the point of this post) that the creator has to be God, listen to Art Bell / George Norrie enough (great radio when you need a laugh and can't sleep) and you will hear all kids of hypothesis for creation though most involve aliens or such ilk. Also not I have no significant argument against genetic drift or so called micro evolution but of course it doesn't result in new species but rather populations which exist at the extremes. (take a Scandinavian Viking vs. an Australian Aborigine same species, 2 extremes of genetic drift one designed for a cold wet climate the other for a hot dry one. anyway this second part is off the thread, I just felt you might be interested to see the extent of my viewpoint to the inside rather than the extreme outlying beliefs. In any case both sides have a vested interest at the polar ends to set things to one side or the other, I suppose that was the point I was arriving at.
Time for more pain killers I had emergency oral surgury yesterday morning then had to do an oral history final last night
"... the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." Zuckerman, p.78.
"Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but ... [although] the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions.
The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form ..." Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the Graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973-1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), "Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones," The American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, May 1979, p.273.
Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?" Nature, Vol.258, 4December 1975, pp.389-395.
"For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable." Zuckerman, p.93.
"His Lordship's [Sir Solly Zuckerman's] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. 'They are just bloody apes,' he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa." Lewin, Bones of Contention, pp.164-165.
"This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the 'knuckle-walker' condition, not unlike the extant African apes." Richard E.F. Leakey, "Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya," Nature, Vol.231, 28May 1971, p.245.
n. "The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] is not in people but in chimpanzees." Bruce Bower, "Evolution's Youth Movement," Science News, Vol.159, 2June 2001, p.347.
o. "Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions." Fred Spoor et al., "Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion," Nature, Vol.369, 23June 1994, pp.645-648.
Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens. W.B.
p. William L. Jungers, "Lucy's Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis," Nature, Vol.297, 24June 1982, pp.676-678.
Jeremy Cherfas, "Trees Have Made
None of those can really be shown as a truly transitional fossil. I would also encourage people to remember one of the oldest and still truest definitions of a species. If any 2 creatures can bread and produce a viable and fertile offspring then they are of the same species. If they cannot or produce a non fertile offspring (like a mule) then they are of different species. this put a bit more of a wringer on things if applied logically since the transitionary forms should not show immediate jumps in structure or genetics. This is why for example archaeopteryx cant be a transitional form since there is such a large number of changes from scales to flighted feathers. It would be difficult to justify non flighted feathers as they are very complex in and of themselves, but flighted feathers just springing into existence no to show evolution we would have to see a transitionary form or fossil showing feather like scales.
Yeah He is an AC but I chose to reply anyways.
I never said Archaeopteryx was a fake I said that evidence shows it is not a transitional form and then I went on to repeat what has been said about its feathers especially in relation to flighted vs. flightless birds.
As for palaeontologists exposing hoaxes, of course they were as it is their area of study. Similar evidences I have found are generally garnered by persons within their own field of expertise
Fossilisation was originally supposed to be a process that took an inordinate amount of time. Mt. St. Helens showed the process of fossilisation can take place in a matter of years rather than centuries or millennia, this was why I brought it up. Further incidents show plants requiring cross pollination to have appeared 100 million years before they were supposed to have been evolved, and there is a recorded instance of a living muscle being carbon dated as having been dead for several thousand years (though I would have to look to find that reference)
I will only comment on copyright here. The portion I quoted was not an entire work it was in fact a portion and the credits were listed in the exact manner prescribed by the original author. In fact the portion was pulled dirextly from an artyicle on their site regarding fair use.
Doing Grad work is quite a bit difficult w/o a 4 year degree though in some fields and at some schools it is possible, and for your information here is a link to ICL
I started "throwing around qualifications because of the parents comment that creationists couldn't pass science classes at a decent school, thus I put forth the argument that I as a creationist not only did pass those classes, but went on to do Grad work in a respected research field and was qualified to teach the same classes that they were saying I couldn't pass. I am not one to flaunt credentials normally. [As a side note regarding credentials when it comes to my CV (effectively a resume) I try to play down my experience in most things otherwise they will not even bring me in to talk about p/t and or contract jobs (I have gone back to school starting this summer with an eye on post grad and post doctoral work] You will also find in my other posts that none of this qualifies me for this discussion as an expert in the specific field but it does give me sufficient background to look at the underlying facts and arguments.
For me there is far too much circular logic in evolutionary theories, and far too many people trying to make a name for themselves and falsifying evidence to do so. The evidence is often overturned but not until years later and it is never removed from lower materials. Lucy and archaeopteryx are prime examples of that Lucy's evidence was faked and that was shown to and then accepted by the scientific community right around 20 years ago. Lucy still is touted as truth however in books, museums and in common(esque) conversation. As for archaeopteryx, it was a full true bird, not some primitive mixture of lizard and avian stock or transitional form. I can understand why evolution proponents would believe this as until 1993 no full fossil of an archaeopteryx had ever been found. However below is a clip from a book titles Biomechanics in Evolution (p194).
There are other issues such as time to cause fossilisation, time to lay down strata, original ratios of elements (K/Ar etc.) which were used to derive each other. we say that this fossil exists in this time frame because we found it in this strata That was al well and fine so long as there was no real evidence saying it wasn't since after all part of science is accepting what fits the model until something changes that model) Then we look at information that has been gathered in the past 20 years or so and apply the same logic to it and suddenly you find that Mt St Helens last erupted over 100,000 years ago and that there were trees, houses and dogs around it at the time. When this comes up you have to take a look and wonder again since we can logically derive that a house built in the past 60 years was not in fact built over 100,000 years ago. The same kind of thing goes with stratification and fossilisation, we have always (in modern reckoning) that for something to b
Sure just as soon as you learn a skill called reading comprehension. I believe it is taught in 7th grade in the US.