The WT fake chimp (for those who missed it)

by Mr Ben 20 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Mr Ben

  Pat,

  Australopithecus certainly proves that an ancient ape walked upright, which was something you would expect if one of the evolutionary theories are correct. Whether it is directly our ancestor I cant remember now and its a bit late for me to go through my old stuff. I think the consensus was that its very difficult to be certain as its so old. What is important is that evolutionary theory predicted that something like Australopithecus must have existed in the past.

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.
• 

  TD

  Now, you might say, “It’s a baby chimp! It’s canines haven’t grown yet!”

  Actually, the skull in the picture not only has too many molars for that, it also appears to have bicuspids behind the canines as well; both of which you would rule out a juvenile.

  To me though, the lack of brow ridges in the Creation book "Chimpanzee" illustration is even more striking than the abnormally small canines.

  Chimpanzees have very prominent brow ridges……
  
  

  …but as can be see from specimens such as the Taung child, the brow ridges are greatly reduced in some species of Australopithecus (e.g. africanus) making them much more "human" in appearance than the author of Creation would have you believe.

  As Ben observes though, all of this misses the greater point.
• 

  JanH

  Pat,

  Yes, australopithecenes were almost certainly ancestors to humans. Whether a species now known, like A. afarensis ("Lucy"'s species), or some other similar species were a direct predecessor to homo is more difficult to know.

  TD, interesting comments. Thanks.

  - Jan
  --
  "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
• 

  uncle_onion

  now that is a conicidence. I have just started reading " The Blind watchmaker". Has any one else read this and what did they think of it?

  UO
• 

  Mr Ben

  Thanks TD, great photos!

  UO, The Blind Watchmaker gives a good overview of Dawkins' opinion of the precise course of evolution, with the exception of the extremely boring chapter on computer modelling. Remember, there are 2 evolutions, evolution as fact and evolution as theory. To get an alternative theory on how evolution took place also read The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, by Niles Eldridge. Dawkins and Eldridge differ somewhat as to the pace and the triggers for evolutionary adaptation. Dawkins is a Darwinian gradualist by and large, and Eldridge feels that evolution takes place in occasional spurts with long periods of stasis ("punctuated equilibrium").

  The shape of the fossil record tends to support Eldridge, but the fossil record only gives us snapshots of the past, so Dawkins could be right. We may never know for sure exactly how evolution took place, but there is more than enough evidence to show that it did happen in the first place.

  In my opinion, if you want a really good grounding in science issues relating to the creation belief and you are serious about your education, then buy "Science & Earth History", by Arthur N. Strahler - but be warned, it isn't cheap and it is not for the faint hearted. If you just want an easy read and general overview, just get the first two books. But do get them both and you will get a more balanced view of the current level of agreement and disagreements in this interesting field.

  I personally think it important for everyone who believes in the bible to research human evolution, because if Adam did not exist then there is no logical reason for a redeemer for his sin.

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.
• 

  Rex B13

  That's nothing. Did you see the 'ape-man' skull that science accepted for forty years then it was exposed as a fake (Piltdown Man)? Then there's the pig's tooth that formed the whole basis of the evolution argument in the Scopes, "monkey trial". They portrayed it in artwork as a verifiable missing link. LOL
  The doctrine of evolution in the atheist religion is 'holy' indeed!
  Rex
• 

  patio34

  JanH and Mr. Ben,
  Thanks for the info about australopithecus. Evolution is a huge field, isn't it? It's simple on its premise, but enormously complicated in detail & possibilities.

  Uncle Onion,
  Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker" was the 1st book I read on the subject. It helped me a lot.

  Mr. Ben, I've noted your recommendation on my "to read' list. I'll see if I can order it thru the library.

  Pat
• 

  JanH

  Rex,

  When one scientist is discovered doing a fraud, and exposed, he is totally discredited in the scientific community. The fraud was after all discovered by evolutionary scientists.

  When creationists commit fraud, as they do all the time, they are hailed as heroes among fellow creationists, and the lies are repeated in their writings for years to come. How many times have you posted misquotations on this board that has been known as such for decades? Not rarely!

  I do find it interesting you use the word "religion" in a degoratory sense, though Of course, neither atheism nor evolution is a religion. But I guess you are right that religion is a fraud, at least your friends'.

  - Jan
  --
  "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
• 

  Mr Ben

  Rex,

  What Jan says is right. What interests me is that you not only fail to see the real point of the post but that there is a glaring internal inconsistency in your thinking.

  Firstly, it is irrelevant that someone somewhere at some time perpetrated a scientific fraud. This absolutely does not justify the deliberate fraud perpetrated upon rank & file dubs by the society.

  Secondly, if you beleive that an occasional fraud in science (which will be uncovered by peer review) makes it unholy, then should you not by the same measure condemn a religion that perpetrates deliberate fraud in the name of God? There are also many more examples of deceit in the 1985 book. Why dont you check them out at Alan's site?

  Thirdly, the whole point of the post is to prove that the Society deliberately tells lies. And who, according to the bible, is the father of the lie?

  Lastly, what makes you assume that beleiving in evolution makes a person an atheist? Was Darwin an atheist? Is the Pope an atheist?

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.
• 

  MissingLink

  Anyone have the pictures missing from above? I'm putting together a review of the Creation book and this would be an excellent addition.