It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Praise Darwin, Evolve Beyond Belief' billboards go up

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



In actual fact, there are some examples of erectus which display quite a large ECV, such as Vertesszöllos.33 To make matters even more interesting, there are human skulls in Australia, dated as modern, which exhibit clear and unambiguous erectus features. Found in Victoria (Kow Swamp), and New South Wales (Willandra Lakes, Mungo), several of these Australian aboriginal remains have fully modern human-sized brains of around 1250cc, yet they all possess the heavy supraorbital tori, flattish receding foreheads, prognathic faces, and large jaws so typical of the earliest and the latest erectus specimens.
These skulls are dated from less than 15,000 years to around 35,000 years BP.34 Attwood and Edwards found it - '… a conundrum' that the Kow Swamp people with their more-erectus features lived later than the Lake Mungo people of New South Wales which were more 'modern' in appearance, and which date from around 35,000 BP.35 (See Figure 5.)36

Answersingenesis
I got this image from canovan


I think it's interesting how different the races are even compared to skull formation.
Hitler, of course used it for racism and hate!

What do you think about Arizona State Museum and Lucy???




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Personally (having taught the human anatomy labs at North Texas University), I think that discussing anatomy without having a good understanding of it leads to a lot of errors.



Originally posted by Clearskies

... several of these Australian aboriginal remains have fully modern human-sized brains of around 1250cc, yet they all possess the heavy supraorbital tori, flattish receding foreheads, prognathic faces, and large jaws so typical of the earliest and the latest erectus specimens.


Your source (Answersingenesis) is both racist and uninformed. I think you might want to avoid using them in debates about evolution (generally most of the conservative Christians avoid using AIG in any debate because the material is so poor.) The text is written by someone who has no real knowledge of anatomy and is simply copying another biased source from the 1970's who wishes to prove that everything except pale-skinned modern humans are somehow "deformed chimps."

The Kow Swamp people are homo sapiens. There was some debate during the 1970's (40 years ago) about what they were, but in general it's clear that they're homo sapiens who apparently practiced skull deformation

Kow Swamp: Henry Morris has claimed (1974) that since 10,000 year old Homo erectus skulls were found at Kow Swamp in Australia, erectus cannot be the ancestor of modern man. The logic is faulty, since there is no reason that a population of erectus could not have survived long after Homo sapiens first appeared. Morris also has his facts wrong. Characteristics of the Kow Swamp skulls led to suggestions that some Homo erectus _features_ had survived in them, as the quote Morris gives from Thorne and Macumber (1972) clearly states. Morris' claim that they are erectus _skulls_ is incorrect. It is now thought that the most prominent such primitive feature, flattened foreheads, may have been caused by the cultural practice of head-binding (Day 1986; Gamble 1993).

www.talkorigins.org...

So, if you've studied skulls it's pretty evident from looking at them that they're not erectus. The cranium is wrong, and the brow ridges are wrong as are the lower jaws.



I got this image from canovan


I think it's interesting how different the races are even compared to skull formation.
Hitler, of course used it for racism and hate!


Indeed, since most people don't notice the very clear differences between the Tasmanians and the sculpts of homo erectus. I don't know if you saw the very clear differences in the shape of the skulls, but to anyone who's taken some forensics they're pretty glaringly obvious. If someone only knows what skulls "sorta" look like and couldn't tell the difference between a skull from someone born in Liberia and someone born in Iceland, then they're not going to see the differences between the Tasmanians and homo erectus.

(addendum: I read vanHollenbeck's discussion on the skulls and then googled to see what this self-proclaimed paleontologist had published. The results: nothing. No scientific papers, no nothing. His expertise is apparently not based on his great knowledge of anatomy, university work, or his involvement with archaeological digs. As far as I can tell his "publications" seem to be limited to "I wrote this and put it on my website.")



What do you think about Arizona State Museum and Lucy???


I keep hoping that people will attend these and learn, but (seriously) unless you're really into the study of bone proportions and details (such as the differences in chimp pelvis and human pelvis or the signs that show the difference between knuckle-walkers and full bipeds) the whole thing will probably go over the heads of some people.



[edit on 12-2-2009 by Byrd]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by melatonin
 



In actual fact, there are some examples of erectus which display quite a large ECV, such as Vertesszöllos.33


Is it actually an Erectus? Because the only references to it being Erectus are found on creationist sites.


Found in Victoria (Kow Swamp), and New South Wales (Willandra Lakes, Mungo), several of these Australian aboriginal remains have fully modern human-sized brains of around 1250cc, yet they all possess the heavy supraorbital tori, flattish receding foreheads, prognathic faces, and large jaws so typical of the earliest and the latest erectus specimens.
These skulls are dated from less than 15,000 years to around 35,000 years BP.34 Attwood and Edwards found it - '… a conundrum' that the Kow Swamp people with their more-erectus features lived later than the Lake Mungo people of New South Wales which were more 'modern' in appearance, and which date from around 35,000 BP.35 (See Figure 5.)36


Kow swamp?


I asked Dr. Peter Brown to comment on this claim that the robust Aboriginal fossils should be classified as Homo erectus. Brown is an Australian paleoanthropologist, and one of the few people who has worked with the Kow Swamp skulls and other Australian fossils. Here is Brown's response (lightly modified to include information from my follow-up queries).


Oh! What did he say! What did he say!


Dear Jim,

I have not bothered to discuss the issue of whether H. erectus are deformed or not as from a biological perspective it is so obvious that they are not. For example while the Kow Swamp, Coobool and Nacurrie crania have flattened frontal bones the cranial vaults are high (unlike H. erectus), particularly those which are deformed (basion not preserved at Kow Swamp but mean basion-bregma at Coobool 141 mm, range 134-153). Curvature of the parietals (particularly those which are deformed) is MUCH greater than H. erectus and the occipitals are of modern Aboriginal morphology and not sharply angled at the torus like in H. erectus. Maximum cranial breadth is found high on the parietals, supraorbital region is NOTHING like H. erectus, particularly laterally, bone in the basal part of the vault is not thickened, etc, etc. All of the features which distinguish modern Aboriginal crania from H. erectus work with terminal Pleistocene Australian crania as well. Just happens that late Pleistocene Australians were about 8% larger and more robust than their contemporaries and a few of them had their heads deformed.

www.talkorigins.org...

We would need true Erectus features along with smaller cranial capacity.

www.talkorigins.org...

You see, we would expect some overlap, that's what you get with normal distributions and biological variation - as I said, I would need to see a good sample of bible belt humans to compare. But when taken as a group across the relevant features we see the differences clearly. Modern humans are on average about 1350cc. As noted in the link below, the smallest noted mean from a human ethnic group is 1159cc (+/- 119). Homo Erectus range from 850 to 1100cc.

www.talkorigins.org...

Now add in evolution and the notion of a progessively increasing brain size for homonid evolution, and what do you get?

Confused creationists whose only succour is quote-mining, misrepresentation, and misinformation?



I got this image from canovan


Cool! And?


I think it's interesting how different the races are even compared to skull formation.


But they are still nothing like those found for erectus. The funniest thing is that creationists can't even agree whether Erectus is human or ape (given we are actually a form of ape) - shows how much of a transitional it is.


Hitler, of course used it for racism and hate!


Well done for getting that in, have a cookie. There were american christians who did the same.


What do you think about Arizona State Museum and Lucy???


No problem with their comments.

ABE: nice post, Byrd. And an aside, hope you're well!

[edit on 12-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Answers in Genesis is IN NO way racist!

I know a little about racism.

I notice that the Tasmanians craniums appear larger.
What does a modern Tasmanian skull look like?

The pelvis of Lucys was apparently already fractured by a deer.
It has been alleged that it was then fused together to GIVE THE APPEARANCE of bi-pedal function.




[edit on 12-2-2009 by Clearskies]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Confused creationists whose only succour is quote-mining, misrepresentation, and misinformation?

Are you accusing me of something?




What do you think about Arizona State Museum and Lucy???


No problem with their comments.


IS LUCY a human predecessor, in your opinion?
Because people can't have it both ways.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
Are you accusing me of something?


Nope, you don't produce the information. You're a consumer. Don't you feel quite peeved you've just digested and excreted what is clearly creationist scat?


IS LUCY a human predecessor, in your opinion?
Because people can't have it both ways.


Could be. The problem is that you want 100% certainties. These sort of things aren't so black and white.

There is one group which have some interesting observations, but it's not as clear as you would like to make out. I'll let a crusty bone scientist explain it for you:


Having said all that, I am somewhat skeptical. One reason is that Au. afarensis has always been considered ancestral to both humans and robust australopithecines, so the fact that Rak et al found another trait that connects them doesn't surprise me. Nor does it, in my opinion, rule them out as human ancestors. What it does do is reinforce the highly transitional nature of Au. afarensis. Another reason is that starting with the announcement of the discovery of Au. afarensis there have been a number of suggestions that the morphology is so varied that two species must be represented. This paper even argues that the assemblage represents two species - a hominid and a pongid (similar to Dryopithecus). The fact that Au. afarensis has some traits similar to the gorilla doesn't really surprise me (I would have been surprised if they had orang or gibbon traits).

scienceblogs.com...

[edit on 12-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
All things put aside, that's one of the most classy advertisements I've seen lately. It's beautiful from an artistic standpoint.

But I also am pro-Darwin, so my aesthetics may be a bit biased.

To those upset at it poking fun at Christians... would you be as upset if it were poking fun of Muslims or Scientologists? This is a serious question, I'm not judging.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by sadisticwoman]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by sadisticwoman
 


To me it appears to be poking fun at all religions. The people who are Christian just happen to take issue with their religion being targeted, I dont think they mean to say that its only their religion being targeted.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I don't mind looking into facts and relaying my opinion.
As a 'Bible Belt', southern woman(At least 4 generations< both sides!)

I like to learn.
There's just so much obfuscation and misinformation from evolutionists, as well.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
All ID/Creation people. STOP BREATHING! ATOMS ARE JUST A THEORY! Oxygen atoms are the devil! Every time you breath in you are supporting the devil by supporting the evil scientific theory! ATOMS ARE JUST A THEORY! Also, never jump, or drop any thing, or anything that uses that evil theory called gravity! If you use gravity you are supporting the devil! In fact being on a computer supports dozens of scientific theories! So Creation/ID folk, stop! If you support one scientific theory then deny another you are an ignorant hypocrit who needs to go live in a cave until you starve to death since getting substanance from eating is just a theory. Of course, you'd suffocate first after you put a plastic bag over your head to keep those evil devil beings(atoms) from getting in your lungs.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
I don't mind looking into facts and relaying my opinion.
As a 'Bible Belt', southern woman(At least 4 generations< both sides!)

I like to learn.


Sounds good.


There's just so much obfuscation and misinformation from evolutionists, as well.


Heh, I doubt it. If real clear evidence eventually shows that Afarensis could not be part of the human lineage, then I would expect these claims from scientists to fall away pretty quickly.

Creationists drag out odious readily-refuted zombie arguments which have been lurching around for decades. In these sort of discussions, I tend to imagine something like this...




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Afrosamurai
 


TROLL ALERT


I don't understand why you can't be more respectful. This thread doesn't need this kind of reaction.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 


Communism and Darwinism have some close ties.
With MILLIONS already dead, because of it.
These people's ideology has a deep hatred for almost all religion;
That's why I saw the similarities in this billboard and communist propaganda posters!
Mediamonitorsnetwork

It is an obvious and definite truth that these people and ideologies all drank from the same well and that they were all portrayed as justified and the only way by the same source. In short there was another guilty party behind these people. The cause of these inhuman and unbalanced leaders dragging millions along behind them, and which allowed them to commit crimes, was the apparent scientific force and support given to them by materialist philosophy and Darwinism.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Survival of the fittest = survival of the richest = captalism

Everyone having an equal chance of going to heaven as long as they pray and are good people is closer to communism.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by sadisticwoman]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Communism and darwinism have nothing in common. How the hell do you tie Evolution to that? Evolution is science, Communism is economics. Also, not a troll alert, a truth alert. These Creationists and IDers support every other scientific theory except for one. Creationists are like Holocaust deniers, they only deny the Jews and not the Poles, Russians, Gypsys, or the disabled killed.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by sadisticwoman
 


There's no point. Although she says she wants to learn blah blah, the thread progresses as expected. First we have an attempted Godwin, now the bogeyman of communism. So it both supports nazi ideas of wiping out the weak, and also communistic giving to each according to their needs.

Creationist logic in action.

Amazingly, both nazis and communists restricted such ideas. With the nazis banning books from the likes of Haeckel, and the soviets preferring Lysencko's Lamarckism, sending scientists to the gulag for darwinian ideas (which they viewed as a form western bourgoise imperialism).

Indeed, not accepting darwin's ideas led to millions of deaths in communist countries due to their crappy agricultural approaches.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afrosamurai
These Creationists and IDers support every other scientific theory except for one. Creationists are like Holocaust deniers, they only deny the Jews and not the Poles, Russians, Gypsys, or the disabled killed.


That is an incredibly good point, and one that always annoys me about the ID'ers. Science is accurate enough to convince them to fly in planes, have life saving surgeries, (even though things can sometimes go wrong in both) use electricity, computers, etc., but when it comes to evolution all of a sudden science is just this horribly flawed and inadequate thing.

The inconsistency amazes me.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Is it just me or has Atheism become a religion onto itself?
The term Atheist mean without religion(not without god), and yet they are just turning it into another religion rather than explaining why Darwin's work was so important. I actually blame the science community for not being clear about what evolution is, and for being inflammatory to the sensibilities of the religious when they could have just approached with facts and figures rather than condemning religious belief. It used to be that the religious would condemn Darwin, they technically started this pushing war, but the atheist part of the scientific community have banded together to form a religion of their own to fight an uphill battle on rollerskates, it's a hell of their own making at this point.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Atheism is a religion in and of itself because it claims to "know". It takes faith to know something that you cannot know.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 


Uh... it doesn't take faith to know evolution is real. We do it in labs all the time. We get vaccines every year because of it.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join