How Much Do We Really Know

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
I know who you mean. You introduced me to his work a few years ago...
Doesn't time fly?

Not sure who you mean here...are you thinking George McMullen?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Not sure who you mean here...are you thinking George McMullen?

McMullen and one of the Stanford brothers; the one who had a knack for finding dinosaur tracks.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Not sure who you mean here...are you thinking George McMullen?

McMullen and one of the Stanford brothers; the one who had a knack for finding dinosaur tracks.

Never heard of the Stanford brothers...have to look that up. I walked a couple of sites with George, and while I did not have the opportunity to test his observations, I was able to watch him 'do his thing'. Like I've said, he would sit down and go into what I assumed was a trance state - sitting there, eyes closed and doing something with his hand...rubbing his fingers with his thumb. It was only later that I recognised the same actions in a friend with left temporal epilepsy. I still wonder if there is a connection.



Some of the 'old guard' in Ontario archaeology would tut-tut about 'poor Emerson', who appeared to fall under his thrall in his latter days as a prominent archaeologist. I have spoken to others who witnessed George in action and showed them where to dig. Bang on. George's is an interesting story.

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology
a reply to: peter vlar

I wasn’t pointing that remark especially at you, but there are different ways of explaining things and one can also have a conversation without treating it as some sort of contest. Pointing out flaws is only knowledgeable if one put up contradicting evidence from creditable sources. If a person can’t do that, don’t point out flaws out and supposed ignorance according to your own preconception or pre-disposition.

I didn't state, nor did I imply, that it was directed at me. I was simply responding with a pertinent question. As for your charges regarding proper citations and my own preconceptions or disposition... you're way off the mark. You have no clue what my predispositions are let alone my knowledge or background. The citations have been posted ad nauseum by other posters as well as myself. If things went how you believe they should, I wouldn't be able to post any new information or opinions ever as I would just print up a standardized reply with sourced citations because the same tired questions are repeated time and again because people refuse to look at the evidence. There are plenty of sites like talok origins that have the information printed up as such. I don't need to reply with the same information as though I'm a bot for the encyclopedia brittanica but I digress.

My question was pretty simple, basically a yes or no!

And you got your answer. We live in the 21st century and have made profound developments in MES since 1859. For what you seem to think is the standard bearer of evolutionary science(i.e. fraud) there would have to be a massive conspiracy between several competing disciplines of science perpetrated by scientists across the entire earth that has been going on for over a century and a half in the face of a plethora of new data that wholly supports MES and nothing showing that it is either incorrect or fraudulent.

If you convince the majority of the scientific community and population that the cornerstones of the theory of evolution is undoubtable how would a individual go about if they wanted to prove this theory wrong? It’s almost impossible, this individual will be alienated from the scientific community and he/she will never get funding for future work. It's har du teach an old dog new tricks..

Complete poppycock. There is research and work being done all the time that is entirely premised on finding the truth, A. this is true, B. this is false or C. it leads you in a new direction because you get unexpected results. The implication that all of science is in cahoots to perpetrate a hoax despite the fact that multiple disciples are all corroborating the data is ludicrous at best.

Please elaborate what the past 160 years have given us and how it strengthened the theory of evolution when it comes to the points I have talked about.

The increased data from the fossil record, multiple new species, far better understanding of phylogeny and how it all interacts, radiometric dating, our level of knowledge of genetics, genetic testing and the degree of coverage with which we can decipher various genomes, Human Genome Project, Neanderthal Genome Project, new hominids that were contemporary with HSS... we could do this all day.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but the things that you imply have strengthen the theory of evolution is in fact supported (and based) on previous work, work which I enlightened might be fraudulent based on a number of reasons.

You didn't enlighten, you implied. not the same thing. It's one thing to say "what if?!" and another entirely to base your entire worldview on it when you have nothing that supports it but speculative conjecture and hyperbole.

Could there be a chance that all the ”missing links” in hominid evolution which have been found in the past 50-100 years are forged in some ways, that the almost complete or complete physical remains have been fabricated to fill in the blanks and to further strengthen the theory? Combining human and ape remains..

Not in my experience. The only time it has been done was with the Piltdown Man hoax and it was immediately suspected to be false and proved to be false by other Anthropologists. So no, I don't believe that what you are implying has been accomplished as the known evolutionary hoaxes were all exposed by other scientists

How many people/institutions are entitled to view and examine these remains?

Anyone qualified to work with the remains and who has a need to examine them. Do you think they should just let you walk in off the street and handle remains? You are aware that a lot of fossilized dinosaur remains are radioactive aren't you? This is why a lot of fossils on display are coated in lead paint and why others aren't displayed at all and why only accredited professionals are allowed access.

The alleged dinosaur bones are keep far away from prying eyes, and almost every fossil that are shown in museums are resin reproductions, and then painted to look like the real thing.

It is actually entirely false to say that almost every fossil is a resin reproduction. You demanded citations from me in your first paragraph but ironically, you are quite comfortable making broad claims with no supporting citations. Interesting no? Again, as I mentioned above, some fossils are pretty radioactive and thus are coated in lead paint. Others are too radioactive for even that precaution and yes, in those instances, reproductions are used.

90% of the population don’t even know this, and they believe that real fossils are shown in museums, many also say that there are dinosaur bones which in itself is laughable and sad at the same time.

And apparently, laughably so, you are as oblivious to some of the intricacies yourself when it comes to curation and proper display protocols.

If a creditable institution or person/team examines a remain and they conclude that it is for example one of our ancestors, other scientists and people will automatically fall back on that verdict, no?

No, they will not. This is what peer review is for. See, Anthropologists are particularly prickly folks who get off on debunking other peoples work when they can and enjoy scouring other peoples work and data for errors.

Or can every individual backed by a trustworthy institution go in and examine these remains?

Yes, as long as there is a need to access the remains for research or educational purposes

Well, it is! So you are telling me that there are complete remains of all our different ancestors, yet someone is keeping these specimens a closed secret?

No,it isn't. I'm not saying that at all, you are. Please provide a citation stating that the basis for modern evolutionary synthesis is the relationship between bonobo and humans. We are more closely related to Chimpanzee. they were the closest extant species to our common ancestor when our lineages diverged. Bonobos have only been around for 1.5MA give or take. Humans and Chimpanzees common ancestor diverged roughly 12MA in comparison.

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology
How are the sculls consistent and what do you and the scientific community base that on? 1-4 examples of pieced together sculls and the appearance of them when pieced together?

You keep insisting that every skull is pieced together in a haphazard fashion of randomness which simply is not the case. There are many skulls which are found in situ, that despite having been fractured by pressure of the earth above them, are still complete and in one location. Nobody is taking skull cap from site A and adding it to mandible from site B and piecing together the rest of the skull from sites C, D and E which is the implication you are giving. Many more are found entirely intact. The consistency comes from the strata and dating assigned to each individual set of remains and the morphological consistency exhibited in those remains. It's not rocket science to understand that if all remains from a specific time frame that are all morphologically similar are from the same species. This is demonstrated throughout different strata and dating periods and a variety of species

Could the pieced together sculls and remains have been put together wrong based on cognitive conservatism/ confirmation bias, and the wish for strengthening the theory and the individuals life-work in this field? Scientific misconduct..

No. This is where peer review comes in handy. The entire field is not going to just alter everything it knows or thinks it knows based on one individuals work or site. Anthropologists and paleontologists are going to scrutinize every bit of data to search for errors.

Could all our supposed human ancestors just be descendants to apes without any connecion to humans at all on a natural evolutionary scale? Or does it have to be our ancestors because, like I said before, our DNA/physical/anatomical traits are similar? Smells like confirmation bias..

It can smell like whatever you decide you're smelling. How is it not confirmation bias on your end to toss aside legitimate peer reviewed data because you claim to "just be questioning with an open mind"? You clearly have your agenda set, how are you innocent of confirmation bias whereas trained professionals are ravaged by implied confirmation bias?

I know that the theory implies that our DNA is similar to bonobo because it is according to the theory our closest living ancestor, but yet again, I don’t see the complete evidence of us deriving from bonobo.

Well good, because to see that would demonstrate that you're nowhere near as familiar with MES as you think you are. Nobody says we come from bonobos and "the theory" doesn't say anything at all. Testing and data says a lot but the theory itself, not so much as a word. Bonobos are a recent offshoot of Chimpanzee. Humans and Chimpanzee shares a common ancestor ~12 MA. We do not "derive from bonobo" as you seem to think.

Give me 50 years and I can make a hybrid from bonobo and humans and then based on the hybrids genome you and others can say that the hybrid derived from evolution and must have been living in isolation in some deep forest up until now.. Intelligent design..

Then come back in 50 years and present your work and we can talk about your hypothetical scenario. Because that's all it is, hypothetical. Either way, everything you believe about the relationship between humans and bonobos is wrong.

I can’t even get my head around this question! Please elaborate. Are you implying that we have found 1000 upon 1000 distinct and complete (not pieced together) specimens of our different ancestors and based on that, science can conclude that the different specimens are in fact different specimens and that humans are related to them?

I'm saying that you are making an unsupported claim that the entire phylogenetic tree of Hominidae is based on faulty science and that all of the actual science says something very different. Please demonstrate how the morphological characteristics are not consistent, this is YOUR implication here, not mine. But in short, yes, anthropologists and paleoanthropologists can actually determine the difference between various specimens and can tell quite definitively whether they are related to HSS or not.

Sites that allegedly dig up numerous remains (2-3) from different individuals and then piece them together to form a ”whole”, 40% reconstruction of the real thing. Could one of these individuals possible be a human who died fighting/killing the other mammals?

How can one answer such a broad based question? Can you give a specific example of a member of the genus Homo that you feel is incorrectly assigned there? There are single sites where there are dozens of distinct individuals present so I just don't know where you're getting these lowball numbers of 1-3 from. Perhaps if you could articulate a specific instance of species or even a site then the question could be more appropriately addressed.

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology

Pretty easy to fall back on what other are saying, right? But I guess that's how it always have worked in the scientific community, that and the quest for pride and acceptance. Well the oldest and most notorious scientific society (royal society of England) sure ruled out possibilities when they started to restrict certain fellows after getting criticism from one of them in 1830 (during a time they probably needed full support without questioning for the creation of the theory of evolution) Intelligent design is according to me a very plausible explanation, can I back it up with anything but ”what if’s” and past/present questionable practices and conflict of interest, No! But for the time being, I will not go around and preach something obtained by others, which is not directly subjected to verification, when there are many questionable aspects in the theory and the history of it.

Critiquing early 19th century naturalists is one thing, imposing the same criticisms, with no supporting evidence on modern science is idiotic. If you could actually find fault in the science at hand you would do so instead of creating this massive anti-science strawman.

Science looked for the answer to my and many others question, and they found it because they looked for it, right? Interesting that the last few years a number of papers have come out that showed that OCA2 was probably the main eye color gene. But yet, here you are preaching that it is for sure the reason why some humans have blue eyes. Confirmation bias?

How exactly is it confirmation bias to find a mutation on OCA2? it's science. If you disagree with it, please demonstrate a dissenting opinion along with your research.

Yes, they all died when you were asleep and before you take the buss home from your elementary school today you can leave the childish strawman remarks in the sandbox. But my bad, I thought someone like you, who's trying to be all-knowing and scientific in your comments would understand what I meant instead of mentioning all the other species, you do realize that bonobo is our closet relative according to the theory of evolution, right!?

So you didn't read beyond the first sentence? Good for you! FYI... you do know that you're completely wrong, bonobo isn't our closest relative and we did not derive from them. But please... carry on with your witty anti-science crusade

So mr all-knowing scientific guy who must have read all of the topics and entire books which are dedicated to this question, explain it then! I love that you never fully answer my question, instead you fill it with obvious remarks and then try to humiliate the person you are talking to.. Guess it’s a scientific thing, right..

No, not a scientific thing, an "oh here's another person who thinks that 200 hours of internet research makes them an expert in Anthropology" thing.

Here I go again: How come that all our human-like ancestors died out but humans and bonobo is still alive? Give me the facts mr science, or should we fall back on assumptions again?

And here I go again... bonobo is NOT a human ancestor. And whether you want to accept it or not, I did actually address this earlier. But between climatological shifts in the Pleistocene, the Toba event and a massive virus in East Africa, Humanity itself was reduced to a few thousand to perhaps as few as a hundred breeding pair around 70KA. only 10KA before leaving Africa. The Toba event completely wiped out H. Erectus and drastically reduced Neanderthal populations in Europe. They were already in decline when "we" encountered them in the Levant before moving into West Asia and then Europe. There isn't any one single or simple reason. there were a multitude of factors and we just happened to have the luck, the numbers and the intelligence to overcome it all. And if you're predominantly European, Neanderthals are still making their presence known as at least 20% of their genome is going strong today.

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology

You mean the lengthy post I made with nothing but facts which you so happen to ignore?

I didn't realize that I was beholden to you in any way requiring me to address each claim you make, my humble apologies...

You surely don’t know your history when it comes to scientific institutions and the people involved, do you!? The amount of conflict of interest, who found what/when/how, the timeframe of the unearthed objects and the nail in the coffin for the theory of evolutions is whiteout a doubt suspicious. Ans when it comes to artifacts and specimens the smithsonian institution is widely know for keeping certain things a secret as well as making stuff disappear. I wrote a short part of it in my previous comment, and if you don’t find at least a couple of aspect suspicious you do not have a scientific mind and way of evaluating things.

Here comes the ”conjecture and supposition” phrase when talking to people who believe that contradictory statements automatically comes with a box of shiny facts. Love it! No its nothing that came out of nowhere, and before Charles Darwin presented his piece Jean-Baptiste Lamarck published a more developed theory in 1809 and before that Erasmus Darwin had a hypothesis of transmutation of species..

So that means "No, you don't actually have anything but ire towards science to support your claims"?

The interesting thing here when you say "technically, anything is possible but without anything to support the sentiment, all you have is conjecture and supposition” is that basically anything is not possible. I assume you know how the scientific community and the founding of studies are functioning, and based on which criteria the founding is granted, right? So you see, if someone would adress a contradictory thesis to evolution the founding would most certainly not be granted.

This entire premise is BS If the data is there to support the hypothesis then it doesn't get thrown away like the baby in the bathwater.

The problem is that the scientific community are many times seeing things in black or white instead of evaluating (to some people) licentious and improbable studies, and based on that we are only looking in a narrowed hole instead of in a wider tunnel for answers. This have to do with like I said, money/founding, but also the fear of being ridiculed and or alienated because you think to far out of the box.

You've never taken an actual science course at a collegiate level have you? Any grad school? NO? Because again, everything you're saying is entirely contrary to how it all actually works. Is there resistance to new ideas? absolutely. The ebnd result is that people work harder at their dissenting hypothesis to prove its merit and provide the level of supporting data to get people to actually take it seriously. It might have taken a couple of decades but Clovis First is now a thing of the past. 10 years ago you would still get laughed at for insisting that Humans and Neanderthal bred successfully. Today, its a fact.

Well it’s a matter of opinion, what’s the point of tracing DNA when you can’t get the answers you are looking for.. Hence me asking the things I did.

But you CAN get the answers you're looking for. again, you're completely missing the point.

pbs.twimg.com...
Lost world