Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped

LOL that's ridiculous, being a king is self evident, being intelligent is only self evident to others who are intelligent... So often those who are intelligent will have to inform the fools of said fact...lol

Jaden

So your inability to use a cogent illustration of your point illustrates my point exactly. lol

So you're trying to say that Stephen Hawking, or Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein needed to go around letting people know that they were/are intelligent because the average public doesn't understand that they were/are smarter than they are? Sorry but no. That complete twaddle. The entire premise is nothing but your own safe space, snowflake decorated strawman.

Intelligence and knowledge aren't the same thing. I went to school for a very long time so that I could learn about things that you feel capable of commenting on based on a photograph scaled to fit into the criteria that ATS allows and when people clearly demonstrate that you don't have the foggiest notion of what you're talking about, you simply move on to your next strawman or ad hominem. That's not intelligence. That's cowardice.

At least "intelligent" people are aware of the limitations of their knowledge and skill sets. You on the other hand, have no education or background in Anthopology but think you know more than Paleoanthropologists. That's not intelligence. That's delusion.

This is just another unfortunate case of "I'm smart because I said so. My opinions, be them incredibly ignorant and unfounded, are facts because I said so! Proof? You couldn't handle the proof! Here, let me go out of my way to mention an IQ score that no one was even wondering about!"

...Just another sad day in the life of Jaden....

a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth


Well, in all fairness, Jaden is at least smart enough to pretend that I didn't immolate his ridiculous claims regarding molars as he has not addressed, nor do I expect that he will attempt to address, his maddening errors (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here and not saying that he just flat out lied...) regarding the dentition in question. Jaden can pontificate to his hearts content but when it comes to the raw data and the physical remains, there are those of us who actually know what we are talking about. I just paid my last student loan bill this past week so I should probably know something about physical hominid remains haha

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth


Well, in all fairness, Jaden is at least smart enough to pretend that I didn't immolate his ridiculous claims regarding molars as he has not addressed, nor do I expect that he will attempt to address, his maddening errors (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here and not saying that he just flat out lied...) regarding the dentition in question. Jaden can pontificate to his hearts content but when it comes to the raw data and the physical remains, there are those of us who actually know what we are talking about. I just paid my last student loan bill this past week so I should probably know something about physical hominid remains haha

Same. I'd really like to give Jaden a chance, hence my telling them I'm slowly losing hope. As it keeps turning out, Jaden continually fails to provide any sound rebuttal or any piece of evidence at all to back themself up. To be honest, I wasn't expecting it at all, but as a fair mind, I'd like to still give them the benefit of the doubt, much like you did.

And I feel ya on those student loans, man. I feel like I'll be paying mine off until I'm dead.

a reply to: peter vlar

LOL I don't think I know more than anthropologists. What I DO know is that they are enamored and stuck within their paradigm. It is absolutely asinine to believe that you can build an entire creature accurately from a molar and a partial jaw bone. You have ZERO reasoning ability if you think you can.

The only things that you can rationally tell from a molar and jaw bone are (diet) and potentially (size). Anyone who claims otherwise and gives (I went to school and paid 100's of K's to be taught this) as the sole reasoning for said conclusions is just plain FULL OF #!!!

Jaden

p.s. I haven't seen you address HOW you can tell what an entire creature looked like based on some molars, so you can circle jerk with other paradigm indoctrinates all you want. That doesn't make you smart or right.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Long time lurker, second time (ever!) responder here.

Is it wrong of me to say I miss the bat-crap crazy responses much earlier from Tinystarlight? Those were the good ol’ fire and brimstone days…

But I digress.

I do recall several folks provide rather articulate explanations (with an occasional source to actual peer reviewed articles) on how scientists and their friendly artist renderers came to extrapolate a molar and some broken bones into a representation of an extinct creature.

Granted, were they likely spot on? Not likely. Did they have all those chin hairs in the right place? Probably not. Were they possibly a bit more bow-legged than envisioned? Sure, but dentition is a surprisingly revealing window into anatomy so they likely didn’t render an ancestor of a zebra when they were looking at a mountain lion.

Saying that the artistic representation is not entirely accurate down to the dimples on their cheeks does not therefore mean that renderings themselves, as part of an “asinine” “paradigm” (of which, I assume you mean the scientific method), now requires us to throw the baby out with the bathwater (to which I mean the entire field of evolutionary biology and all the fields tied to it). One does not simply deny evolution because of poorly drawn pictures, but rather one simply draws better pictures.

Or even better, who gives a crap about the pictures or models? They are merely meant to make difficult concepts more approachable by using ways that make science make more sense to the high IQ, low scientifically literate among us – like through visual cues, touch, and so on.

I think that’s something worth thinking about regardless of how many Swedish Krona you spent on your education or how often you think about scientists in circle-jerk porn.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: peter vlar

LOL I don't think I know more than anthropologists. What I DO know is that they are enamored and stuck within their paradigm. It is absolutely asinine to believe that you can build an entire creature accurately from a molar and a partial jaw bone. You have ZERO reasoning ability if you think you can.

The only things that you can rationally tell from a molar and jaw bone are (diet) and potentially (size). Anyone who claims otherwise and gives (I went to school and paid 100's of K's to be taught this) as the sole reasoning for said conclusions is just plain FULL OF #!!!

Jaden

p.s. I haven't seen you address HOW you can tell what an entire creature looked like based on some molars, so you can circle jerk with other paradigm indoctrinates all you want. That doesn't make you smart or right.

First and foremost, I have never once claimed that I could reconstruct an entire hominid (or any other organism for that matter) from dentition or partial mandibles alone. I've never seen or heard of any other paleoanthropologists making such a claim either but please feel free to cite a peer reviewed article supporting your assertion that this is something anyone in this field has attempted to convey as factual because I would legitimately author a rebuttal. If this were actually a thing, we would see reconstructed mockups of what a Denisovan looked like or as in my gripe with you originates, a lovely reconstruction of Gigantopithicus Blacki because the only remains we have from either of those examples are teeth, partial jaws and in the instance of Denisovans, some toes.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you that there is limited data to be derived from samples of this nature and will even back up that the primary information we can obtain is potential size of the organism if we have something similar to compare it to, its diet and from plaque samples left on teeth called phytolith, we can get an estimate of their territorial range by examining isotopes and we can determine age to an extent as well. And because enamel is so damned durable being the hardest structure in vertebrates, the teeth are the first place we are likely to look for viable genetic samples as it is typically well protected in teeth that haven't had the enamel damaged. Because we have a few partial mandibles of G. Blacki, we can also determine that there is a slight possibility of bipedalism due to the U shape which widens in the rear. In other apes, this is related to the windup and where it is situated. What this means is that it is likely the skull was set squarely atop the spine similarly to humans as opposed to further to the front like "knuckle draggers" such as Gorillas. There are several other variables to account for though and without a cranium or pelvis, I personally wouldn't be comfortable making a determination of bipedal/quadrapedal or a combination of both like most Australopithecines. So there really is quite a bit of data that can be gleaned from dental remains, the morphological composition of the entire organism however? That is absolutely not one of them and I never once made the claim that it was so and again, I've never been taught by anyone that this was the case, spoken with anyone who has made this claim or read it in any of my research.

Backing up a little bit, my main issue with you in this particular thread is your prior claim that the molars of Gigantopithecus were indistinguishable from those of Homo Sapiens other than the size of the molars. This statement is absolutely and completely false. One of the most important things learned from examining the limited remains of Gigantopithecus specimens is that they were far more closely related to Orangutan than they are to extant African apes. I'm really not trying to be an ass here but when someone who has ranted and raved about how smart they are and expressed their willingness to compare IQ scores with other posters while not understanding basic fundamental facts regarding their own position, makes it extraordinarily difficult to take them seriously. You have, in multiple threads during my time on ATS, made the same claims and have referred to Gigantopithecus as if it were a singular species as opposed to an entire Genus of which we have 3 known species. G. Blacki, G. bilaspurensis and G. giganteus. On page 20, I posted a photo of a nearly complete mandible along with a human complete mandible for comparison. Dead silence. Not a word until now where you come back accusing me of making claims I have never once made.

I feel that I also need to address your tirades over nearly every thread related to evolution or related topics regarding
your claims dogmatic paradigms. Within Anthropology/Paleontology etc... sure...there are constants across the board because the data supporting them, especially with new advances in genetics, is beyond overwhelming and there really is no questions in those areas. But I can assure you from personal experience, that not everyone is on the same page and not every hypothesis holds equal weight. For example, in the latter half of the 90's I was in the vast minority of people who advocated for and was a proponent of, pleistocene admixture events between H. Sapiens and Neanderthal. There was enough physical evidence in the form of fossil remains to indicate hybridization, particularly what appeared to be a juvenile found purposely buried in Portugal in the early 90's. I was also trying to do research into the possibility that Neanderthal may have suffered a similar fate as Aboriginal Americans when they first encountered the Spanish at the dawn of the 16th century. Toss in my advocacy of Punctuated Equilibrium and I was in no way a party to any paradigms within my field. I couldn't get anyone to fund my "fools errand" because it was at that time, exorbitantly cost prohibitive procedure to extract genetic material and honestly, the technology simply didn't exist to undertake the type of studies I was trying to get funded.

This is the thing though, it wasn't about being right and had nothing to do with my ego. My only goals were to find out the correct answers and if the technology had existed, even were I wrong, knowing that would have pointed us in other directions to explore that would have brought us to the truth. It was another 15 years or so before we had the ability to extract DNA old enough to be useful to that type of study and an entirely new method of DNA extraction (from the teeth of Neanderthal ironically) had to be invented by Svante Paabo at the Max Planck Center for Evolutionary Biology. In the end I turned out to be correct but again, that wasn't the point. To this day, nobody has attempted to sift through genetic material from pre and post contact Neanderthal to look for traces of viruses and then cross correlate those results with similar studies of E. African H. Sapiens in an effort to determine whether or not new diseases came into Europe and the Levant from Africa. Partially because we have now found that Neanderthal genetic diversity was in rapid decline by the time H. Sapiens first met their Northern cousins. I'm of the opinion that this is a result of the Toba event that nearly wiped out all members of our genus, reduced H. Sapiens populations to possibly as low as 10,000 and created a massive genetic bottleneck for us

originally posted by: Ineilio
a reply to: Masterjaden

Long time lurker, second time (ever!) responder here.

Is it wrong of me to say I miss the bat-crap crazy responses much earlier from Tinystarlight? Those were the good ol’ fire and brimstone days…

But I digress.

I do recall several folks provide rather articulate explanations (with an occasional source to actual peer reviewed articles) on how scientists and their friendly artist renderers came to extrapolate a molar and some broken bones into a representation of an extinct creature.

Granted, were they likely spot on? Not likely. Did they have all those chin hairs in the right place? Probably not. Were they possibly a bit more bow-legged than envisioned? Sure, but dentition is a surprisingly revealing window into anatomy so they likely didn’t render an ancestor of a zebra when they were looking at a mountain lion.

Saying that the artistic representation is not entirely accurate down to the dimples on their cheeks does not therefore mean that renderings themselves, as part of an “asinine” “paradigm” (of which, I assume you mean the scientific method), now requires us to throw the baby out with the bathwater (to which I mean the entire field of evolutionary biology and all the fields tied to it). One does not simply deny evolution because of poorly drawn pictures, but rather one simply draws better pictures.

Or even better, who gives a crap about the pictures or models? They are merely meant to make difficult concepts more approachable by using ways that make science make more sense to the high IQ, low scientifically literate among us – like through visual cues, touch, and so on.

I think that’s something worth thinking about regardless of how many Swedish Krona you spent on your education or how often you think about scientists in circle-jerk porn.

You said you don't post a lot. After reading that beautiful post I'm kind of wishing you did post more

Excellently put. I see a lot of highly intelligent people here that keep trying to explain that same concept to the fire and brimstone folk and to the others who are like Jaden. I have seen it explained incrediby well by other posters and now by you. It just bites the big one that even after something as well thought out as this that they are still neglecting to step outside of their little island.

Excellent post

a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

The degrees are about being stubborn to be fair. Well the Postgrad ones I've added to the letters after my name over the years to keep me interested. Research is interesting, but its only really intersting in the Pharma industry, when it screws up Interesting in the Chinese curse sense

Jaden, well Jaden has an axe to grind. It may even be his own, as opposed to a masters.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Oh look the use of asinine. Just like another person who has posted here, in the same way. Multiple accounts? Same church?

You don't understand science. Science will change its stance, based on new evidence. Its the honest way to do things. You however? Go back to your Abrahamic ideals

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

The degrees are about being stubborn to be fair. Well the Postgrad ones

I've added to the letters after my name over the years to keep me interested. Research is interesting, but its only really intersting in the Pharma industry, when it screws up

Interesting in the Chinese curse sense

Jaden, well Jaden has an axe to grind. It may even be his own, as opposed to a masters.

Exactly! Well, major kudos to you. As I said prior, I have a lot of respect for those that put in the time towards education. It takes a lot of drive to keep strong in the face of many years that you have to put into it. But, and I'm sure you will agree, it proves to be worth it in the long run. All I can hope for is that more will fight the same good fight and more might become impervious to ignorance and the like.

Though, some of these posts on here....Jaden included, make me lose a little hope. The 'just because I said so' argument doesn't get one very far in a room full of people with valid research. Maybe, if we're lucky, Jaden will catch on

Piltdown man was almost wholly based on a part of the jawbone, and fragments.

en.wikipedia.org...

In November 1953, Time magazine published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery[12] and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of an orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth.

a reply to: peter vlar

according to some sources, the toba event has been dismissed as the culprit behind the near extinction of humans.

www.bbc.com...

www.livescience.com...

anthropology.net...

a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

I've a feeling "Jaden" has a doppelganger poster here. The use of asinine has been used by another poster, who uses the same "Science is Wrong" as an argument, but with no evidence..

Basically, I feel (but have no proof) there is a small group who post, thinking they are influencing people against science. In this case evolution.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

I've a feeling "Jaden" has a doppelganger poster here. The use of asinine has been used by another poster, who uses the same "Science is Wrong" as an argument, but with no evidence..

Basically, I feel (but have no proof) there is a small group who post, thinking they are influencing people against science. In this case evolution.

Oh, I wouldn't doubt it, thinking they could represent themselves as strength in numbers. You can definitely tell in the phrasing. And because I wholly would not put it past them, it lends them even more of a foolish appearance.

Nice catch

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: peter vlar

according to some sources, the toba event has been dismissed as the culprit behind the near extinction of humans.

www.bbc.com...

www.livescience.com...

anthropology.net...

See, just another example to show I'm not pushing some paradigmatic narrative! On a serious note though, yeah. I'm aware of that research. Tying Toba in with the genetic bottleneck was always a difficult sell and always fell under the auspices of hypothesis. I think that much like the decline and eventual supplantation of Neanderthal, there are multiple factors and while Toba was a contributing factor, it was likely just one of many. Just my 2 cents for what it's worth around here. Either way, thanks for posting the info so that others can look into it and mke their own informed opinion. At the end of the day, that's far more important than being right.

a reply to: Butterfinger

The determination that "Piltdown" was an archaic ancestor of H. Sapiens was based on the mandible of an Orangutan, loaded with filed down teeth and a Chimpanzee tooth for good measure, but the forgery itself was a complete cranium. It was disputed from the very beginning but keep in mind that 105 years ago when the hoax was first perpetrated by Martin A.C. Hinton, a volunteer at the British Museum in 1912 and later a curator of zoology, the ability to test the remains was a long way off from what we can do now.

It was 35 years before radiometrix dating would be invented and not until 1953 was the technique solid enough to apply the method for everyday scientific purposes. Not only that, but I don't recall anyone making a complete morphological reconstruction of the entire organism based on the skull alone and that is the basis of the OP... that paleoanthropologists attempt to tell the public what an entire organism looked like based on a single tooth or single long bone.

It's bull and if that were the case we would see kickuos of Denisovans (we only have teeth and toe bones unless the remains found in China show Denisovan genetics) or Gigantopithecus Blacki where we only have teeth and partial mandibles. It hasn't been done by any actual paleoanthropologists and I don't even think any laymen have attempted such a fools errand because there would be no science to support such a thing.

a reply to: Noinden

I've definitely run across people posting from multiple accounts and replying to themselves to give the illusion of larger consensus for their position regardless of how tenuous it is. I don't think that's the case with Jaden. I think he's more of a "copy and paste from the same source material as every other evolution denier because they feel that it threatens their faith" sorta fella. I've caught a couple of them red handed when they got confused about which strawman account they posted which line of lunacy from but it's been awhile so maybe I'm rusty and just missing it here lol. But no, I don't think the poster in question is running a strawman ring of accounts through a home server. I think he feels that evolution is an afront to his minority Christian viewpoint. Intellectually dishonest? Certainly. Overtly so? Not feeling it. They are out there though. Most of them have taken up litigation and ignore evolution the last couple of years it seems as that's where I see the majority of those accounts and subsequent IP bans.

a reply to: peter vlar

Heard..

I think that's a good call.

One event usually isn't enough to bottle kneck us, but when a few big events coincide... it might even get the job done completely and extinct the species..

But I think when you look at the amsame narrative about the Dino killer.. if I'm right the science has again flipped and now they think it was enough to get the job done solo...

(Dust pellets falling from space heat the atmosphere to 1200 degrees and EVERYTHING not 6in+ underground and like 50 feet under water DIE INSTANTLY!!)

So I think ya always gotta leave room for both. That said I'm gonna go look into the bottle kneck event!!

Thanks for the cool new thing to research.

a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth
The arrogance isn't helping. On either side.

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

As are some of those who won't fall for it. It's still very effective on the majority though. And you can spot fairly easily who have fallen for it the most (or who's been affected the most by this technique).

Source, article in my signature, here's some more:

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right ... one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Since this subject came up in this thread:

Consider what evolutionary researchers say about the following topics.*

*: Note: None of the researchers quoted in this box believe in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution.
...
TEXTBOOK DRAWINGS AND MODELS OF APE-MEN

▪ Fact: Depictions in textbooks and museums of the so-called ancestors of humans are often shown with specific facial features, skin color, and amount of hair. These depictions usually show the older “ancestors” with monkeylike features and the ones supposedly closer to humans with more humanlike facial features, skin tone, and hair.

Question: Can scientists reliably reconstruct such features based on the fossilized remains that they find?

Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: “The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested.” He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes “are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid.” His conclusion? “Any facial ‘reconstructions’ of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading.”47

47. Science and Justice, Vol. 43, No. 4, (2003) section, Forensic Anthropology, “Anthropological Facial ‘Reconstruction’—Recognizing the Fallacies, ‘Unembracing’ the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits,” by C. N. Stephan, p. 195.

Source: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

Thanks! You never know, maybe I will.