Kome: [ Piltdown.bla.bla]

Also, you know it was evolutionists who discovered it was a hoax and not creationists, right?

But the EVOLUTIONISTS had to CREATE the hoax. They couldn't EVOLVE it.

So there.

/whar mah tin sombrero?

Bevets:

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith

Bevets:

The Piltdown affair should be of considerable interest to us as a community of scientists and as a community of physical anthropologists, but to focus upon it simply as a docudrama is to lose sight of the real significance of the episode. What Piltdown raises, as the archetypal scientific fraud, are questions about the scientific process: How does fraud work? What structures exist in science to prevent its detection? Is the critical eye that gives science its vaunted "self-correcting" feature efficient enough? Do the media work in the best interests of the Scientific community when they publicize conclusions that may be poorly supported, and then inflame anti-intellectual sentiment by publicizing its debunking, as it they weren't the main part of the reason it needed to be debunked? ~ Jonathan Marks

Yet another story propping up a failed theory for the Darwinian faithful. They still dont take Piltdown into account. Most never will.

trickygringuito:

I don't normally appear in the threads where Bevets appears so I haven't had the opportunity to build my hate of the guy, no matter how blinded he is by his delusions of sky wizards. However, his point is painfully obvious, and people's inability to grasp it doesn't help the cause of those who argue for scientific reason over religious superstition.

He points to a very flawed part of this article. The article says new evidence, but there is no actual DNA, just educated guessing and a computer model. It's really weak shiat. My view is that this is just a really interesting theoretical study.

Obviously, Bevet's point is that he finds the whole thing analogous to Piltdown because essentially we just have a guy writing a computer model which would be biased to say what he wants it to say. It's manufactured evidence, not actual evidence - just like Piltdown.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill:

Farkers occasionally stumble over my point, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.

Them neanderthal women may not be much to look at but they've got pelvic muscles like you would not believe.

If Neanderthal ran around in smallish groups and met up with Homo Us--who ran around in larger groups--you would think the contribution of Neanderthal DNA would be small to begin with.

Then there are also things like plagues, war and migrations due to slavery, that would might tend to purge Neanderthal DNA from our pool in favor of other DNA.

Slartibartfaster: yea it does

No, it really doesn't. Aside from the fact that building muscle does not alter your genetic code, the code stored in your reproductive organs is somewhat protected from mutations that might happen elsewhere in your body.

As for micro vs macro, macroevolution is just an accumulation of microevolution (to put it simply)

Sandor at the Zoo: Bevets: Farkers occasionally stumble over my point, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened

Your point is that at first scientists and media members believed that the Piltdown Man was an important discovery, and then later scientists demonstrated that it was really a hoax, and therefore this proves there are lots of other problems with evolutionary theory that are being covered up by scientists and their media allies?

Bevets is incapable of producing a relevant "point" as he advocates a position that is entirely devoid of any merit. He references a hoax that was uncovered and discredited more than fifty years ago because no actual recent data that validates his position is extant.

czetie: KimNorth: heavymetal: I have to say that both theories of what happened to the Neanderthals are consistant with modern human behavior:

1. Modern humans killed them off.

2. Modern humans had so much sex with them they watered down the gene pool into non-existance.

Historically it seems that killing and farking are modern humans' most predictable behaviors.


I think Neanderthals body mass and bone weight was so heavy that they were very poor swimmers and drowned when the big flood hit the earth leaving very few left that were then breed out in favor of modern humans.

Give it up, Kim. Nobody's biting. Nobody is interested in a copycat second-rate Bevets, when we have the original second-rate Bevets.

That was a troll? If so, total fail because it came across as sarcasm. -2/10

If it was sarcasm, not bad. 8/10.

trickygringuito:

I don't normally appear in the threads where Bevets appears so I haven't had the opportunity to build my hate of the guy, no matter how blinded he is by his delusions of sky wizards. However, his point is painfully obvious, and people's inability to grasp it doesn't help the cause of those who argue for scientific reason over religious superstition.

He points to a very flawed part of this article. The article says new evidence, but there is no actual DNA, just educated guessing and a computer model. It's really weak shiat. My view is that this is just a really interesting theoretical study.

Obviously, Bevet's point is that he finds the whole thing analogous to Piltdown because essentially we just have a guy writing a computer model which would be biased to say what he wants it to say. It's manufactured evidence, not actual evidence - just like Piltdown.

Bevets:

To paraphrase Winston Churchill:

Farkers occasionally stumble over my point, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.

Moonfisher:

I loathe Bevets, too, but I think he may be trying to say that scientific theory regarding evolution is suspect because anthropologists were so easily duped about Piltdown man, which would be a relatively valid point were it not damn-near a century ago and reliant upon methodology long-since improved or replaced.

IlGreven:

...and for the fact that, even in that time, anthropologists pretty much dismissed it as a hoax almost immediately. Except for Arthur Keith, which leads me to believe that he was in on it.

1929 If, however, the fossil lower jaw found at Piltdown, England, belongs with the human Piltdown skull, as nearly all authorities now believe, it affords a clear case of an ape-like canine belonging in a human jaw. ~ William Gregory

1933 A million years of the past history of man, as he climbed upward through the stone age, are recreated in exhibits and life-sized models and dioramas just placed on view by the Field Museum in Chicago... In a supplementary case are casts of the most famous prehistoric remains discovered -- those which scientists have labeled Sinanthropus (the Peking man), Pithecanthropus erectus (Java ape man), Eoanthroupus (Piltdown man), and Homo heidelbergensis (the Heidelberg man)... The eight groups have no counterpart in any other museum of the world, and leading anthropologists including such eminent authorities as Sir Arthur Keith and Prof. G. Elliott Smith of England, the Abbe Henri Breuil of France, and others, have pronounced them the finest restorations of prehistoric men ever made. These and other scientists of both the United States and Europe cooperated with Field Museum in the preparation of this hall which presents the most complete, accurate and interesting picture that present knowledge permits of the lives, cultures and physical characters of prehistoric races. ~ Science News Letter

1936 Between the years 1912 and 1914 Mr. Charles Dawson found in a stratum of gravel at Piltdown Sussex, fragments of a fossilized skull and jaw which were reconstructed by Sir Arthur Smith Woodward as Eoanthropus, the famed man of Piltdown. Some scholars refused to believe at first that a skull so human could be associated with a jaw so apelike, but present-day consensus is that the fragments actually belonged to one individual. Most anthropologists-notably excepting Sir Arthur Keith-hold that the Piltdown man, like the Pekin man and the Java apeman, were offshoot types which died out and were not on the ancestral line of Homo sapiens. Nevertheless Piltdown appeared to be the oldest near-human inhabitant of England to come to light, and his age was variously estimated at 100,000 to 300,000 years. ~ Time October 12 1936 p.42

1953 While some paleontologists have long regarded the Piltdown Man as a fraud, a majority of both British and American scientists are reported to have accepted the strange combination of a human head with an ape-like jaw as a sort of "missing link" between man and the anthropoids... If it takes science more than 40 years to discover and acknowledge that, as the Associated Press put it, the Piltdown Man has been making monkeys our of anthropologists with the jawbone of an ape, the scientific method must still be considerably short of perfection. ~ The Washington Post

DeadNotSleeping: Guys, you know Bevets is the submitter right? Notice how he often is the Boobieser in these threads? He submits articles w/ his usually trolling uneducated comments so his website can get hits. He always leads w/ debunked nonsense via links to his website.

He's not interested in discussion just website hits.

Nope. He's guilty of many things but not that...the Green is mine

tinyarena: canyoneer

Clash City Farker

We should check very carefully where the coastlines were. What we need to find is a Mount Vesuvius, and a Pompeii.

You should check of out some of the latest archaeological finds like the thriving villages we've found in what is now the middle of the English Channel. Which makes perfect sense. We know humans first build along coastlines and river banks (look at any map of the world's largest cities, notice anything?) we also know that at the end of the last Ice Age, there was massive flooding all over the world and the coastlines altered dramatically. It shouldn't be a shock to us that we are now discovering "lost" settlements and civilizations in this flood zone.

Bevets: Bevets:

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith

cbackous:

Piltdown man was a hoax and has been known to be a hoax for the last 50+ years. Maybe you could find a newer straw man?

the_sidewinder:

Why are you giving a quote about something that was found to be a hoax?

elev8meL8r:

Presumably because the case is seen as an incident in which "evolutionists" falsified evidence to support their theory of evolution.

Nevermind that the case was debunked by other evolutionary scientists. And it wasn't as airtight as a size XXXXXL saddle fitted for a triceratops.

Iblis824:

Well, Arthur Keith was right. Scientist have taken the revelations of the piltdown man fraud, and made their process more rigorous. As of now, by that definition, we have a satisfactory theory of evolution. tada.

the_sidewinder:

I know, right? I'm just confused as to why Bevets thinks that the hoax strengthens his argument.

Moonfisher:

I loathe Bevets, too, but I think he may be trying to say that scientific theory regarding evolution is suspect because anthropologists were so easily duped about Piltdown man, which would be a relatively valid point were it not damn-near a century ago and reliant upon methodology long-since improved or replaced.

The Piltdown affair should be of considerable interest to us as a community of scientists and as a community of physical anthropologists, but to focus upon it simply as a docudrama is to lose sight of the real significance of the episode. What Piltdown raises, as the archetypal scientific fraud, are questions about the scientific process: How does fraud work? What structures exist in science to prevent its detection? Is the critical eye that gives science its vaunted "self-correcting" feature efficient enough? Do the media work in the best interests of the Scientific community when they publicize conclusions that may be poorly supported, and then inflame anti-intellectual sentiment by publicizing its debunking, as it they weren't the main part of the reason it needed to be debunked? ~ Jonathan Marks

Yet another story propping up a failed theory for the Darwinian faithful. They still dont take Piltdown into account. Most never will.

The Church vs. Galileo affair should be of considerable interest to us as a community of Christians and as a community of religious scholars, but to focus upon it simply as a docudrama is to lose sight of the real significance of the episode. What the Church vs. Galileo raises, as the archetypal religious fraud, are questions about the theological process: How does fraud work? What structures exist in religion to prevent its detection? Is the Holy Bible that gives religion its vaunted "self-correcting" feature efficient enough? Does the media work in the best interests of the Christian community when they publicize conclusions that may be poorly supported, and then inflame anti-religious sentiment by publicizing its debunking, as it they weren't the main part of the reason it needed to be debunked?

Yet another story propping up a failed theory for the existence of God. They still don't take the Church vs. Galileo into account. Most never will.

At least in science there is this concept called mathematics involved which works as a self-correcting feature. No matter how skillfully you tweak your numbers to support your theory, it can be debunked easily in high school, college, and independent labs wordlwide by those trying to replicate your results.

To bad religion doesn't have such a self correcting feature. Any moron with an agenda can take the Bible and twist it to their agenda. Even the most decisive interpretation by the top religious leaders depends on "opinion" and what they think it means rather than any tangible facts and logical process. And even then you can't get all of the scolars to agree on what it all means.

While I am a Christian and believe in God, the theory of evolution holds up way better under your scrutiny or the scientific process than God does. The scientific process is also way more accurate than the theological process. I know this because I am an ordained minister and an engineer.

Bevets: trickygringuito:

I don't normally appear in the threads where Bevets appears so I haven't had the opportunity to build my hate of the guy, no matter how blinded he is by his delusions of sky wizards. However, his point is painfully obvious, and people's inability to grasp it doesn't help the cause of those who argue for scientific reason over religious superstition.

He points to a very flawed part of this article. The article says new evidence, but there is no actual DNA, just educated guessing and a computer model. It's really weak shiat. My view is that this is just a really interesting theoretical study.

Obviously, Bevet's point is that he finds the whole thing analogous to Piltdown because essentially we just have a guy writing a computer model which would be biased to say what he wants it to say. It's manufactured evidence, not actual evidence - just like Piltdown.

Bevets:

To paraphrase Winston Churchill:

Farkers occasionally stumble over my point, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.

Moonfisher:

I loathe Bevets, too, but I think he may be trying to say that scientific theory regarding evolution is suspect because anthropologists were so easily duped about Piltdown man, which would be a relatively valid point were it not damn-near a century ago and reliant upon methodology long-since improved or replaced.

IlGreven:

...and for the fact that, even in that time, anthropologists pretty much dismissed it as a hoax almost immediately. Except for Arthur Keith, which leads me to believe that he was in on it.

1929 If, however, the fossil lower jaw found at Piltdown, England, belongs with the human Piltdown skull, as nearly all authorities now believe, it affords a clear case of an ape-like canine belonging in a human jaw. ~ William Gregory

1933 A million years of the past history of man, as he climbed upward through the stone age, are recreated in exhibits and life-sized models and dioramas just placed on view by the Field Museum in Chicago... In a supplementary case are casts of the most famous prehistoric remains discovered -- those which scientists have labeled Sinanthropus (the Peking man), Pithecanthropus erectus (Java ape man), Eoanthroupus (Piltdown man), and Homo heidelbergensis (the Heidelberg man)... The eight groups have no counterpart in any other museum of the world, and leading anthropologists including such eminent authorities as Sir Arthur Keith and Prof. G. Elliott Smith of England, the Abbe Henri Breuil of France, and others, have pronounced them the finest restorations of prehistoric men ever made. These and other scientists of both the United States and Europe cooperated with Field Museum in the preparation of this hall which presents the most complete, accurate and interesting picture that present knowledge permits of the lives, cultures and physical characters of prehistoric races. ~ Science News Letter

1936 Between the years 1912 and 1914 Mr. Charles Dawson found in a stratum of gravel at Piltdown Sussex, fragments of a fossilized skull and jaw which were reconstructed by Sir Arthur Smith Woodward as Eoanthropus, the famed man of Piltdown. Some scholars refused to believe at first that a skull so human could be associated with a jaw so apelike, but present-day consensus is that the fragments actually belonged to one individual. Most anthropologists-notably excepting Sir Arthur Keith-hold that the Piltdown man, like the Pekin man and the Java apeman, were offshoot types which died out and were not on the ancestral line of Homo sapiens. Nevertheless Piltdown appeared to be the oldest near-human inhabitant of England to come to light, and his age was variously estimated at 100,000 to 300,000 years. ~ Time October 12 1936 p.42

1953 While some paleontologists have long regarded the Piltdown Man as a fraud, a majority of both British and American scientists are reported to have accepted the strange combination of a human head with an ape-like jaw as a sort of "missing link" between man and the anthropoids... If it takes science more than 40 ...

Ya know Bevs, you really should be a supporter of the interbreeding theory since its mentioned in the Bible and all. In Genesis and Exodus, reference is made to a race that is mis-translated into English as "Giants" but in the original Hebrew is rendered as "Nephilhim" or "fallen one" and in Genesis 6:4 it says "the sons of God joined with the daughters of humankind, who bore them children - they were the ancient warriors, the men of renown". this is clearly a reference to human women mating with something NON-HUMAN, at least in the eyes of the original tellers of these tales.

Now given what we know about cross-species fertility, who could these "sons of God" be, but another hominid quasi human race like the Neanderthals or the Denisovians? Further note that some quasi-biblical sources say that God's primary purpose in sending the great flood was to wipe out most of these Nephilhim.

Now given that the prevalence of a Great Flood Myth in so many different cultures is almost assuredly due to the world wide floods that happened at the end of the Ice Age when the sea levels rose, do you really think it's coincidence that the Bible writers had that oral tradition AND Neanderthals basically disappear from the fossil record about that exact time?

Now note that and in Exodus it was the presence of these Nephilim

heavymetal:

The Church vs. Galileo affair should be of considerable interest to us as a community of Christians and as a community of religious scholars, but to focus upon it simply as a docudrama is to lose sight of the real significance of the episode. What the Church vs. Galileo raises, as the archetypal religious fraud, are questions about the theological process: How does fraud work? What structures exist in religion to prevent its detection? Is the Holy Bible that gives religion its vaunted "self-correcting" feature efficient enough? Does the media work in the best interests of the Christian community when they publicize conclusions that may be poorly supported, and then inflame anti-religious sentiment by publicizing its debunking, as it they weren't the main part of the reason it needed to be debunked?

Yet another story propping up a failed theory for the existence of God. They still don't take the Church vs. Galileo into account. Most never will.

At least in science there is this concept called mathematics involved which works as a self-correcting feature. No matter how skillfully you tweak your numbers to support your theory, it can be debunked easily in high school, college, and independent labs wordlwide by those trying to replicate your results.

To bad religion doesn't have such a self correcting feature. Any moron with an agenda can take the Bible and twist it to their agenda. Even the most decisive interpretation by the top religious leaders depends on "opinion" and what they think it means rather than any tangible facts and logical process. And even then you can't get all of the scolars to agree on what it all means.

While I am a Christian and believe in God, the theory of evolution holds up way better under your scrutiny or the scientific process than God does. The scientific process is also way more accurate than the theological process. I know this because I am an ordained minister and an engineer.

True, there are religious scientists and Darwinian churchgoers. But this does not mean that faith and science are compatible, except in the trivial sense that both attitudes can be simultaneously embraced by a single human mind. (It is like saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because some married people are adulterers.) ~ Jerry Coyne

Need_MindBleach: The problem with this picture is that the brow ridges are right, but the jaw is all wrong. Archaic human forms typically had heavily prognathic faces, which you can't really fake. Obviously the picture is just a regular woman wearing prosthetics, a real archiac human would have been much more bizarre looking.

Meh, I'd still hit it.

canyoneer: Magorn: You should check of out some of the latest archaeological finds like the thriving villages we've found in what is now the middle of the English Channel. Which makes perfect sense. We know humans first build along coastlines and river banks (look at any map of the world's largest cities, notice anything?) we also know that at the end of the last Ice Age, there was massive flooding all over the world and the coastlines altered dramatically. It shouldn't be a shock to us that we are now discovering "lost" settlements and civilizations in this flood zone.

We're not talking settlements and civilizations here, we're talking the remnants left by nomadic hunter-gatherer bands from before (way before) the Neolithic Revolution. We're talking some remains, middens, tools, lithic scatter, rock art, kill sites...stuff like that. Humans didn't begin to settle until circa 8,000 BC, largely...as far as we know. We're talking Stone Age - and exclusively Old World - stuff.

That's changing somewhat. Dr Ballard found village-sized stuff on the bottom of the Black Sea , and that was only above water before the Sea ice dam broke and I believe they've found indicia of buildings off the Isle of Wright too.

We've always assumed that civilization started in the Fertile Crescent because that's what the archaeology has indicated, but it is entirely possible that there is a "lost" history of civilization that was wiped out by the deluge at the end of the Ice Age, and that "recorded" history began in a sort of Dark Age regression like the ones in 1200 BC and 400 AD. To me personally, the Gobekli Tepe site hints very strongly at that since each successive temple built on the site was cruder and less ornate than the one that proceeded it