Classification Is Not Conducted By The Bones

Meetings that paleoanthropologists gather for on human origins is becoming quite entertaining. Take this meeting for example which revolved around hominin bones found in the mid-1990s at Sima de los Huesos in Spain. Two different dates were assigned to these bones. One assumption consisted of 350,000 year old range then another assumption was taken and the results came out to 530,000 years old.

The second made the bones older than H. Heidelbergensis fossils which were found elsewhere in Europe. This age assumption puts the bones in an evolutionary age where it doesn’t resemble much with the rest. The report in Science goes like this…

“Tattersall concludes that two or more hominin lineages must have existed side by side in Europe for several hundred thousand years before H. sapiens arrived from Africa.  One line led to the Neandertals and may have included the Sima fossils; another, rightly called H. heidelbergensis, went extinct while the Neandertals lived on until at least 30,000 years ago.

Tattersall then looked at Arsuaga, who was sitting in the audience waiting to speak next: “My central plea is to the colleagues who assigned the Sima de los Huesos fossils to H. heidelbergensis.  They are clearly not Neandertals, but not being a Neandertal does not make them H. heidelbergensis.  They need another name.”

A hush fell over the room as Tattersall sat down and Arsuaga got up to speak.  To nearly everyone’s surprise, Arsuaga agreed that the Sima de los Huesos skulls looked nothing like other H. heidelbergensis specimens.  Nor, he said, do 13 other skulls his team had recently excavated there.  “We have always said that we put the Sima hominins under the H. heidelbergensis umbrella for convenience, for practical reasons,” Arsuaga said….”

Jean-Jacques Hublin who wasn’t even at the meeting argues that these bones have some Neanderthal features which came from the story called; the “accretion” model.  On the other hand, Balter argues “to scrap the species name H. heidelbergensis and lump all of these fossils, including those from Sima, together as H. neanderthalensis.”  This would certain make Neanderthals a morphologically diverse group covering a long span of time but what about Heidelberg Man? Conflict arose with Chris Stringer and Bischoff who defended the date as a “conservative” estimate.  The fossils could be even older, he claims, but not younger.  Names not important?

“But Tattersall insists that names do matter, even if more of them are required to classify the fossil record.  “Species have an independent existence in nature,” he says.  “They are the basic actors in the evolutionary play, and if you don’t know who the cast is, you will never understand the plot.”

Oh, Tattersall claims, we must understand with names, “the plot” of the evolutionary story. More controversy with another aspect of this complex story not conducted by the bones, modern humans emerged from Africa 50,000 years ago and displaced the earlier hominins living there.  But other observations such as the one in Levant (Israel-Lebanon), where “modern humans apparently lived alongside Neandertals between about 130,000 and 75,000 years ago, as part of what some scientists have called a “failed dispersal.”

Struggling with contrary evidence is evident which made the bones just props for the evolutionary story.  To believe in it, you have to suspend reality. Let’s put it this way, there is no further reason to deny calling them all Homo sapiens – human beings.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Classification Is Not Conducted By The Bones

  1. Let’s put it this way, there is no further reason to deny calling them all Homo sapiens – human beings.

    Exactly. There are about four falsifications of Darwinian claims in this single article alone.
    I like how he described the evolutionary story by comparing it to a fictional plot.

  2. creationbydesign: “‘Let’s put it this way, there is no further reason to deny calling them all Homo sapiens – human beings.’ Exactly. There are about four falsifications of Darwinian claims in this single article alone.”

    THINGS CREATIONIST SEEM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT EVOLUTION

    #7 (of 38) Just as Jesus said of the Sabbath, categories were made for man, not man for categories. The most frequent definition of the category “species” refers to a population of organisms whose members interbreed. When you speak of species that are separated by hundreds of thousands or millions of years, this categorization loses its power. One scientist may feel that a fossil had enough human characteristics to be called “home sapiens.” Another may opine that another set of characteristics—or even a reinterpretation of the original characteristics—justifies the label “homo doofus” or whatever.

    To paraphrase McLuhan, the taxonomy is not the territory. And the taxonomy certainly does not dispute the fact that human evolution occurred. If you seek justification for creationism in a dispute among scientists, you have cold comfort in this one. Does a dispute among Episcopalians about homosexual clergy disprove Christianity? Good luck.

    What drives the creationist blindness here is their belief that there can be no such thing as “transitional’ fossils. (It’s a corollary to their proposition that evolution cannot occur.) Is a fossil human or not human? This is the only permissible question. If it appears to be exactly half-way in between, then it is assigned to one or the other bin. This became so ridiculous that a particularly troublesome fossil was classified as obviously human by Answers in Genesis, and just as obviously non-human by the Creation Research Institute.

    By the way, I do not appreciate the cowardly omission of any citation whatever to the material that ou are supposedly quoting. Michael may have his reasons for hiding it—the quote is inaccurate or out of context, the reference is ancient, the source was a creationist screed, the conclusion was refuted by a later paper, etc. The very fact of omitting the citation is reason to believe that there is something amiss about it. This is yet another childish tactic that causes scientists to laugh at creationism.

    But I do understand your desperation in grasping at the smallest crumb to bolster your position. Whistle in the dark all you like, but please not to call it “science.”

  3. creationbydesign: “There are about four falsifications of Darwinian claims in this single article alon. [sic]”

    Yer on, CbD. Name four falsifications of Darwinism from this article. Name three.

    The claim you need to falsify, by the way, is the common ancestry of living organisms that evolved by heritable variation, overfecundity, and natural selection.n Show your work.

    By the way, Michael, CbD will need a cite to your source, to avoid getting sucker-punched by any pusillanimity in the article or in your characterizations thereof.

    Yes, this is a test. A test concerning mindless ramblings that cannot be substantiated. All we know so far is that CbD can cry “amen” when prompted.

  4. Sorry, Michael. I accused you unjustly of hiding the citation. Yes, I have the article in front of me now. So CbD may consult it in his list of falsifications of Darwinian claims. The citation is Science, 326:224-225 (9 October 2009) Of course, it’s only a news article, not a research article, so it’s a secondary source.

    The skulls at the Pit of Bones are indeed a mystery. The creationist response to a paleontological mystery is to sit back and laugh. The scientists’ response is to unpack the shovels (actually toothbrushes and porcupine quills) and dig some more. Maybe they’ll get lucky again, as they did with Ardi.

    So Michael has abandoned Ardipithecus Ramidus after only three days. You weren’t getting much tracytion there, were you? Probably best to try to ignore it and move on to a hot dispute that can be sold more profitably to the faithful.

  5. Evolutionist do not accept that their theory can ever be falsified so what’s the point.
    There are no problems with evolutionary theory that an active imagination cannot fix.
    It’s a wonderful theory that can make speculative assertions and at the same time, assert the opposite.
    Human beings emerged first out of the forests of Africa — everybody knows that fact. It’s more certain than gravity. They had to move to the plains, that caused them to walk upright and become human. Of course, we have another proven fact that ape-ancestors actually first emerged in Europe before they went to Africa (to evolve back into chimpanzees?). Pay no attention to 100 years of “out of Africa” claims — they’re perfectly compatible with the contradictory point. No problem!
    Excellent entertainment value here, thanks!

  6. My response to just about every Darwinian claim is to sit back and laugh — yes, that’s true. The number one Darwinian clown is on the road promoting his Greatest Show on Earth. He really ought to think about doing stand-up. Oh, ok – that is what he’s doing. Great stuff!

  7. creationbydesign: “My response to just about every Darwinian claim is to sit back and laugh”

    So you claim at least four falsifications, and can’t come up with a single one. Yet you laugh. This is like playing chess with a pigeon. When faced with defeat, it knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock squawking victory. The flock can’t help you—Michael doesn’t know any more than you do.

    On the other hand, claiming that the article falsifies evolution, you entirely overlooked the falsifications of creationism in that same article. Let’s see. The age range of the Pit of Bones fossils is 350,000 to 530,000 years. Which is roughly, oh, 50 to 75 times as old as the age of the entire universe as calculated by creationists. The fossils under discussion belong to at least two and possibly three different species that all had brains as large as humans and made stone tools, yet did not have art or other indicia of human civilization that Adam had, such as agriculture, domesticated animals, metals, and fabricated dwellings.

    The migration section (not quoted in the post) relates fossils dated 200,000, 130,000, 75,000, 50,000, and 40,000 years ago. Hundreds of fossils from three continents, all many times older than creationism allows. Showing a progression from sub-human to human—again, not allowed by creationism.

    It would be funny—if it were not so sad—to see CbD bluster falsification of evolution by an article that clearly falsifies his own beliefs. And to see creationists invoke science, which they condemn as false, in support of the truth of their faith. Priceless.

    Keep on laughing, CbD, while you dig yourself in deeper.

  8. creationby design: “Evolutionist do not accept that their theory can ever be falsified so what’s the point.”

    JBS Haldane once opined that finding a rabbit in a precambrian fossil bed might just do the trick.

    creationbydesign: “It’s a wonderful theory that can make speculative assertions and at the same time, assert the opposite.”

    That’s why they’re called “speculative.” Only creationism does not tolerate dissent.

    creationbydesign: Human beings “had to move to the plains, that caused them to walk upright and become human. ”

    Did you not even read the previous post, on Ardipitecus Ramadus? Oh, that’s right—the post did not include any of the information from the Science article that might be damaging to creationism. Michael stiffed you.

    creationbty design: “Of course, we have another proven fact that ape-ancestors actually first emerged in Europe before they went to Africa”

    Your reading comprehension skills need sharpening. Look at the article again; ask a friend to help.

    creationbydesign: “Excellent entertainment value here, thanks!”

    Likewise, I’m shooer.

  9. “Meetings that paleoanthropologists gather”

    I thought paleoanthropologists gather bones, not meetings ?

    Ah, that surely falsifies the theory of evolution then …

  10. creationbydesign: “My response to just about every Darwinian claim is to sit back and laugh — yes, that’s true.”

    Have you evolved recently ? I mean, in the last hour ? Perhaps you’ve missed some science in action – quite fun. Lots of wonderful theories: quantum mechanics, general relativity, evolutionary biology.

    Quite exciting ! Just try and find a bookshop, if you know what that is …

  11. Eelco: “Have you evolved recently ? I mean, in the last hour ?”

    That’s the problem. CbD has not evolved at all. His understanding now is exactly the same as it was in the early Miocene.

  12. creationbydesign said,

    “Exactly. There are about four falsifications of Darwinian claims in this single article alone. I like how he described the evolutionary story by comparing it to a fictional plot.”

    In a story you can adjust it backwards and forwards and side to side, now going by the evidence causes too many problems…lol

  13. @Michael:
    That is because stories are fiction – perhaps it has escaped your attention, but stories are made up. Evidence is not important in a story: characters are, a storyline, atmosphere, etc.

    The theory of evolution is not a story: it is science.

    Most bookstores neatly divide up their fiction and non-fiction books, they even have two bestsellers lists.

    Don’t mix these up, Michael. You might get even more confused than you already are (or are you indeed just writing these blogs for the money ?!?)

  14. Michael (playing himself) said: “In a story you can adjust it backwards and forwards and side to side, now going by the evidence causes too many problems…lol”

    Creationbydesign claimed that the Science (news) article contains four falsifications of evolution. When challenged, he slunk off to his dark corner with a hollow laugh. So now you inherit the same challenge: Name the four falsifications of evolution in the article.

    I did my part, by naming several falsifications of specific creationist claims from the same article. Now it’s your turn.

    Since you obviously have not read it, I’ll send you a copy of the whole article upon request. Then you can name the specific falsifications, or shut up.

  15. Eelco, Michael isn’t in it for the money. He’s a zealot—one who redoubles his efforts upon losing sight of his goal.

    Or, in view of the ridicule he invites so relentlessly on this blog, perhaps he is a modern holdover from the 14thC Christian Flagellants.

  16. @Olorin:
    You’re most likely right that Michael is not in it for the money, but quite a few creationists are … at the top of the various organizations, of course !

    Michael: you probably allow yourself to be used by people who are in it for the money.

  17. Michael his own self: “In a story you can adjust it backwards and forwards and side to side, now going by the evidence causes too many problems…lol”

    Well, CbD said he had spotted four falsifications of evolution on the wing. I challenged him to name them. Not even to prove them, just to name them. Of course he flapped noisily back to the flock, laughing so hard he almost hit the electrical pole.

    So, if you defend him now, I guess it’s your turn….. No back and forth or side to side. Pick out the four falsifications in the article and list them. Bon appetit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s