Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 235:
Line 235: − − In addition, the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' reported the following: − {{cquote|"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a [[dolphin]] rib according to an anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley." - Ian Anderson<ref name="ianpage199">Ian Anderson, "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, page 199</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm</ref>}} − − Dr. Tim White, anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley, likened the incident on par with the "[[Nebraska man]]" and "[[Piltdown Man]]" incidents.<ref name="ianpage199" /> Dr. White stated regarding the fossil find, "Seldom has a bone been hyped as much as this one."<ref name="ianpage199" /> Anthropologist Dr. Noel Boaz from New York University who made the original classification of the fossil has countered, "I have not gone any further than the evidence allowed."<ref name="ianpage199" /><ref name="herbert1983">W. Herbert, Science News. 123:246 (1983)</ref> Dr. Boaz described the fossil find and defended his stance regarding the fossil find in the journals ''Nature'', the ''American Journal of Physical Anthropology'' and ''Natural History''. However, at a meeting of physical anthropologist his fellow anthropologist were skeptical of the find some stating that at first glance the bone looks nothing like a collar bone.<ref name="herbert1983" /> Dr. White stated that "to be a clavicle, the specimen should have an S...curve, but it does not.<ref name="ianpage199" /> Dr. White also stated the blunder may force a rethinking of theories among evolutionary theorists on when the line of man's ancestors separated from that of apes.<ref name="ianpage199" /> − − Dr. White added "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."<ref name="ianpage199" /> Dr. White has dubbed the "humanoid species" arising from the fossil find "[[Flipperpithecus]]".<ref name="herbert1983" />
→Paleoanthropology
Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
{{cquote|Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.<ref>Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=823 "Human Evolution" An Update]</ref><ref>Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf 15 Answers to John Rennie and ''Scientific American's'' Nonsense]</ref>}}
{{cquote|Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.<ref>Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=823 "Human Evolution" An Update]</ref><ref>Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf 15 Answers to John Rennie and ''Scientific American's'' Nonsense]</ref>}}
Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.<ref>
Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.<ref>