jay_a2j wrote: 
This is not even the often cited, but incorrect illustration. This is just garbage. Only someone who has no knowledge of evolution would ever claim this was even possibly thought correct. Same for the next 2 pictures you posted, which I deleted to save space.
jay_a2j wrote:
THIS is utter garbage! And is precisely why I say that so-called "creationist scientist" flat out lie AND say over and over and over that if you insist on getting evolution only from creationist websites, you will never understand evolution, (but will look like an idiot to anyone who does).
Lucy -- is definitely NOT a chimpanzee.
To quote (from talk origins archives):
Discovered by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981; Johanson and Taieb 1976). Its age is about 3.2 million years. Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years and was assigned to the species Australopithecus afarensis. About 40% of her skeleton was found, and her pelvis, femur (the upper leg bone) and tibia show her to have been bipedal, although there is evidence that afarensis was also partly arboreal (tree-dwelling). She was about 107 cm (3'6") tall (small for her species) and about 28 kg (62 lbs) in weight.
The humerofemoral ratio, or length of humerus divided by length of femur, is 84.6 for Lucy, compared to 71.8 for humans, and 97.8 and 101.6 for the two species of chimpanzee (all these figures have a standard deviation of between 2.0 and 3.0). In other words, humans have much shorter arms compared to their legs than chimpanzees do, and Lucy falls roughly in the middle. (Korey 1990)
Also this (from wikki):
Lucy (also given a second (Amharic) name: dinqineš, or Dinkenesh, meaning "you are beautiful" or "you are wonderful"[3]) is the common name of AL 288-1, several hundred pieces of bone representing about 40% of the skeleton of an individual Australopithecus afarensis. The specimen was discovered in 1974 at Hadar in the Awash Valley of Ethiopia's Afar Depression. Lucy is estimated to have lived 3.2 million years ago.[1][4] The discovery of this hominid was significant as the skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes and of bipedal upright walk akin to that of humans, providing further evidence that bipedalism preceded increase in brain size in human evolution.[5][6] In 1994, a new hominid, Ardi, was found, pushing back the earliest known hominid date to 4.4 million years ago, although details of this discovery were not published until October 2009.[7]Originally, it was thought that Lucy might represent something of a "common ancestor" of both chimps/other apes and humans, though more closely tied to humans than chimps. (that is, Lucy herself did not give rise to any progeny that became chimps, but she was more closely related to a species that did than human beings). I believe that most recent thinking is that lucy was not actually in the direct human line of descent, but was one of many "offshoots", that gives an indication of the progression that did occur, but is not necessarily the exact species that gave rise to humans. However, I don't believe anyone says they know 100% for sure. We have theories that seem to fit the evidence, not certainties.
Heiderlburg man To quote, from wikki:
The first fossil discovery of this species was made on October 21, 1907, and came from Mauer where the workman Daniel Hartmann spotted a jaw in a sandpit. The jaw (Mauer 1) was in good condition except for the missing premolar teeth, which were eventually found near the jaw. The workman gave it to Professor Otto Schoetensack from the University of Heidelberg, who identified and named the fossil.
The next H. heidelbergensis remains were found in Steinheim an der Murr, Germany (the Steinheim Skull, 350kya); Arago, France (Arago 21); Petralona, Greece; and Ciampate del Diavolo, Italy.
As is typical of creationist "certainties", they do correctly state that the initial discovery was based on a jaw, BUT, they conveniently neglect the rest of the evidence.
Here is more (from same wikki article). I include this because it addresses the whole "we descended from Neanderthals" bit in a relatively easy to understand way.:
Most experts now agree[citation needed] that H. heidelbergensis is the direct ancestor of H. sapiens (with some uncertainty about such specimens as H. antecessor, now largely considered H. heidelbergensis) and H. neanderthalensis. Because of the radiation of H. heidelbergensis out of Africa and into Europe, the two populations were mostly isolated during the Wolstonian Stage and Ipswichian Stage, the last of the prolonged Quaternary glacial periods. Neanderthals diverged from H. heidelbergensis probably some 300,000 years ago in Europe, during the Wolstonian Stage; H. sapiens probably diverged between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago in Africa. Such fossils as the Atapuerca skull and the Kabwe skull bear witness to the two branches of the H. heidelbergensis tree.
Homo neanderthalensis retained most of the features of H. heidelbergensis after its divergent evolution. Though shorter, Neanderthals were more robust, had large brow-ridges, a slightly protruding face and lack of prominent chin. They also had a larger brain than all other hominins. Homo sapiens, on the other hand, has the smallest brows of any known hominin, was tall and lanky, and had a flat face with a protruding chin. H. sapiens has a larger brain than H. heidelbergensis, and a smaller brain than H. neanderthalensis, on average. To date, H. sapiens is the only known hominin with a high forehead, flat face, and thin, flat brows.
Some believe that H. heidelbergensis is a distinct species, and some that it is a cladistic ancestor to other Homo forms sometimes improperly linked to distinct species in terms of populational genetics.
Some scenarios of survival include
H heidelbergensis > H. neanderthalensis
H. heidelbergensis > H. rhodesiensis > H. sapiens idaltu > H sapiens sapiens
Those supporting a multiregional origin of modern humans envision fertile reproduction between many evolutionary stages and homo walking,[8] or gene transfer between adjacent populations due to gene passage and spreading in successive generations.
I have only quoted 2 small pieces. The whole article contains a lot more, including more on the OTHER discoveries, not acknowledged by your source.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensisNEBRASKA MAN This article goes into this one in detail. Because it pretty well shows why I say creationists go beyond simply misunderstandings and that many of the so-called scientists pretty much have to know they are telling falsehoods, I include the whole thing.
Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man
Nebraska Man was named in 1922 from a humanlike tooth which had been found in Nebraska. As creationists tell the story, evolutionists used one tooth to build an entire species of primitive man, complete with illustrations of him and his family, before further excavations revealed the tooth to belong to a peccary, an animal similar to (and closely related to) pigs.
Henry Fairfield Osborn
The true story is much more complex (Wolf and Mellett 1985; Gould 1991). Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, had found the tooth in 1917, and in 1922 he sent it to Henry Fairfield Osborn, a paleontologist and the president of the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn identified it as an ape, and quickly published a paper identifying it as a new species, which he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.
The Nebraska Man tooth, as shown in the Illustrated London News, June 24, 1922
The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind. Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or human ancestor:
"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."
"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)
Most other scientists were skeptical even of the more modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote:
"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."
Gregory confirmed this in his article which correctly identified the tooth:
The scientific world, however, was far from accepting without further evidence the validity of Professor Osborn's conclusion that the fossil tooth from Nebraska represented either a human or an anthropoid tooth. (Gregory 1927)
Identifying the tooth as belonging to a higher primate was not as foolish as it sounds. Pig and peccary cheek teeth are extremely similar to those of humans, and the specimen was worn, making identification even harder.
The infamous illustration of Nebraska Man done for the Illustrated London News by Amedee Forestier
Creationists often ridicule the Nebraska Man illustration, of two humanlike but extremely bestial creatures, done by Amedee Forestier for the Illustrated London News (Smith 1922). They rightly point out that an animal cannot be reconstructed from one tooth. But the drawing was not a reconstruction and was never intended, or claimed, to be accurate or scientific, being based more on the Java Man fossil than on the tooth. Smith emphasized (the following quote was in both the main text and below the drawing) its speculative nature:
"Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted." (Smith 1922, emphasis added)
Osborn, who had named Hesperopithecus, was less impressed with Forestier's artistic efforts, and remarked that
"such a drawing or 'reconstruction' would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate." (quoted in Wolf and Mellett 1985)
Smith may have been the only major scientist who was enthusiastic about Nebraska Man's hominid status, but even he, in his 1927 book The Evolution of Man, was much more cautious than he had been in the ILN article. Although he stated that
"I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" (Smith 1927),
Smith also recognized that Hesperopithecus was "questionable", and admitted that
"The suggestion that the Nebraska tooth (Hesperopithecus) may possibly indicate the existence of Mankind in Early Pliocene times is, as I have explained in the Foreword, still wholly tentative. The claim that real men were in existence in Pliocene and Miocene times must be regarded as a mere hypothesis unsupported as yet by any adequate evidence." (Smith 1927)
Creationists often claim that Nebraska Man was used as proof of evolution during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, but this claim is apocryphal. No scientific evidence was presented at the trial. (Some evidence was read into the trial record, but even this did not refer to Nebraska Man.)
Nor is it true, as Ian Taylor (1995) has said, that the retraction of the original identification was not publicized and never made the headlines. Bowden (1981) similarly states that "Little publicity was given to the discovered error". In fact, The New York Times and The Times of London both announced the news (the NYT put it on the front page), and both also printed editorials about it (Wolf and Mellett 1985). Taylor's other claim, that the retraction was announced in the scientific literature in only four lines in the back pages of Nature, is almost correct (it was 16 lines) but highly deceptive, since it conceals the fact that a one and a half page article retracting the claim was printed in the prestigious journal Science (Gregory 1927). Moreover, Taylor should have known about this article, because it was referenced by the item in Nature to which he did refer.
Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach).
References
Gregory W.K. (1927): Hesperopithecus apparently not an ape nor a man. Science, 66:579-81. (identified the Nebraska Man tooth as belonging to a peccary)
Gould S.J. (1991): An essay on a pig roast. In Bully for brontosaurus. (pp. 432-47). New York: W.W.Norton.
Osborn H.F. (1922): Hesperopithecus, the anthropoid primate of western Nebraska. Nature, 110:281-3.
Smith G.E. (1922): Hesperopithecus: the ape-man of the western world. Illustrated London News, 160:942-4.
Smith G.E. (1927): The evolution of man. Ed. 2. London: Oxford University Press.
Taylor I. (1995): Nebraska man goes to court. Science, Scripture and Salvation (ICR radio show), Jul 8:
Wolf J. and Mellett J.S. (1985): The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate. Creation/Evolution, Issue 16:31-43. (the best reference on the Nebraska Man episode) jay_a2j wrote:How much MORE evidence do you need??????
Something other than fictional accounts of "what evolutionists claim", to begin. Second, actual proof that your theories even
could be correct, without violating many proven scientific facts and principles.
See, even if Evolution is wrong, that STILL does not mean creationism could be correct. For young earth creationism to be correct, you have to show that YOUR theories are consistent with the available data and that they do not violate known facts and scientific principles.
In truth, these young earth sites don't do either. They neither disprove evolution (real evolution, that is, they disprove only this kind of erroneous reporting of evolution, not what evolution really is), nor do they actually prove young earth creationism, not using real data that hasn't already been disproven. Instead, they rely almost entirely upon misunderstandings of both evolution and basic science, or even outright lie (the above chart are absolutely flat out lies!).
jay_a2j wrote:Obviously THIS is the accepted evolution of man. But stay in denial.
Do this: Go to ANY real, true
scientific site and see what THEY say about your supposed ideas of what evolution represents and means.
THEN get back to us.
I am stopping with the first 3 pictures to keep this post from being even longer. I will, however, post analysis of the others later.
jay_a2j wrote:And just sit there and say, "We didn't evolve from apes" yet not tell WHAT we DID evolve from as PLAYER so often does. You people have no answers..... just theory which has way too many holes to be taken seriously.
Funny, you haven't even LOOKED AT most of the evidence I did provide, but you claim I am the one not providing answers!
