|
Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/30/2008 11:14:42 AM)
|
You seem to be confusing circumstantial evidence (ie: fossils) with empirical evidence (ie: direct observation), something evolutionists tend to do a lot (since there is no empirical evidence for evolution). Anywho, even the BBC article acknowledges the findings were extremely distorted and they had to make a "3D computer reconstruction" witch is really their interpretation of what the thing used to look like (since it leaves a lot of leeway for how the distortions should be interpreted or how the skull looked before it was distorted).
quote:
In a separate paper, a team including Brunet and Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zürich in Switzerland, presents a 3D computer reconstruction of the skull, which had been badly distorted in the ground.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4416757.stm
Think of it this way. If I had an original color picture and I saved it as a black and white picture and sent it to someone such that the other person only has the black and white picture (which is a distorted version of the color picture), he can make a computer reconstruction of how the color picture looked (ie: interpret how the picture looked before it was distorted), but much of that is subject to interpretation. He might see someones hair and say, "this hair is black" when in fact it could be dark brown. That's the problem with these computer reconstructions, one has to speculate (to some degree) how the thing looked undistorted, they only know how the distorted aspects looked. You can't add quality to a picture by speculating how it's supposed to look, you can only simulate quality (but your simulation could be inaccurate in terms of how the picture originally looked or how it is supposed to actually look). Same is true with this simulation of fossils. Even the authors agree that there is much dispute.
quote:
"We performed a virtual reconstruction because the skull is heavily mineralised and distorted. It is impossible to do one by physical means,"
A skull that distorted yields many problems. Not to mention, the reconstruction is based on evolutionary presuppositions, which may further distort how the thing should be reconstructed.
quote:
Now Brunet and colleagues report discovering two new jaw fragments and the crown of a tooth in the same geographical area as the earlier fossils.
So what if it's in the same geographical location, that does not mean it's for the same type of organism. How do they know that each and every component belongs to the same organism (or same type of organism)? Because the components were found in the same geographical region? Are they implying only one organism at the time was located in that region? I mean, so much of this is speculation based on interpretation, none of this is empirical. If anything, the fact that this is the best evolutionists can do demonstrates the empirical lack of evidence for evolution.
quote:
But at least one anthropologist argued that the fossil could belong to a female forerunner of the gorilla.
...
Martin Pickford, of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, is one of those scientists unconvinced by arguments that Toumaï is a hominid.
"What we're saying is that it is an ape-like animal. It may well have given rise to bipedal hominids, but it's not yet a bipedal hominid," Dr Pickford told the BBC.
Professor Zollikofer commented: "I would say most of the disagreement over the fossil came from the fact that it is distorted, so it is quite difficult to recognise the diagnostic hominid features."
So it is fair to say that there is some dispute over this find (or these finds).
I guess this helps explain why evolutionists seem to rely heavily on distorted or incomplete fossils to promote evolution. None of the less distorted or more complete fossils support evolution, so evolutionists must rely on speculation about how distortions should be interpreted and how the missing aspects or bones of incomplete fossils looked in order to promote their view.
|
|
|
|