Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution: Hype or Good Science? (Science Uprising Bonus Interview)
9,235 views Oct 26, 2021
Discovery Science 130K subscribers
In this bonus interview released as part of the Science Uprising series, geologist Casey Luskin discusses fact and fiction when it comes to fossils that are said to support the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors. What is media hype, and what is good science? What about specific fossils like Ardi, Lucy, and Homo naledi?
Be sure to visit Dr. Luskin's website at
https://caseyluskin.com/ for more of this thoughts.
Be sure to visit
https://scienceuprising.com/ to find more videos and explore related articles and books.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube channel of
Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit
https://www.discovery.org/id/http://www.evolutionnews.org/http://www.intelligentdesign.org/Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/discoverycsc/Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute:
https://www.youtube.com/user/DiscoveryInstituteDr. Stephen C. Meyer:
https://www.youtube.com/user/DrStephenMeyerThe Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution:
https://www.youtube.com/user/cslewiswebDarwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallace:
https://www.youtube.com/user/AlfredRWallaceID Agelbert COMMENT: 👍 Excellent question and answer session! I would only add that the (pro-evolution) bone and skull fossil teams of scientists hire artists to draw the NOSES on what they think a given skull (often only a fragment, not a full skull) "should" 😉 look like. 😠
IOW, when they want the skull to look more "human", they tell the artist to draw a sharper, smaller nose. When they want it to look more apelike, they tell the artist to draw a flatter, wider and bigger nose. Both approaches are, not only irresponsibly unscientiifc, but deliberately fraudulent.
What is the evidence for my claim that we are being lied to? It is all about the fossil skull nose shape and size determination (pro-evolution) "procedure". As any forensic scientist that works for the police, with only a skull, to identify a murder victim's face through scientific facial reconstruction will tell you, proper reconstruction of the victim's nose requires intact cartilage. The cartilage is used as the basis for accurately modelling the size and correct shape of the victim's nose. Thus, the police can get a pretty accurate depiction of what the murder victim looked like.
Of course we-the-public are fed plenty of "scientific" happy talk hype about how fossil skull faces are "reconstructed", as this quote from an evidence free article demontrates:
"Fossils alone may intrigue us, but we still yearn to see "fleshed-out" portraits of our ancient ancestors 🙄. Creating these images takes a wealth of scientific insight 🙄 and a touch of artistic license."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/riddle/look.htmlThe
above (pro-evolution paradigm) propaganda piece conveniently neglects to mention the nose in facial reconstruction, while busy telling us about other clues (i.e. the gender and the jaw). They just don't want you to notice that glaring issue while making sure you SEE that NOSE their artist draws to make you believe the reconstruction was done "scientifically". In fact, ALL the artist's conceptions of "early homo", from "human like" apes to "ape like" Neanderthals, that have been disseminated to the public are "artistic license" FRAUDS.
Really? Yes, really. You see, the problem with fossil skulls is that there is no cartilage whatsoever on fossilized bones! That means that all they have to go on is the size of the hole in the skull where the nose cartilage was attached. While that can scientifically help to determine the width and height (but not the shape and length of the protrusion!) of the cartilage, it in no way can be used to accurately determine whether the nose was flat or sharp.
IOW, all those "scientifically determined" artist's conceptions of "homo" fossils and Neanderthal skulls are of no scientific value whatsoever. It is a fraudulent attempt to push their evolotionary paradigm wishful thinking. The mendacious lengths these 😈 pseudo-scientist evolutionary true believers will go to get us to believe their baloney is astounding.😠
Learn more:
👉
Scientific Paper on Facial ReconstructionMoney Quote:
"in fact, facial reconstruction is not easy, because there are many facial variations. particularly according to the nutritional status of the individual and different rates and intensities of aging. Furthermore, the 👉
nose, eye, ear, lips, and chin probably 👉
cannot be constructed exactly from skull characteristics."
http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg399/#msg399Read more:
It seems that NEANDERTHAL APPEARANCE is "Evolving". LOL!