Joined: Jan. 2007
|Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 29 2007,11:12)|
|Quote (franky172 @ Mar. 29 2007,08:53)|
|Let's see what's got the IDers' goat this morning. First they claim that Leakey is a deceitful paleontologist who committed fraud (see: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....05454). Here's an article that explains what happened:|
In short, in 1972 when Leakey found a skull that is between humans and apes, he reconstructed it by hand using the best knowledge available at the time. A new reconstruction using computers has changed the way the skull looks. "Wow. This must be the final confirmation of ID that we have been looking for!" you might say. Well, you would be wrong; the skull is still intermediary between apes and humans - and besides, we constantly hear that <b>ID is compatible with common descent</b> so why is this intermediary skull so troubling to ID proponents? And why do ID proponents seem to have such trouble with dating methods?
What else could the IDers be discussing today. Well, theres the usual discussion of eugneics, and also a claim that Giraffe's could not have evolved. ID research is really flourishing these days.
This new "reconstruction" is a dentistry conference POSTER, and is not based on work with the actual fossil as far as I can tell.
Here's the conference website where the hot ID research is taking place: