The problem with your example is that the heart is a tangible object, thereby lending itself to experimentation to determine its true functions. Most religious beliefs are based on faith, speculation and heresy, none of which can be proved, scientifically or otherwise. True and this is the religion that I will never accept. The foundation at least must be based on fact and tangible evidence. Faith does come into play, but only until knowledge increases. For instance, you can probably prove scientifically that Jesus was a man, a Jew and walked the earth. So what? Was he really the son of God? Is there a scientific experiment that can prove that? You can prove the foundation and than one has to work from there. Faith is important but a solid empirical foundation must exist first. (I do not want to get burned as I and many of did with the Witnesses)
Would some of us be better off as Witnesses?
by Jerry Bergman 118 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
AlanF
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for trying to clear up my questions. However, there are still a number of things I want to clear up.
: A "substantial insertion" did not occur.
Assuming that donkey's quotations are correct, I must disagree. In his post, donkey quoted from your article in Creation Science Research Quarterly, (30:27-34, 1993), where you quoted from an article by Blinderman. According to donkey's quote from the talkorigins website, Blinderman wrote as follows:
So Nebraska Man had great patriotic significance. "This is the very first evidence," Osborn wrote, "after seventy-five years of continuous search in all parts of our great western territory, of a [higher] Primate. ... we have all eagerly looked forward to such a discovery ...." (ellipses by Blinderman)
According to donkey's quote, you wrote:
Nebraska man also had a great patriotic significance because it was the first evidence, according to Osborn,
after seventy-five years of continuous search in all parts of our great Western territory of a [higher] primate. Evidence of this anthropoid ape-man was also proof that some primitive humans lived in America, and some speculated that it may even prove that mankind in North America predated European and African humans. We have all eagerly looked forward to such a discovery (quoted in Blinderman, 1985, p.48)
Note the material in red in the above quotations. If, as the 1st quotation stated explicitly, Blinderman left out material by use of ellipses, and if that left-out material differs from the material I have bolded in red in the 2nd quotation, then a "substantial insertion" certainly occurred. Since Blinderman apparently left out the material in question, I must wonder how the inserted material got into your paper. A simple typo by a sloppy grad student is out of the question. I cannot picture even the most ardent editor inserting such material without your permission (my wife is a professional technical editor and such alteration is absolutely verboten). Therefore, it appears reasonable that perhaps you yourself either checked the original quotation from Osborn and inserted the words or ideas that Blinderman omitted via ellipses (which you may have forgotten, given the volume of material you've written), or someone else deliberately altered the content of you paper.
I don't have easy access to older material such as from Osborn, so I can't quickly look up originals for myself. It would probably take several weeks to get hold of it.
: What happened is the correct reference was garbled and I cannot find it now!
I wish you could, since it would clear up the problems I've described.
: I have no reason to believe that the quote is wrong, but I have not bothered to look for it because it is a secondary source and not needed.
In the context of the talkorigins article, it is certainly needed. The article accused you of intellectual dishonesty and deliberate misquoting. You have an opportunity here to clear the air and to show that a contributor to the talkorigins website was either sloppy in his research, or deliberately misrepresented you. Either way, you'd clear the air concerning his charges.
: I just quoted Osborn himself!
But you have to prove that, given what has been asserted to be the original quotations.
: Osborn referred to "Nebraska Man" as more than an "ape-man" but as a man-ape (stressing the man) and he did say that this 'discovery' was "proof that some primitive humans lived in America" in numerous places. One quote is from The Forum (Vol. 73 Je 1925 page 801) where he said Hesperopithecus was "irrefutable evidence that the man-apes wondered over from Asia into North America" I am sure I could find a dozed other quotes (and I noted several when glancing over my file of his articles) but it is getting late and I plan to do a whole paper on this (it is an example of what I have seen over and over)
Assuming that Osborn wrote as you've indicated, then that is all the more reason for me to suspect that your "quotation" of Osborn via Blinderman may have been colored by your recollection of his overall ideas, so that your apparent misquotation of Blinderman may be a mixture of what Blinderman actually wrote and what you may have assumed was contained in Blinderman's ellipses. Again, only the original material can clear this up.
Nevertheless, according to the talkorigins article that donkey quoted ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html ), Osborn was careful to avoid the very thing your quotation of him asserts:
... 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 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...
Thus, you would do a service to your readers to clear the air about this accusation that you misquoted Blinderman and misrepresented Osborn.
:: I suppose I'll have to read your entire set of papers, but when Darwin spoke of "races" in this context he was certainly talking about what we today call "species". I don't know what he later wrote about race with respect to humans,
: (he wrote enough to cause big problems!!)
Like what?
:: but whatever he wrote, it is of little importance with respect to modern notions of evolution.
: (not true at all)
Why? The modern theory is quite different in many details from Darwin's original ideas. Many of his ideas have been discarded.
Jerry, on a discussion board like this, if you want to be understood, you have to discuss the reasons for your views, not simply make bald comments. Ex-jws are extremely wary of bald comments to just accept what is said based on authority or whatever, since that's exactly what we hated about the JWs.
:: The best one can say is that one could argue that Darwin's ideas might be used as a basis for racism -- not a very sparkling conclusion.
: (Much more than a basis)
I suppose we shall have to wait and see.
:: One could equally argue that the Bible is a basis for racism and slavery. History shows that plenty of self-proclaimed Christians have done exactly that.
: (Sure have!! And they should be called on the carpet for this!!)
Absolutely! But I will point out a major difference: Evolution is a theory about the change and development of life over time. I see nothing in the theory even remotely justifying what we call "racism". Hitler and others may have used certain ideas inherent in "survival of the fittest" or whatever, to justify racism, but their reasoning was false because others can present far stronger arguments that evolutionary theory is neutral with respect to the social disease of racism. In fact, many people argue that evolutionary theory shows a scientific basis as to why racism is stupid. On the other hand, the Bible contains explicit stories and statements that approve of the institution of slavery (you know, "a slave should obey his master" etc.). When we combine such statements with the historical fact that, at least in America, black slavery was virtually indistinguishable from slavery in general, we find a 'Christian' justification for racism that has been proffered historically.
Now, I'm presenting the above arguments simply as arguments. I'm not stating my personal views, which are not particularly important to our discussion.
: I need to send you my papers on this.Great! My email is open.
:: The point is that reducing a complex theory to a simplistic phrase like "evolution and racism are the same thing" is just as misleading and a misrepresentation of the facts as reducing Christianity to a simplistic phrase like "Christianity and human slavery are the same thing". Do you not agree?
: Yes and No. As I do more research my conclusion has become stronger!
Then I will certainly need to read your papers, since at this point I don't see it, any more than I see that the Bible justifies racism.
: Simplistic phrases, though, can mislead
Which is why they ought to be avoided, unless they are almost self-evidently true.
:: Just to keep our discussion absolutely clear, do you now agree with the statement, "Evolution and racism are the same thing"? Briefly, why or why not?
: Both deal with selection based on superior inferior concerns and judgments
Apparently your answer is that you agree that "evolution and racism are the same thing". I look forward to reading you papers.
AlanF
-
Gary1914
You can prove the foundation and than one has to work from there. Faith is important but a solid empirical foundation must exist first. (I do not want to get burned as I and many of did with the Witnesses)
Jerry,
If you ever find a religion, or know of one now, that falls within the framework of your outline above, please so inform me as I would like to immediately sign up.
-
Jerry Bergman
Donkey
Thanks for the address! You are correct. He does say what you said he said!! I plan to do an article on this. It will be my fourth one on this concern. You can contact me through AlanF or Larc (both great guys whom I trust).
-
Jerry Bergman
1914
Don't do that!!! You need to be convinced and to do that you must study. Start with Josh McDowell's book (a basic although not very complete and in places over simplified but a good start). Another good book is:
Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species
by Lynn Margulis, Dorion Sagan, Ernst Mayr
Look inside this book
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Used & new from $17.00List Price: $28.00 Price: $19.60 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details. You Save: $8.40 (30%)
Edition: HardcoverSee more product details
Customers who bought this book also bought:- The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould (Hardcover)
- What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr (Hardcover)
- I Have Landed: The End of a Beginning in Natural History by Stephen Jay Gould (Hardcover)
- Early Life by Lynn Margulis, et al (Paperback)
- What Is Life? by Lynn Margulis, et al (Hardcover)
Explore similar items
Product Details- Hardcover: 256 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.91 x 9.46 x 6.36
- Publisher: Basic Books; ISBN: 0465043917; 1st edition (June 18, 2002)
- Average Customer Review:
Based on 10 reviews. Write a review.
- Amazon.com Sales Rank: 11,700
Editorial Reviews
From Booklist
A challenger of the orthodox "neo-Darwinist" interpretation of evolution, microbiologist Margulis has made her professional mark touting an alternative: symbiogenesis. She and coauthor (and son) Sagan have presented their ideas in earlier popular works (What Is Life?, 1995), but never as vigorously as in this volume. Essentially, the debate between neo-Darwinists and Margulis hinges on the definition of a species, and the manner in which a new one appears. To Margulis and Sagan, the neo-Darwinist model, which asserts random gene mutation as the source of inherited variations, is "wildly overemphasized," and to support their view, they delve deeply into the world of microbes. They detail the anatomy of cells with and without nuclei, positing a process of genome ingestion that creates a new species. Surprisingly, the upshot of Margulis' theories is the rehabilitation of Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, whose theory that supposedly acquired traits are hereditary has been ridiculed for 150 years. Polemical and provocative, Margulis and Sagan's work should set many to thinking that evolution has not yet been completely figured out. Gilbert Taylor
Copyright American Library Association. All rights reserved
Spotlight Reviews (what's this)
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, November 13, 2002
Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species written by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan will definitly open your eyes and is on the cutting edge of how species are formed.Reviewer: Joe Zika (see more about me)from Cincinnati, Ohio This is one of those groundbreaking books that trys to answer one of Charles Darwin's long standing mysteries... how do species originate. Darwin could never quit put his finger on the answer, he was close and I'm sure with time and the right equipment, like what is available today, he might have even solved this nagging question.
Margulis has been working on this same question for the last thirty years and she makes a very convincing argument, symbiotic merger is the main thrust of her thesis in this book. This book has some real mind-spinning ideas and you'll have to know some biochemistry, biology, chemistry, cell-biology to prepare yourself for a provocative wild ride through this book as some of the material directly challenges the assumptions that we hold about diversity in the living world.
Margulis has for many years been the leader in the interpretation of evolutionary entities as the products of symbiogenesis. Symbiogenesis is the major theme of this book. The authors show convinvingly that an unexpectedly large proportion of the evolutionary lineages had their origins in symbiogenesis. Ok, I know some of you are saying what is symbiogenesis, well it's the combination of two totally different genomes form a symbiotic consortium which becomes the target of selection as a single entity. This is achieved by the mutual stability of the relationship, symbiosis differs from other cases of interaction such as carnivory, herbivory, and parasitism.
Now, that I've said all of that, you realize that this book can get pretty deep at times, but the author has a pleasent styled narrative, always keeping the reader involved. Prehaps the greatest merit of this book is that it introduces the reader to the fascinating world of microbes, delving into providing an enthralling description of protists and bacteria.
I found this book to be most enlightening about the enigma of evolutionary biology and how species are formed, comprehensive in scope and supported by scientific theory. This book will make you think. If you want to know about the cutting edge of evolutionary thinking then this is the book for you. To realize that everything on earth is inter-related and that life will carry on when faced with tragedy.
All Customer Reviews Avg. Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
A compelling, attention involving survey, December 7, 2002
In Acquiring Genomes, authors Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan collaborate to present a fascinating theory regarding the origins of species as they probe Charles Darwin's original ideas of evolution, and then taking them a step further in identifying the source of inherited variations that give rise to new species. The authors cogently argue that random mutation is not the main factor in such changes: more significant is how new genomes are obtained by symbiosis. Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan is highly recommended as a compelling, attention involving survey offering new insights based on meticulous research.Reviewer: Midwest Book Review (see more about me)from Oregon, WI USA
11 of 11 people found the following review helpful:Coauthorial Critique, December 5, 2002
First of all let me apologize for criticizing this work, not only because I wrote part of it and don't want to hurt my own feelings (any more than is absolutely necessary), but to you for any appearance of arrogance or impropriety. However, some more evidence in its favor has come to light since this book was written; in addition, there are a few mistakes (some corrected in proof which somehow Basic Books neglected to fix) and, more importantly, a basic potential misunderstanding about what the book does and does not say, which I see no reason not to address.Reviewer: Dorion Sagan (see more about me)from Manhattan The main point of this book, which I cowrote, is that, although mutation leads to evolutionary change, all the best examples of speciation, including all that have actually been observed, have been through symbiosis. The greatest amount of biodiversity, including all basic metabolic modes from photosynthesis to oxygen respiration, evolved in the bacteria via mutation and gene transfer. But although given Linnean species names for the sake of convenience and via convention, speciation does not really apply to bacteria, which trade genes (via techniques borrowed by human beings practicing biotechnology) with little regard for species barriers. True speciation only evolved in the eukaryotes--protists, fungi, plants, and animals. These largely sexed beings pose the Darwinian problem of speciation proper. And here all the best examples of speciation involve symbiosis, the coming together of different kinds of organisms. Since Acquiring Genomes was written, more evidence has come to the fore to show that its central thesis--that the presence or absence of genomes, particularly those of microbes, can lead to speciation--is correct. In a recent Montreal conference on molecular biology and phylogeny, for example, John Werren from the University of Rochester in New York showed a picture of a chromosome of a sperm cell from a parasitic wasp: rod-shaped bacteria, Wolbachia, were nestled in the chromosome. Wasps can have their sex change due to the presence of bacteria, and antibiotics can make separate species of jewel wasps interbreed again. At this same meeting Professor Harold Morowitz (who is developing a Universal Metabolic Chart, on the model of the Periodic Table of the Elements) was impressed by the plasticity of ever-changing gene formations--emphasizing the need to look for metabolic pathways shared by most or all organisms to understand life's origins. Because life is an open thermodynamic system, as well as an open informational one, genomic transfer is rampant.
It is important to realize two things that Acquiring Genomes does not say. The book does not say that all bacterial diversity is the result of genome acquisition. As suggested above, and by Canadian biologist Sorin Sonea and others, despite the bacteriological convenience of their species names, bacteria arguably do not have species due both to rampant genetic transfer as well as the premier, zoological definition of species as an interbreeding population; since all bacteria can theoretically trade genes with each other either directly or through through vectors (and do not need to reproduce to do so), the animal definition of species does not really apply to them. The original genetic and metabolic diversity in bacteria must owe significantly to neodarwinian-style mutations but, since bacteria arguably do not possess species, such mutations do not occur for speciation.
As Ernst Mayr suggests in his Foreword, the evidence for speciation by genome acquisition in birds and mammals is not compelling. The argument for genome acquisition here depends on the possible symbiotic status of the ends of chromosomes, called kinetochores. (Bacteria don't have true chromosomes, they have chromonemes.) Because chromosome arrangements differ slightly in closely related mammal species (e.g., dogs and wolves) that no longer breed with each other, and because the spontaneous splitting of these chromosomes may owe to their separate bacterial origin, we make the argument that even vertebrate speciation may owe to the symbiotic aftershocks of microbial genome acquisition. The main point to remember is for every example of speciation for which there is actual evidence, genome acquisition is the causative factor; and that, despite mountains of theory, this is not the case for mutations.
Finally, the thermodynamics section is only an at best tantalizing foretaste of a much more comprehensive argument and regrettably contains a couple of mistakes, such as the characterization of Benard cells as octagonal (they're hexagonal) and appearing from a chemical gradient (they don't; they appear in a temperature gradient). And one final comment: both Lynn and I read Stephen King's On Writing after A.G.'s composition and realized belatedly how much it could have been improved, despite the complexity of some of the arguments, by eliminating further needless words.
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:A challenge to Darwinism, November 27, 2002
Acquiring Gnomes is an attempt to support the theory of symbiogenesis, the idea that organisms evolve by exchanging genes and as a result of symbiosis relationships, such as lichen. The authors are the leading experts in the field of symbiosis, and this shows in this well done work. The major strong point of the work is it explains in detail what biologists have known for years but often do not admit publicly, namely that evolution by the accumulation of small mutations has not been supported by either laboratory or field research. The authors also show that Darwin has been almost a god for over a century, yet his work was neither original (and he failed to credit those he plagiarized his ideas from - see p. 27) and his classic 1859 book The Origin of Species is "laced with hesitancies, contradictions, and possible prevarication" (p. 26). Having shown neo-Darwinism is now effectively dead, the authors make an excellent case for their own theory of the origin of species. The only problem is they demonstrate that many lower level organisms have probably exchanged genetic material throughout history, yet this does not explain its origin, only its spread. We are still left with the question "where did the genome information come from in the first place?" It may be best to admit that we do not know (and present theories do not explain this problem) so that future scientists are encouraged to look for the source instead of discouraging research by teaching students that we know the source when we do not. As a college teacher for over 35 years now, in my classes I stress what we do not know in my field (molecular biology) with the hope that my students may be inspired to find some of the answers. This book is a good place to begin. The authors also show that anyone who questions Darwin "are often dismissed as if they were Christian fundamentalist zealots or racial bigots" (p. 19). This is tragic.Reviewer: A reader from Middle America -
Jerry Bergman
Gary1914, AlanF and Larc
The following is must reading!!!
(I found a copy for 22 dollars)
Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America
by Larry A. Witham
Look inside this book
Availability: Usually ships in 2 to 3 weeks Used & new from $27.50List Price: $30.00 Price: $30.00 & This item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping. See details.
Edition: HardcoverSee more product details
Customers who bought this book also bought:- Dawkins vs. Gould : Survival of the Fittest by Kim Sterelny, Jon Turney (Editor) (Paperback)
- No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence by William A. Dembski (Hardcover)
- Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe by Michael Behe, et al (Paperback)
- In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation by John F. Ashton (Editor) (Paperback)
- Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe by Kurt P. Wise (Paperback)
Explore similar items
Product Details- Hardcover: 352 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.00 x 9.00 x 6.88
- Publisher: Oxford University Press; ISBN: 0195150457; (October 2002)
- Average Customer Review:
Based on 1 review. Write a review.
- Amazon.com Sales Rank: 23,983
Our Customers' Advice
See what customers recommend in addition to, or instead of, the product on this page.Recommend an item!
- 1 person recommended God at the Speed of Light in addition to Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America
See more customer buying advice
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Washington Times reporter Witham digs into the evolution-creation debate in contemporary America in this balanced and well-documented work of investigative journalism. Drawing upon more than 200 interviews with prominent scientists and theologians, the author charts the history of a debate that has been aggressively waged in the arena of public opinion, but with modest attention to facts. Both camps are divided across a full spectrum of dissent, and the waters are further muddied by relativist attitudes among the educated public that call into question the validity of scientific progress. Witham explores the points of political contact where evolution and creation clash, such as in public schools and colleges, the political arena and the shrines to each respectively, the churches and natural history museums. His analysis of press coverage from the Scopes trial in 1925 to the antievolutionary vote of the Kansas state school board in 1999 reveals that science-and with it the facts-typically takes a back seat in public debates to politics and emotionality. The details of the news, Witham writes, get swamped by the "meaning" of the news, which becomes framed, to cite one of his sources, within the drama of "intolerance." The author looks toward a future where the Christian right is less rural and more suburban and educated, while the Darwinist view is by no means assured of dominance. Witham's impeccable reportage, his erudite analysis and his ability to synthesize complex and nuanced strains of thought all make this book an invaluable roadmap of the evolution-creation controversy in America.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Book Description
The conflict between creationists and evolutionists has raged ever since the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859. And yet, even as generations of Americans have fought and re-fought the same battles, the contours of the debate have in recent years shifted dramatically. Tracking the dizzying rhetorical heights and opportunistic political lows of this controversy, Larry Witham travels to America's churches, schools, universities, museums, and government agencies to present creationists...read more
Customer Reviews Avg. Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.A breakthrough Book, December 25, 2002
All indications are that the creation-evolution controversy will continue to heat up as time goes on. Now that Ohio science standards encourage science teachers to include information critical of neoDarwinism when covering evolution, a need exits for more information about the controversy. This book could not have come at a better time. It is also an area I have much interest in. My field is evolutionary biology, and I have become more and more aware of new research that has raised major questions about the orthodox interpretation of neoDarwinism. For this reason the creation-evolution issue is of much interest to me and many others. Actually, I have been researching this topic for over 30 years now and, in my judgment, this book is without question one of the most important works about the creation-evolution ever published (even better than Ron Number's book). Most books and articles on this topic show clear emotional hostility toward one side or the other, and repeat the same incorrect misconceptions almost without end. This book is an honest attempt to look at the whole issue from the eyes of each side and it succeeded very well. The author has done his homework (the 200 interviews and 40 pages of notes, for example, show this). I detected not one major error and only a few very minor errors (unusual in a book on this topic). Witham does a great job covering the different competing schools of Darwinism and briefly summarizing their differences. Witham also clearly shows that, in spite of the almost universal pernicious labeling, the views on this controversy do not form a dichotomy, but exist on a continuum. I predict that his book will become the standard text in this area and will be referred to as a breakthrough work in the future.Reviewer: A reader from Ohio, USA -
JT
The problem with your example is that the heart is a tangible object, thereby lending itself to experimentation to determine its true functions. Most religious beliefs are based on faith, speculation and heresay, none of which can be proved, scientifically or othewise.
For instance, you can probably prove scientifically that Jesus was a man, a Jew and walked the earth. So what? Was he really the son of God? Is there a scientific experiment that can prove that
GARY1914, EXCELLENT POINT
it is amazing how believers love to throw out words like PROOF, FACTS, ETC
when the entire concept of a belief system ESP ONE OF A RELIGOUS NATURE - is built on FAITH- WHICH by default means SOMETHINGS YOU JUST GOTTA BELIEVE-
religous belief system require of its followers to be willing to accept things that CAN'T BE PROVED, so to use such words as facts, proof, evidence it is almost a contridiction in statement
i have no problem with one who wants to believe the moon is made from cheese,, but i have always found this common thread in belief systems:
they start out Very strong, when questioned -flipping back and forth from one bible text to another, even using all kinds of McClinton and Strongs, and bible concordances, etc, but as you continue to ask Why, why not, they will shift to anger and frustration many times and finally annouce
YOU CAN'T QUESTION GOD, YOU MIND IS TOO SMALL TO UNDERSTAND- and at that point i just smile knowing , yep you can't proof or support that BS you have been trying to sell
as my grandma used to say: "Baby don't question "LARD"
-
Jerry Bergman
The problem is the reference is not in Blinderman and I do not know the source (I wrote this article 15 years ago, although it was revised since). The source was garbled or mixed in with another source. Osborn himself did refer to "Nebraska Man" as not just more than an "ape-man" but as a man-ape (stressing the man) and he did say that this 'discovery' was "proof that some primitive humans lived in America" in numerous places. Check the article and the original material to clear this up further.
Nevertheless, according to the talkorigins article that donkey quoted ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html ), Osborn was careful to avoid the very thing your quotation of him asserts: Not true at all!! ... 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: Also not true!
"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) What is the source of this quote??
Most other scientists were skeptical even of the 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...Source??
Jerry, on a discussion board like this, if you want to be understood, you have to discuss the reasons for your views, not simply make bald comments. Ex-jws are extremely wary of bald comments to just accept what is said based on authority or whatever, since that's exactly what we hated about the JWs. True but it takes many pages (and classes start soon so there is no way that I have the time to go into much detail now. I plan to do an article on this and will post it).
As to . On the other hand, the Bible contains explicit stories and statements that approve of the institution of slavery (you know, "a slave should obey his master" etc.). The instution was somewhat different than. Herb Vander Lugt, for example discusses: What Does the Bible Really Say About Slavery? www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q1109/intro.html. George Bourne (1780-1845) condemned American slavery and covered this in his excellent Condensed Anti Slavery Bible Argument (1845).
http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/bourne/bourne.html. -
Jerry Bergman
An up date on responding to AlanF. I am now doing an article on the "misquote" claim. It now seems that what happened was the quote marks were left out of the quote of concern and I am trying
to find the original quote by Osborn (but the Blinderman reference source given in his article does not contain the quote!). To find it I need to read everything he has ever written, which will be a job. Blinderman evidently listed the wrong source for the quote! I have found that this problem is common (and one of the most frustrating problems with doing research). I know, I should talk when I may have done the same thing!
Based on 10 reviews. 
Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, November 13, 2002 
All Customer Reviews Avg. Customer Review:
Based on 1 review.