“Neo-Darwinism is alive and well” according to article? On what planet?

ET: There isn’t any evidence for it so there has to be something else, duh. No, you could be wrong. Let's face it: you don't really have any hard evidence that there is some decades old, world-wide Darwinist conspiracy to toe the party line. You assume your own conclusion based on no objective evidence. That is only fair to ask the designer, duh. That is stupid to ask people who didn’t design it. Your designer(s) doesn't seem to be available. So, instead of throwing in the towel and giving up it seems to me that someone interested in science would try and see what inferences they can make based on the data (and there's quite a lot of it) available. If you want to just give up that's your call. More ignorance. The vast majority of the fossil record, >95%, is of marine invertebrates. Yet in that vast majority there isn’t any evidence for universal common descent. Genetics supports a common design. Biogeographic distributions support evolution by design. Again, lots of data you can analyse from a design point of view to attempt to figure out why certain design choices were made. Or, you could just give up. Your position doesn’t have a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. Period. We're talking about your position at the moment and why, despite having decades of data of different kind you haven't been able to a) establish when design was implemented to the point that the ID community agrees, b) been able to even hypothesise why a particular design approach was picked. A lot of the data you need is free and available so it's not a matter of money. It's either a matter of will or ability. Also, I can't remember the name of that atoll which has walls which look constructed; can you remember it? It's a good example. JVL

JVL:

Like what? Show us the evidence.

There isn't any evidence for it so there has to be something else, duh.

So, it’s fair to ask, why were certain choices made.

That is only fair to ask the designer, duh. That is stupid to ask people who didn't design it.

You’ve got the fossil record, you can look up the genetics, you can consider the biogeographic distributions, you can look at morphology throughout known history.

More ignorance. The vast majority of the fossil record, >95%, is of marine invertebrates. Yet in that vast majority there isn't any evidence for universal common descent. Genetics supports a common design. Biogeographic distributions support evolution by design. Your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. Period. ET

I thought of another interesting question that the design inference might have some bearing on: the existence of ghosts. Do they exist? Do they arise 'naturally' as a result of trauma/conflict or are they generated some other way? JVL

Marfin: How could you test for design , the very same way you can test pyramids , houses, watches, arrow heads, mouse traps, yo-yo`s , the list goes on. Okay, show me the methodology as applied to this: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/camel-rock I've got another thing in mind (an atoll in the Atlantic) but I can't quite remember the name. I'll keep thinking. Oh, there is this: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/thedanispost/researchers-find-proof-of-ancient-atomic-war-a-great-many-years-prior/ Also, all your examples are non-organic. The real conflict comes when examining living things. Are you sure your method applies in both cases? If you honestly believe that somehow people who work in the science field are more moral than sports stars or second hand car sales men, you actually have won the award for most naive person ever. Just type into Wikipedia , list of scientific misconduct incidents , thats if your honest enough to do so. I am well aware of some of the more notorious examples of scientific fraud and most of the time it's fairly easy to tease out the motivations of the individuals who perpetrated the fraud. But you're suggesting a large, international and long running fraud and that's what I like you to provide evidence of. I'd also like to point out (and admit) that sometimes the famous frauds should have been examined a lot closer by the scientific community. I'm thinking of Piltdown Man, Cold Fusion, N-rays and some others. There were always skeptics of those . . . claims but it took far too long in some cases for the scientific community to scrutinise the claims as it should have. But, eventually, the scrutiny was applied and the fraud/mistakes were exposed. In other words, eventually the scientific community gets it right. But, again, you're proposing a long term, international lie but you have not presented any evidence that such a thing exists except that you disagree with the unguided conclusions. Also, if you have the time, I'd love to hear your ID hypothesis: was it all front loaded or has there been constant tinkering over the millions of years? JVL

JVL - How could you test for design , the very same way you can test pyramids , houses, watches, arrow heads, mouse traps, yo-yo`s , the list goes on. If you honestly believe that somehow people who work in the science field are more moral than sports stars or second hand car sales men, you actually have won the award for most naive person ever. Just type into Wikipedia , list of scientific misconduct incidents , thats if your honest enough to do so. Marfin

ET: Wow. It’s a strawman because no one let them go extinct. So . . . the designer(s) came up with this scheme to start with very simple basic replicators, created those, added some extra programming to make them evolve along some preset lines and let the whole thing go. KNOWING that it might take millions or billons of years to get to the goal (if it did, there would be the possibility that the preset programming would get unrecoverable corrupted) and that there would have to be a lot of life forms that evolved and then went extinct? So, if that's about what you think . . . why is that approach preferred over a) just creating the whole thing as desired from the get go or b) tweaking things as they happened to head towards a goal? IF you start with all the preloading and then step back and let it all rip you really don't have a guarantee that things will work out as desired. The programming might break down, a comet might slam into the earth and muck things up, aliens might show up and take over. Lots of things can happen after billions of years. IF you want to stick around and guide things as they happen that's a pretty long term commitment. Who's going to set up that kind of scheme? Seems to me the easiest thing from a design perspective is to just create the situation you want and implement it; a young earth creationist approach. But you think it was all preloaded and took billions of years to spin out. Why would someone pick that approach? There would have to be a reason since design is about making choices. ET: His ideas were untestable then and they remain untestable. So obviously there is something other than science keeping it around. Like what? Show us the evidence. And AGAIN, your position is all about the how and yet you and yours have nothing. Nothing on the how. Nothing on the when. Thanks to you and yours we don’t even know what determines biological form! You and yours can’t even answer basic biological questions!!! Your view is about intent and making choices; having a goal and figuring out a way to get to that goal. So, it's fair to ask, why were certain choices made. Why was it decided that a particular approach was the best approach? What makes one approach better than another? You've got the fossil record, you can look up the genetics, you can consider the biogeographic distributions, you can look at morphology throughout known history. You've got lots of known data to consider. What choices were made to bring about all that data and why was a particular choice preferred? JVL

JVL:

If you’ve got evidence that there is some international, decades old conspiracy to protect Darwin’s ideas then present it.

His ideas were untestable then and they remain untestable. So obviously there is something other than science keeping it around. And AGAIN, your position is all about the how and yet you and yours have nothing. Nothing on the how. Nothing on the when. Thanks to you and yours we don't even know what determines biological form! You and yours can't even answer basic biological questions!!! ET

Marfin: The fact that you cannot test your findings shows its just opinion , maybe informed opinion, but opinion just the same I don't know if your a preloaded ID proponent or a continual tinkerer ID proponent. But assuming you're one of those two . . . how would you test your 'findings'? How could I take an life form you assure me was designed and test it for design? Now as regards deceiving people ,why would Lance Armstrong ,Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds , Bernie Madoff, Elixabeth Holmes(Theranos) ,Ernest Haekel, Most of the tour de France cyclists, the Guys at Enron, Worldcom, Dan Brown, Bill Clinton, A hell of a lot of Olympic athletes , etc,etc want to deceive anyone hmm I wonder. Interesting that you didn't name any scientists except for Haekel (who is an interesting case; I suspect he was just honestly wrong. Fortunately, we know better now and some of his ideas have been debunked). What motivation would scientists have? Most of them are far from rich or influential. Many of them, in fact, have to deal with a lot of public abuse; especially those supporting unguided evolution. Some of them, in fact, are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. So, what's the point of standing up for something that about 40% of the American public thinks is bogus? You don't get rich. You don't get power. You don't get famous necessarily. You don't get your name written down in some record book. Just because you distrust people doesn't mean most of them are dishonest. If you've got evidence that there is some international, decades old conspiracy to protect Darwin's ideas then present it. Meanwhile, your preferred hypothesis still can't answer a lot of very sensible questions about how and why design was implemented. Heck, there isn't even a consensus on WHEN design was implemented. JVL

Wow. It's a strawman because no one let them go extinct. ET

JVL- The fact that you cannot test your findings shows its just opinion , maybe informed opinion, but opinion just the same , and as most in the palaeontology field will admit , "when you kick over a stone in Africa you have to rewrite the history of man". Now as regards deceiving people ,why would Lance Armstrong ,Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds , Bernie Madoff, Elixabeth Holmes(Theranos) ,Ernest Haekel, Most of the tour de France cyclists, the Guys at Enron, Worldcom, Dan Brown, Bill Clinton, A hell of a lot of Olympic athletes , etc,etc want to deceive anyone hmm I wonder. You must be the most naive guy in the world if you cant figure out why people are deceitful. Marfin

ET: Nice strawman. How is it a straw man? You think life on earth was designed (you seem to favour a kind of preloaded scenario). If you're right then the designer(s) chose to set up a system which took hundreds of millions of years to arrive at human beings (the final goal?) meaning that lots of precursors came and went. Okay, some like the ones that created our oxygen rich atmosphere . . . those could be hypothesised to have a 'purpose'. But Australopithecus? Homo Habilis? There must have been a reason for the design choices 'cause that's what design is: making choices. So, what were the reasons for the choices that were made? (Just an aside: I think a completely preloaded scenarios would be much much harder to set up (assuming a final target) than just creating everything the way desired. But that's just me. I'm not a design proponent so I ask design proponents questions I assume they have at least considered.) (Another aside: for those that think that the designer was the Christian God: why not just ask him why he did things the way he did? Is that not allowed?) JVL

JVL:

So, just to be clear, you don’t know what possible reason there could be for designing lots and lots of lifeforms only to let them go extinct.

Nice strawman. There aren't any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life. Changes to DNA can't do it. So all forms of evolutionism are lost in space. ET

Marfin: BA77 posts a wealth of evidence by many eminent scientist clearly laying out the issues with the claim that Lucy was a transitional fossil , but you believe a Wikipedia article. I take seriously the peer-reviewed work and research that is behind the Wikipedia article. And the general consensus amongst palaeontologists. adly you dont understand the fossil business at all , here is a question I would like you to answer ,how many palaeontologist actually got their hands on the actual Lucy fossil. Here`s another one how many palaeontologists who might have a contrary view would be let within a million miles of the actual Lucy fossil by Johnson and white. The actual fossils are treated like sacred religious relics and are only allowed out to be seen and examined by the chosen few , everyone else gets copies. The copies are extremely high quality, you certainly don't want the originals (being priceless) on display to the public. I do not know how many palaeontologists have touched the actual fossils but I haven't heard many of them complaining. So I have a signed da Vinci painting I want to sell you , but I am not going to let you examine the one I have but I will let you examine a copy of it , are you still convinced the paining I have is genuine. You start with the assumption that the discoverers of Lucy intend to deceive and obfuscate. Why? Why would they do that? and lastly as I have mentioned before ,why is there opposing views on the Lucy fossil , why dont either side just do a test to show it is what they claim it to be oops THERE IS NO TEST. Sure there are differing opinions. That's generally true in science. But almost all working palaeontologists agree that Lucy is part of human heritage. What they tend to disagree on is the finer points like which species, etc. What kind of 'test' could there be? Are we incapable of doing science on historical objects because we can't 'prove' something in a lab? You are aware that some Neanderthal DNA has been recovered and they look to be pretty closely related to humans. And, again, you have no explanation for why Lucy was (apparently) designed, created and then left to go extinct. If your view doesn't explain many aspects of the historical fossil record then can it be considered a better explanation? JVL

JVL- Its a shame how faithful most of you non believers are , faithful to a narrative without questioning. BA77 posts a wealth of evidence by many eminent scientist clearly laying out the issues with the claim that Lucy was a transitional fossil , but you believe a Wikipedia article. Sadly you dont understand the fossil business at all , here is a question I would like you to answer ,how many palaeontologist actually got their hands on the actual Lucy fossil. Here`s another one how many palaeontologists who might have a contrary view would be let within a million miles of the actual Lucy fossil by Johnson and white. The actual fossils are treated like sacred religious relics and are only allowed out to be seen and examined by the chosen few , everyone else gets copies. So I have a signed da Vinci painting I want to sell you , but I am not going to let you examine the one I have but I will let you examine a copy of it , are you still convinced the paining I have is genuine. and lastly as I have mentioned before ,why is there opposing views on the Lucy fossil , why dont either side just do a test to show it is what they claim it to be oops THERE IS NO TEST. Marfin

This is my answer ,some species share similarities , some go extinct , some don`t so what. BMW designed 6 variations of the same motorcycle, some are still in production some are not , but unless I ask the designers why they specifically designed 6 types of the same motorcycle I will never know, sure I can speculate but I can`t be certain. So, just to be clear, you don't know what possible reason there could be for designing lots and lots of lifeforms only to let them go extinct. So human beings were the central focus of creating life on Earth (and for fine-tuning the universe) but the designer(s) decided to create millions of other species which no longer exist for some reason. Most of which existed before human beings were around. The reasons for deciding that, say, Lucy was a different genus and species is because of the skeletal characteristics that are different from modern human skeletons. Remember that species and genus are strictly human created boundaries and that nature doesn't give a toss. Anyway, biologists, somewhat arbitrarily decide when there are enough differing characteristics to declare a different species or genus when talking about ancient, no-longer-living creatures. If you look at the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)) some of the skeletal differences are discussed with the inferences made also discussed. Suffice it to say that most of the pertinent experts in the field have decided that the available evidence seems sufficient to decide that Lucy was from a different genus and, therefore, a different species. And there is the dating evidence as well. JVL

No problem Marfin. and thank you for clearly highlighting the 'scientific' issue at hand. I failed to realize that JVL, in his theological question, was presupposing the existence of scientific evidence for human evolution that simply does not exist. bornagain77

BA77- Thanks for that ,I have all that information also, but it would take me an eternity to compile and post it as well as you do, so thanks again. Marfin

JVL claims "Lucy was not an ape". Others who are far more knowledgeable than JVL disagree and say Lucy, (i.e. Australopithecus afarensis), was an ape.

"a team of paleo-experts from the State University of New York, Stony Brook, (which includes distinguished leaders in the field such as Tuttle, Tardieu, Senut, Susman, Stern, and Jungers, among others) insist Lucy was predominately a tree dwelling ape that did not habitually walk upright" Review of "Contested Bones" (Part 6 - Chapter 6 "Australopithecus afarensis" - "Lucy") by Paul Giem - 25:00 minute mark https://youtu.be/QHZnhOUAe4c?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm&t=1435 26:00 minute mark: Craig Stanford 2012, ",, Afarensis as an arboreal adapted species is still valid and still represents the consensus view held by paleoanthropologists today". 35:00 minute mark: Body size of an ape Skull of an ape Shoulders of an ape Rib cage of an ape Spine of an ape Hip of an ape Hands of an ape Feet of an ape Knee joint of an ape Conclusion: Lucy's kind in mostly ape. 36:00 minute quote: "Lucy's distinctly ape-like nature is defended by numerous experts in the field who have published in highly respected peer-reviewed scientific journals such as,,," "these australopith specimens can be accommodated with the range of intraspecific variation of African apes" - Nature 443 (9/2006), p.296 "The australopithecines known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage." - Charles Oxnard, former professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis;?

Here is a humorous video of a Darwinist 'reconstructing' the pelvis bone of Lucy in order to make it 'fit' the false Darwinian narrative that Lucy was a transitional fossil that had a bipedal gait like humans

Lucy - The Powersaw Incident - a humorous video showing evolutionists reconstructing the pelvis of Lucy to match the false Darwinian narrative of human evolution - 32:08 mark of video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4ADhPVpA0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1928

And here is the fraudulent reconstruction of Lucy that is widely displayed by Darwinists as supposed proof for human evolution

Lucy - fraudulent reconstruction http://www.live-news24.com/assets/news_photos/2016/08/29/image-13376.jpg

And here is the anatomically correct reconstruction of Lucy that Darwinists blatantly ignore

Lucy - a correct reconstruction - picture https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/campaigns/lucy-exhibit.jpg

Further notes refuting the false Darwinian claim that Lucy had a bipedal gait

A Look at Lucy’s Legacy by Dr. David Menton and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on June 6, 2012 Excerpt: Other analyses taking advantage of modern technology, such as those by Christine Berge published in 1994-25 and 2010-26 in the Journal of Human Evolution, offer a different reconstruction allowing for a unique sort of locomotion. Berge writes, “The results clearly indicate that australopithecine bipedalism differs from that of humans. (1) The extended lower limb of australopithecines would have lacked stabilization during walking;,,, Lucy’s bones show the features used to lock the wrist for secure knuckle-walking seen in modern knuckle-walkers. https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/a-look-at-lucys-legacy/ Lucy Makeover Shouts a Dangerously Deceptive Message About Our Supposed Ancestors by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on October 5, 2013 Excerpt: Australopithecus afarensis is extinct. Its bones suggest it was not identical to living apes, but it did have much in common with them. Many have assessed the skeletal pieces of the various afarensis and possible afarensis fossils that have been found. Overall, these skeletal parts reveal an animal well-adapted to arboreal life. Its wrist bones also suggest it was a knuckle-walker. Reconstructions of its pelvis demonstrate its so-called “bipedal” gait was nothing like a human being’s upright gait. In fact, it is only the evolutionary wish to impute a bipedal gait to this animal that marches its fossils upright across the pages of the evolutionary story. https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/lucy-makeover-shouts-a-dangerously-deceptive-message-about-our-supposed-ancestors/

Again, contrary to what JVL apparently believes, his unrestrained imagination does not equate to actual scientific evidence that his Darwinian beliefs are true. It is only proof that JVL desperately wants to believe Darwinian evolution to be true. Others not so enamored with JVL's unrestrained imagination are certainly under no obligation to accept his 'wishful thinking' as scientific proof:

My Pilgrimage to Lucy’s Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism Excerpt: ---"We were sent a cast of the Lucy skeleton, and I was asked to assemble it for display,” remembers Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich.,,, "When I started to put [Lucy’s] skeleton together, I expected it to look human,” Schmid continues “Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/my_pilgrimage_to_lucys_holy_re.html

Verse:

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

bornagain77

JVL- This is my answer ,some species share similarities , some go extinct , some don`t so what. BMW designed 6 variations of the same motorcycle, some are still in production some are not , but unless I ask the designers why they specifically designed 6 types of the same motorcycle I will never know, sure I can speculate but I can`t be certain. How about you answer some of my questions. Marfin

Marfin: You still haven't answered my question. If you can't just say so and we can move on, we can discuss some of the criteria use to determine that Lucy was a separate species. But I'd like you to either answer my question or tell me you can't first. JVL

JVL- You say Lucy was a separate genus , so what test was done on Lucy to show she was a separate genus , surely science involves experimentation , rigorous testing , so conclusions may be drawn, so cite the tests please. The fact that humans and ape share some skeletal and morphological similarities says nothing more than that , if you disagree prove me wrong not by opinion, but once again by scientific testing. Marfin

Marfin: Do you research Lucy was an ape, there are humans and there are apes , there are no in between`s. If you disagree with this please show me on definitive scientific test to show how any fossil can be shown to be our ancestor , not speculation but test. Lucy was not an ape, 'she' was in a separate genus. Humans are not descendant from apes, no one says they are. They all shared a common ancestor or group of ancestors. And, again, you did not answer the question: what was the design point of creating all those species that went extinct? In fact, your insistence that creatures like Lucy and the others are NOT human ancestors means their creation seems to have had no point at all. JVL

JVL- Do you research Lucy was an ape, there are humans and there are apes , there are no in between`s. If you disagree with this please show me on definitive scientific test to show how any fossil can be shown to be our ancestor , not speculation but test. Marfin

Marfin and Bornagain77: That was just one specimen of a hominid skeleton (not as far from modern humans as some but it is very complete) whose differences from modern humans are enough to classify it as a separate species, Homo ergaster (which is in the Wikipedia article excerpt reproduced above). Here's a discussion of a much earlier hominid, Australopithecus afarensis (the famous Lucy) which also could not be mistaken for a variant of a modern human. And there are more. The point is: modern humans were not around at the time of Lucy so, from a design perspective, what was the point of all the homo sapien precursors which died out? If you're not happy considering the human ancestral line pick another. There's plenty to choose from. In all cases why create living creatures, some fairly intelligent, if they're just going to be allowed to go extinct? There used to be a lot more dinosaurs, they're mostly gone now. There haven't been living trilobites for quite a while now. Why create them in the first place? I'm not saying there isn't a design perspective explanation but I'd rather not guess what it is. So I asked some design proponents. So far, no one has answered the question except to say it's a 'theological' matter. Which doesn't sound like science to me. JVL

JVL, via wikipedia, references the Turkana Boy. Yet JVL's own reference, in the very first paragraph no less, states that the fossil is a human skeleton and does not refer to the fossil as being some type of human/ape skeleton that is on its way to becoming human, i.e. "This specimen is the most complete early human skeleton ever found."

Turkana Boy Turkana Boy, also called Nariokotome Boy,[1] is the name given to fossil KNM-WT 15000,[nb 1] a nearly complete skeleton of a Homo ergaster (alternatively referred to as African Homo erectus) youth who lived at c. 1.5 to 1.6 million years ago. This specimen is the most complete early human skeleton ever found.[2] It was discovered in 1984 by Kamoya Kimeu on the bank of the Nariokotome River near Lake Turkana in Kenya.[3][4] Estimates of the individual's age at death range from 7 to 11 years old.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy

As to Homo erectus in general, a fairly recent article stated that, "If you bumped into a Homo erectus in the street you might not recognise them as being very different from you. You'd see a certain "human-ness" in the stance, and his or her size and shape might be similar to yours."

A snapshot of our mysterious ancestor Homo erectus - JANUARY 21, 2019 Excerpt: If you bumped into a Homo erectus in the street you might not recognise them as being very different from you. You'd see a certain "human-ness" in the stance, and his or her size and shape might be similar to yours. https://phys.org/news/2019-01-snapshot-mysterious-ancestor-homo-erectus.html Homo erectus: The Ape Man That Wasn't - Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. - Sep 30, 2019 The archaic human species Homo erectus has been portrayed as an important ape-to-man transitional link. However, these fossils don’t provide any real evidence of evolution. Many paleontologists and a majority of creationists think their unusual features are nothing more than variants of human traits and not transitional at all…. Not only is the H. erectus fossil record fragmentary and incomplete, but the bulk of the data indicates this category is simply a variant of the human kind. As mentioned above, so-called archaic H. erectus traits can still be found in humans today. Even many evolutionists recognize this. A recent article stated, “If you bumped into a Homo erectus in the street you might not recognise them as being very different from you.”11 https://www.icr.org/article/homo-erectus-the-ape-man-that-wasnt

Here are a few more notes that find Homo erectus to be far less compelling as a transitional fossil than Darwinists have falsely imagined it to be:

Do racial assumptions prevent recognizing Homo erectus as fully human? - June 22, 2018 Excerpt: However, the problem for evolutionary theorists gets worse because recent evidence shows that Homo erectus had a large cultural inventory greater than the Tasmanians. Homo erectus were capable of all of the following (Rupe, 72): Boat-building and sailing Language and reasoning Jewelry making Fire making Bone and stone tools Coordinated hunting Kinship and family structures Soci-ethical standards The evidence is clear from cultural inventory that Homo erectus was human and it is, in part, a cultural bias that prevents ND Splitters from recognizing their humanity.. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-racial-assumptions-prevent-recognizing-homo-erectus-as-fully-human/ The Evolution of Man: What do We Really Know? Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 21 August 2019 Excerpt: Homo erectus – long thought to be one of the links between Homo sapiens and perhaps one of the species of Australopithecus – definitely belongs to Homo sapiens. After a careful examination of the evidence (pp. 55-74), Rupe and Sanford present the following table of the artifacts and skills of this group of intelligent humans (2019, p. 74): • Watercraft assembly and sailing against an ocean current • Language, speech, communication • Reasoning, foresight, planning, ingenuity • Bead and pendant manufacture/necklaces • Cordage/knot-making • Manufacture of diverse stone and bone implements • Controlled use of fire and hearths of stones (fire places) • Catching, skinning, and cleaning fish • Cooking food • Occupational floors/living spaces • Petroglyphs, figurines, paint (red ochre), art • Woodworking • Coordinated hunting • Butchering, skinning, and transporting large game • Manufacturing clothing from skins (possibly sewing) • Production of fibers and resins • Kinship/family structure • Care for old and weak individuals48 Just a note on the often quoted lower brain size of Homo sapiens erectus (as I prefer to call these groups of human beings): His cranial capacities range from 727 to more than 1,200 cc49 – average 940 cc. Interestingly, his brain size is fully overlapped by that of normal (non-pathological) adult modern humans, which ranges from 624 cc (Daniel Lyon) to 2012 cc (Ivan Turgenev) – average 1345 cc (gender and age not considered). Cranial capacity of literature Nobel laureate Anatole France was 933 cc. Although there are still some evolutionary voices ranking Homo erectus as a link between the controversial Homo habilis (“handyman”) and/or some other so far unknown ancestor (including candidates from the genus Australopithecus) and Homo sapiens – according to many of the best modern paleoanthropologists Homo erectus is Homo sapiens. “There is strong evidence that the bones commonly referred to as Homo erectus are fully human individuals who suffered from various pathologies associated with such things as inbreeding, mutation, teratogens (developmental abnormalities), etc. Claims that Erectus was a subhuman species are clearly contested among leading evolutionary paleo-experts. While some insist Erectus was morphologically distinct from modern man, others point out that Erectus morphology overlaps extensively with modern humans – and so Erectus should be reclassified as Homo sapiens. While some claim they were our progenitors, others acknowledge that they coexisted and interbred with anatomically modern Homo sapiens.”50 http://www.weloennig.de/HumanEvolution.pdf Review of “Contested Bones” (Part 4 – Chapter 4 “Homo erectus”) – video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rtK0ScrQn4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm&index=4

The fossil evidence for the presumed evolution of humans from some type of ape-like ancestor, and as JVL's own reference makes clear, is not nearly as compelling as JVL apparently falsely imagines it to be. Hey, don't take my word for it, Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig quotes many leading paleontologists who also find the presumed fossil evidence for human evolution to be far from compelling.

Neo-Darwinism and the Big Bang of Man’s Origin – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – February 25, 2020 Excerpt: “There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to the advertisement for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape — …. On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.” – Bernard Wood, Bernard Wood, Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University, “Who are we?” New Scientist 176 2366: 44-47. 26 October 2002:,,, A Big Bang at Man’s Origin? To repeat the key points quoted above (from Darwinists themselves), we may emphasize that 1. “differences exist on an unusual scale” 2. “Homo sapiens appears […] distinctive and unprecedented” 3. “There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” 4. “…we evidently came by our unusual anatomical structure and capacities very recently.” 5. “…a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive” 6. “[W]e should not expect to find a series of intermediate fossil forms with decreasingly divergent big toes and, at the same time, a decreasing number of apelike features and an increasing number of modern human features.” 7. “No gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species [Homo sapiens], and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.” 8. “…early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary [as well as coexisting] australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.” 9. “Our interpretation is that the changes are sudden and interrelated,” “a genetic revolution.”,,, “…a rather minor structural innovation at the DNA level” appears to be, for all that can be known at present, a rather unsatisfactory proposal for a comparable origin of some 696 new features (out of 1065) which distinguish man from chimpanzees, 711 from orang, 680 from gorilla, 948 from Gibbon (Hylobathes), presupposing a similar magnitude of different anatomical and other features (“distinctive and unprecedented”) from his supposed animal ancestor, “our closest extinct kin,” not to speak of 15.6% differences on the DNA level between man and his alleged closest cousin, the chimpanzee, which means, in actual numbers, more than 450 million bp differences of the some 3 billion bp constituting the genomes overall.28,,, Almost any larger science museum around the globe presents a series of connecting links between extinct apes and humans such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”), Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugensis and others. For a brief overview on such assumed links see Lönnig (2019).38 I include there a series of references to papers and books that do not simply presuppose evolution and neo-Darwinism as the final truth on the origin of species without any scientific alternative (as is common practice nowadays). Instead, these works critically discuss the relevant details, showing in depth the untenability of the evolutionary scenarios usually given to these would-be links generally put forward as indisputable scientific facts…. 98.5 Percent Human/Chimp DNA Identity? Although long disproved, the assertion that human and chimp DNA display approximately 98.5 percent identity is still forwarded in many papers and books. The present state of the art has been clearly articulated by Richard Buggs, Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London. He asks, “What does the data say today in 2018, and how can it be described to the public in an adequate manner?” Key answer: “The total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4 percent” (“our minimum lower bound”)39, i.e., more than 450 million differences (15 percent of 3 billion bp = 450 million). https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/neo-darwinism-and-the-big-bang-of-mans-origin/ Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.

So again, the presumed fossil evidence for human evolution is not nearly as compelling as JVL, apparently, falsely imagines it to be. And unrestrained imagination, contrary to what Darwinists believe, simply does not equate to actual scientific evidence for their grandiose claims.

“We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.” Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),

Verse:

Genesis 5:2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them "Mankind" when they were created.

bornagain77

JVL- Just to push home my point KNM-ER 1470 ,1481 & 1590 are pretty much anatomically modern homo sapiens and are all contemporaneous to WT15000 , so just as there are different shape`s and sizes of humans now,they were different shapes and sizes of humans then . Marfin

JVL - So we have what is called in the article you posted an early human ,whats your point. The fact that variety of humans existed in the past just like they do now eg. pygmy's and the massi tribes of Kenya proves what exactly. Marfin

Marfin: Lets get away from generalities , give me the specific so called hominid fossil you are referring to, and I will answer your question. How about this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy JVL

JVL- Lets get away from generalities , give me the specific so called hominid fossil you are referring to, and I will answer your question. Marfin

“in biology, evolution is still the best game in town“ Actually, it’s “in materialist philosophy evolution is the only game in town.” tgpeeler

AaronS1978: Well that was a very good question yes a lot of it can be theological I honestly don’t have an exact answer at all I think it is a very complicated issue. But I am genuinely interested in the answer from an ID perspective. Honestly I feel it’s kind of a preload but that’s more of my personal opinion. All life (single cell and up) was given everything they needed to do what they needed to do. As time went on things changed as each organism continue to use the tools that were best for them. And you can see all the deviations in each branch of life. But that’s just kind of my opinion I don’t have an exact answer I think it's very good if you realise and admit that you haven't got all the answers. After all, seeking knowledge and enlightenment is a very good thing!! I'm not an intelligent designer proponent but if I were I would definitely stump for a kind of preloaded scenario. JVL

Buffalo: They were created by God, with the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality, freedom from sickness and infused knowledge. Pristine genetics. I don't think that actually answers my question. But if you don't want to answer my question then I can't do much about that. Just like with Bornagain77 who also didn't answer my question. Oh well. JVL

At JVL Well that was a very good question yes a lot of it can be theological I honestly don’t have an exact answer at all Honestly I feel it’s kind of a preload but that’s more of my personal opinion All life (single cell and up) was given everything they needed to do what they needed to do As time went on things changed as each organism continue to use the tools that were best for them And you can see all the deviations in each branch of life But that’s just kind of my opinion I don’t have an exact answer AaronS1978

JVL@3 They were created by God, with the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality, freedom from sickness and infused knowledge. Pristine genetics. buffalo

'Fun fact': the modern synthesis, i.e. 'Neo-Darwinism', (directly contrary to the claim made in the OP), is certainly NOT alive and well:

,, In the following video, Dr Denis Noble states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. Denis Noble - Rocking the foundations of biology - lecture video http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/ Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Denis Noble - 17 MAY 2013 Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134/abstract "Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology": Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin March 31, 2015 Excerpt: Noble doesn't mince words: "It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved." Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that "genetic change is random," (2) that "genetic change is gradual," (3) that "following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population," and (4) that "inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible." He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,, He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the "Integrative Synthesis," where genes don't run the show and all parts of an organism -- the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything -- is integrated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/physiology_is_r094821.html Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? - 12/04/2012 - Stuart A. Newman - Professor of cell biology and anatomy, New York Medical College Excerpt: In fact, adaptationist gradualism, though still popular in some scientific circles, is increasingly questioned and found wanting by evolutionary biologists working in an expanded set of disciplines.,,, First, let's look at some of the expectations of the natural selection-based modern synthesis (of Darwinism): (i) the largest differences within given categories of multicellular organisms, the animals or plants, for example, should have appeared gradually, only after exceptionally long periods of evolution; (ii) the extensive genetic changes required to generate such large differences over such vast times would have virtually erased any similarity between the sets of genes coordinating development in the different types of organism; and (iii) evolution of body types and organs should continue indefinitely. Since genetic mutation never ceases, novel organismal forms should constantly be appearing. All these predictions of the standard model have proved to be incorrect.,,, With a 19th century notion of incremental material transformations no longer relevant to comprehending the range of organismal variation that has appeared throughout the history of life on Earth, the other pillar of the standard model can be discarded along with it. Specifically,,, there is no need for cycles of selection for marginal adaptive advantage to be the default explanation for macroevolutionary change. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-a-newman/complex-organisms_b_2240232.html Die, selfish gene, die - The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong - Dec. 2013 Excerpt: But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited [introduced] this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: the biologist Richard Dawkins. In his magnificent book The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet (called the selfish gene). Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/epigenetics-dawkins-selfish-gene-discredited-by-still-more-scientists-you-should-have-heard-of/ Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford - February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/defending-the-validity-and-significance-of-the-new-theorem-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations-part-i-fishers-impact/ Geneticist Corrects Fisher’s Theorem, but the Correction Turns Natural Selection Upside Down - December 22, 2017 | David F. Coppedge A new paper corrects errors in Fisher’s Theorem, a mathematical “proof” of Darwinism. Rather than supporting evolution, the corrected theorem inverts it. Excerpt: The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.,,, The authors of the new paper realized that one of Fisher’s pivotal assumptions was clearly false, and in fact was falsified many decades ago. In his informal corollary, Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare. The simple fact that Fisher’s premise was wrong, falsifies Fisher’s corollary. Without Fisher’s corollary – Fisher’s Theorem proves only that selection improves a population’s fitness until selection exhausts the initial genetic variation, at which point selective progress ceases. Apart from his corollary, Fisher’s Theorem only shows that within an initial population with variant genetic alleles, there is limited selective progress followed by terminal stasis.,,, The authors observe that the more realistic the parameters, the more likely fitness decline becomes. https://crev.info/2017/12/geneticist-corrects-fishers-theorem/ Neutral Model, genetic drift and the Third Way—a synopsis of the self-inflicted demise of the evolutionary paradigm by Jeffrey P. Tomkins and Jerry Bergman - 2017 Abstract "Because of grievous deficiencies in the standard neo-Darwinian Model of evolution, which is largely selection driven, scientists proposed an alternative postulate called the ‘Neutral Model’ in the late 1960s. The Neutral Model is also mutation driven, but selection is deemed to be an insignificant force of change. Instead, random genetic drift is alleged to be the main driver. Since its inception, the Neutral Model has come to be incorporated in many theoretical evolutionary scenarios at some level. However, due to numerous discoveries in genomics and genome function, the Neutral Model has also become deficient, prompting a new move in science called the ‘Extended Evolutionary Synthesis’ or ‘The Third Way’, which takes a position of blissful ignorance and offers nothing tangible to extend or support evolutionary theory. While Third Way proponents recognize the deficiency of all popular evolutionary models, they maintain that more research is needed to elucidate unknown evolutionary mechanisms and processes despite the fact that the progress of scientific discovery is revealing nothing but unimaginable complexity." https://creation.com/evolutionary-mechanisms

bornagain77

Which is to say, if the reductive materialism upon which Neo-Darwinian evolution is based is actually true

Fun fact: at least two of the architects of the modern synthesis weren't materialists. Bob O'H

Ralph Dave Westfall/15

In relation to the title of this article, there’s a website called Internet Sacred Text Archive. I found it interesting that it has an online copy of Darwin’s Descent of Man.

I thought they had the sacred text of Pastafarianism when I saw The Book of Noodles listed but it's actually something different. Seversky

In relation to the title of this article, there's a website called Internet Sacred Text Archive. I found it interesting that it has an online copy of Darwin's Descent of Man. If Darwin's book is considered to be a "sacred text," that may explain some of the rhetoric we see. See https://sacred-texts.com/aor/darwin/descent/index.htm Ralph Dave Westfall

AaronS1978: I’m just going to say maybe the hypothesized designer didn’t allow all of those creatures to die out we just changed were the same species as we were millions of years ago with different traits I mean that’s evolution in a nutshell isn’t it I know what evolutionary theory says. I'm trying to figure out what particular ID proponents think happened. Do you think the designer preloaded the whole thing or are they tweaking things as it all plays out? Are such questions theological? JVL

I’m just going to say maybe the hypothesized designer didn’t allow all of those creatures to die out we just changed were the same species as we were millions of years ago with different traits I mean that’s evolution in a nutshell isn’t it AaronS1978

Bornagain77: JVL, you want to talk Theology I suggest you go talk to a theologian, you want to talk scientific evidence, I’ll be more than happy to point out how badly Darwin’s theory fails as a scientific theory. So, you can't answer the question. Fair enough. I was just wondering. But . . . if you think asking a 'why' question is theological then is your stance scientific? JVL

JVL, you want to talk Theology I suggest you go talk to a theologian, you want to talk scientific evidence, I'll be more than happy to point out how badly Darwin's theory fails as a scientific theory. Darwin's theory, contrary to the claim made in the OP, and as far as scientific evidence itself is concerned, is deader than a bucket of doornails! bornagain77

Bornagain77: Sorry JVL. I thought you were making a scientific argument instead of a Theological argument. You still didn't answer the question. JVL

Buffalo: Front loaded design and lineage splitting that results in some loss of function at each step leads to ultimate extinction once the limits of built in adaptation are reached. Okay . . . so humans came about how exactly? JVL

Sorry JVL. I thought you were making a scientific argument instead of a Theological argument. Sorry, my bad. I should have known better, Darwinian ideology has always been, at root, a theological argument, not a scientific argument.

Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html

bornagain77

Bornagain77: JVL, the fossil record for supposed human evolution is not nearly as compelling as you seem to believe. That's wasn't the point of my question though was it? If the ultimate goal was human beings then why all the precursors? It's a simple question. JVL

JVL@3 Front loaded design and lineage splitting that results in some loss of function at each step leads to ultimate extinction once the limits of built in adaptation are reached. buffalo

As to the claim that "Neo-Darwinism is alive and well". If, as they claim, "Neo-Darwinism is alive and well" then that renders all the rest of us dead and gone. Which is to say, if the reductive materialism upon which Neo-Darwinian evolution is based is actually true then we are not actually conscious beings with free will control over whatever actions we may choose to take. But we are merely neuronal illusions that are generated by our brain.

The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness - STEVEN PINKER - Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness "There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.,,, - A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 The Consciousness Deniers – Galen Strawson – March 13, 2018 Excerpt: What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience.,,, Who are the Deniers?,,, Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett.,,, http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/

Moreover, Darwinists hold that we are merely neuronal illusions generated by our brain who are merely having the illusion that we have free will control over whatever actions that we, as neuronal illusions, may choose to take. In other words, and according to Darwinian materialists, we are merely Neuronal illusions having illusions of free will.

THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it." - Jerry Coyne https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/

In effect, if Neo-Darwinism were actually true then we are ultimately forced to believe that we are, in essence, mindless zombies who are not really conscious and who do not really have any free will control over our bodies. Hey, don't take my word for it. Daniel Dennett himself admits that, if his Darwinian worldview were actually true then, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.

“(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004

As should be needless to say, the claim by Darwinian materialists, that his conscious experience of the world is not real, and that he is merely a neuronal illusion, is a blatantly self refuting claim for him, as a mindless zombie, to make. As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”

The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017 Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.” – David Bentley Hart https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

So again, if, as they claim, "Neo-Darwinism is alive and well" then that renders all the rest of us dead and gone. Fortunately for the rest of us who prefer to think of ourselves as being very much alive and well, and as far as the scientific evidence itself is concerned, "Neo-Darwinism is NOT alive and well" but Neo-Darwinism itself is instead deader than a bucket full of doornails. Which is to say, as far as the scientific evidence is concerned, Neo-Darwinian evolution has been empirically, (and logically), falsified many times over. Here are a few evidences that falsify Darwinian evolution. Falsifications that Darwinists themselves simply refuse, for whatever severely misguided reason, to ever accept as falsifications of their (supposedly scientific) theory:

Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

Verse:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

So thus in conclusion, we can rest assured that we are 'alive and well' since Darwinian evolution itself is, as far as the science itself is concerned, deader than a bucket full of doornails. As a sidenote, after years of debating Darwinists, it recently occurred to me that the number one reason for Darwinists believing in Darwinian evolution is not because of the scientific evidence, (there is none), but is because of their own personal animosity towards God. Don't believe me? Well, just debate Seversky for any length of time and you will soon start to see, instead of any scientific evidence, his irrational hostility towards God start to bleed out. Verse:

Proverbs 8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

Of supplemental note:

Dead as a doornail Dead as a doornail is a phrase which means not alive, unequivocally deceased. The term goes back to the 1300s, the phrase dead as a doornail is found in poems of the time. The term dead as a doornail was used in the 1500s by William Shakespeare, and in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol in 1843. It is thought that the phrase dead as a doornail comes from the manner of securing doornails that were hammered into a door by clenching them. Clenching is the practice of bending over the protruding end of the nail and hammering it into the wood. When a nail has been clenched, it has been dead nailed, and is not easily resurrected to use again. An alternative wording of the phrase dead as a doornail is deader than a doornail.

bornagain77

JVL, the fossil record for supposed human evolution is not nearly as compelling as you seem to believe. Just recently, the AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY "found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today."

Review: Most human origins stories are not compatible with known fossils - May, 6 2021 AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Excerpt: "When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it's just a big mess--there's no consensus whatsoever," said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History's Division of Anthropology and the lead author of the review. "People are working under completely different paradigms, and that's something that I don't see happening in other fields of science.”,,,, "In The Descent of Man in 1871, Darwin speculated that humans originated in Africa from an ancestor different from any living species. However, he remained cautious given the scarcity of fossils at the time," Almécija said. "One hundred fifty years later, possible hominins--approaching the time of the human-chimpanzee divergence--have been found in eastern and central Africa, and some claim even in Europe. In addition, more than 50 fossil ape genera are now documented across Africa and Eurasia. However, many of these fossils show mosaic combinations of features that do not match expectations for ancient representatives of the modern ape and human lineages. As a consequence, there is no scientific consensus on the evolutionary role played by these fossil apes." Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-05/amon-rmh050521.php

A few related notes:

Contested Bones: Is There Any Solid Fossil Evidence for Ape-to-Man Evolution? – Dr. John Sanford and Chris Rupe Excerpt: We have spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on this subject. We have discovered that within this field (paleoanthropology), virtually all the famous hominin types have either been discredited or are still being hotly contested. Within this field, not one of the hominin types have been definitively established as being in the lineage from ape to man. This includes the famous fossils that have been nicknamed Lucy, Ardi, Sediba, Habilis, Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal. Well-respected people in the field openly admit that their field is in a state of disarray. It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils. We will show that the actual fossil evidence is actually most consistent with the following three points. 1) The hominin bones reveal only two basic types; ape bones (Ardi and Lucy), and human bones (Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal). 2) The ape bones and the human bones have been repeatedly found together in the same strata – therefore both lived at the same basic timeframe (the humans were apparently hunting and eating the apes). 3) Because the hominin bones were often found in mixed bone beds (with bones of many animal species in the same site), numerous hominin types represent chimeras (mixtures) of ape and human bones (i.e., Sediba, Habilis). We will also present evidence that the anomalous hominin bones that are of the human (Homo) type most likely represent isolated human populations that experienced severe inbreeding and subsequent genetic degeneration. This best explains why these Homo bones display aberrant morphologies, reduced body size, and reduced brain volume. We conclude that the hominin bones do not reveal a continuous upward progression from ape to man, but rather reveal a clear separation between the human type and the ape type. The best evidence for any type of intermediate “ape-men” derived from bones collected from mixed bone beds (containing bones of both apes and men), which led to the assembly of chimeric skeletons. Therefore, the hominin fossils do not prove human evolution at all.,,, We suggest that the field of paleoanthropology has been seriously distorted by a very strong ideological agenda and by very ambitious personalities. https://ses.edu/contested-bones-is-there-any-solid-fossil-evidence-for-ape-to-man-evolution/ No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests - Oct. 21, 2013? Excerpt: The article, "No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans," relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins -- humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,, They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match. "None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor," Gómez-Robles said. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131021153202.htm?

bornagain77

BobRyan: When you look at the fossil record why do you think the hypothesised designer created all those hominids and then let them die out? JVL

Evolution has never been witnessed by anyone. Every test that has ever been done, no matter how rigged, has never shown one species becoming something else genetically different. Adaptation does occur, but adaptation does not bring about genetic changes to any species in question. Darwin, no matter how it is spun, was wrong. BobRyan

It would appear that, in biology, evolution is still the best game in town, although natural selection is now regarded as just one of the processes that contribute to it. Seversky