Vox offers three “unexplainable” mysteries of life on Earth

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 9, 2023

Biology, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In three podcasts at Vox:

How did life start on Earth? What was the series of events that led to birds, bugs, amoebas, you, and me?
That’s the subject of Origins, a three-episode series from Unexplainable — Vox’s podcast that explores big mysteries, unanswered questions, and all the things we learn by diving into the unknown. – Brian Resnick (March 1, 2023)

The three mysteries they offer are:

Where did Earth’s water come from?
How did life start in that water?
What is life anyway?

About that last: Science writer Carl Zimmer offers “The problem is, for each definition of life, scientists can think of a confounding exception. Take, for instance, NASA’s definition of life: “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.” But that definition would exclude viruses, which are not “self-sustaining” and can only survive and replicate by infiltrating a host.”

Comments

There will be no progress on this site till everyone uses the same definitions. For example, what does the term “evolution” mean. People will use it differently from one sentence to the next and sometimes within the same sentence. If it just means change, it is a trivial word. Similarly, “natural selection” which is just what happens anywhere in the world is used differently all the time. So any rime someone uses the expression, all they are doing is saying what happened, happened. A perfectly useless term. Then there is the term “Darwin” that is used in all sorts of variations without any thought of the meaning in a particular context. Just what does the term “Darwinian” mean? Then there are words for which there is no accepted definition. One here is “life” but like “evolution” and “natural selection” are used all the time with the user unaware of the context in which it is used. Then there times we use definitions and don’t know it. For example, “2+2=4” is a definition but people then question this without understanding it’s a definition. Adding two and two must equal something. We call that thing “4” so it is just a definition. There are other terms such as “theory” and “science” which are rarely used with common definitions. But we confuse the different meanings of each as if they were the same. But that is UD where understanding is definitely not an objective.jerry_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

And as if grossly misleading the public with 'artistic license' was not bod enough for Darwinists, it also turns out that the overt racism of Charles Darwin himself,,,
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178
,, it also turns out that the overt racism of Charles Darwin himself is 'systemically' present in these misleading artistic reconstructions of human evolution in natural history museums.
Human Evolution as a “Path to Whiteness” – November 24, 2021 Excerpt: Do Your Own Google Search I had never thought of this before. In contemporary museum displays and other evolutionary depictions, just as in Darwin’s Descent of Man and in the notorious Civic Biology textbook that was at issue in the 1925 Scopes Trial, human origins are portrayed as an upward progress from dark to white. Neanderthals, however otherwise “primitive” (which is questionable in itself), are shown as light-skinned. And maybe they were, but modern man — Homo sapiens — is almost invariably white and European, not African or Asian. Check out some examples from around the Internet, here, here, here, here, and here. (links on site) Do a Google image search for the phrase “human evolution” and you’ll see many others. Just a coincidence? Or is Darwin’s racist legacy still with us today? You tell me. For a deeper exploration of that legacy, see John West’s documentary Human Zoos. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/human-evolution-as-a-path-to-whiteness/
Moreover, if we rightly ignore these highly misleading, even systemically racist, artistic reconstructions that Darwinists have put forth in museums, and look soberly and dispassionately at the scientific evidence itself, we find that the scientific evidence itself contradicts the Darwinian ‘narrative’,, and it contradicts it at every turn.
Jan. 2022 Fossil Record refutes human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-fox-news-adam-and-eve-are-compatible-with-evolution/#comment-744141 Fossils and Human Evolution (full series) – Casey Luskin – Oct. 2022 https://evolutionnews.org/tag/fossils-and-human-evolution-series/ Sept: 2022 – Genetic Evidence falsifies the claim the humans evolved from apes-like creature. And falsifies it in a ‘hard’ manner. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-did-life-first-arise-by-purely-natural-means/#comment-765765 Darwinists simply have no evidence that morphology, and/or biological form, is reducible to mutations to DNA. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740247 Population Genetics falsifies, instead of confirms, Darwinian claims for human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/christian-darwinists-must-now-backtrack-re-adam-and-eve/#comment-741335 Human exceptionalism falsifies Darwinian claims for human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740249 Darwinists, (in what makes the ‘problem’ of explaining the origin of the human species pale in comparison), have no clue whatsoever why “I” should even come into existence as a “person” with a unique individual subjective conscious experience, but are instead reduced to arguing that my sense of self, my “I”, is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-the-mytho-history-of-adam-eve-and-william-lane-craig/#comment-740568
Thus in conclusion, the claim from Darwinists that humans evolved from some ape-like creature is found to be almost entirely, if not entirely, based on untethered imagination and ‘artistic reconstruction’, rather than on any substantiating, much less any compelling, scientific evidence. In short, the ‘narrative’ of human evolution belongs far more to the realm of Alice in Wonderland fantasy and fairy tales than it belongs in the real world of empirical science.
Genesis 1: 26-28 Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’
bornagain77_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

The origin of human beings from primitive ape-like precursors is one — just one — of the definitions of “evolution” that the public and the media carry around in their heads. Not surprisingly, the iconic transition from ape to man is the first, second, third, and fourth image produced by a Google image search for the term 'evolution'. https://www.google.com/search?q=evolution&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiL2oOXo9H9AhVqzMkDHRWmCDsQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=evolution&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQDFAAWABgAGgAcAB4AIABAIgBAJIBAJgBAKoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1n&sclient=img&ei=rxYLZMvGBOqYp84Plcyi2AM&bih=728&biw=1440&client=safari Yet, the supposed evidence for human evolution is far from being a slam dunk for Darwinists. In May of 2020, via an article from the American Museum of Natural History, (which is certainly no creationist organization), it was stated, ““Humans are storytellers: Theories of human evolution often resemble “anthropogenic narratives” that borrow the structure of a hero’s journey,, but unless grounded in testable hypotheses, they are no more than “just-so stories”,,,, “When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever.”
Scientists Conclude: Human Origins Research Is a Big Mess – Günter Bechly – May 10, 2021 Excerpt: Finally, the article concludes with this gem: “Humans are storytellers: Theories of human evolution often resemble “anthropogenic narratives” that borrow the structure of a hero’s journey to explain essential aspects such as the origins of erect posture, the freeing of the hands, or brain enlargement (166). Intriguingly, such narratives have not drastically changed since Darwin (166). We must be aware of confirmation biases and ad hoc interpretations by researchers aiming to confer their new fossil the starring role within a preexisting narrative. Evolutionary scenarios are appealing because they provide plausible explanations based on current knowledge, but unless grounded in testable hypotheses, they are no more than “just-so stories” (167).” Hardly any ID proponent could have said it better. Fancy storytelling in the style of Kiplingesque “just-so stories” is indeed a hallmark of the soft science of modern evolutionary biology in general, and paleoanthropology in particular.,,, In this press release the senior author of the new study, Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History, is also quoted as offering this remarkable admission: “When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever.” https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/scientists-conclude-human-origins-research-is-a-big-mess/
And as the following video reveals, and as is typical for Darwinian 'just-so stories', the ape to man icon is based far more on unrestrained imagination than it is based on any actual substantiating scientific evidence.
Human Evolution: The Monkey Bias (Science Uprising, EP8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGzXAgFSbnk
As the following 2021 articles stated, “(artistic) hominin reconstructions vary in appearance considerably”,,,
Visual Depictions of Our Evolutionary Past: A Broad Case Study Concerning the Need for Quantitative Methods of Soft Tissue Reconstruction and Art-Science Collaborations – Feb. 2021 Excerpt: Flip through scientific textbooks illustrating ideas about human evolution or visit any number of museums of natural history and you will notice an abundance of reconstructions attempting to depict the appearance of ancient hominins. Spend some time comparing reconstructions of the same specimen and notice an obvious fact: hominin reconstructions vary in appearance considerably.,,, The role an artist plays is also analyzed and criticized given how the aforementioned reconstructions have become readily accepted to line the halls of even the most trusted institutions. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.639048/full
As a leading researcher of the 2021 paper further noted, “I expected to find consistency in those reconstructions displayed in natural history museums, but the differences, even there, were so severe that I almost thought all previous practitioners had never encountered a single hominid reconstruction before commencing their own.”
Human ancestor ‘Lucy’ gets a new face in stunning reconstruction – Laura Geggel – March 03, 2021 Excerpt:,, reconstructions of Lucy, the Taung child and other early humans were made by artists who made assumptions that aren’t testable with current science, including whether these ancient species looked more like apes or modern humans, and how their soft tissues, including their muscles and the thickness of their skin, appeared. These reconstructions are often found in natural history museums and are meant to educate the public about human evolution.,, ,,, the researchers,, found that many reconstructions “have been largely unchallenged by the scientific community and displayed in museums with very little empirical evidence to support them,”,,, When they looked at depictions around the world, they found that every museum’s version of Lucy looked very different, review lead researcher Ryan Campbell, a doctoral student in the Department of Anatomy & Pathology at the University of Adelaide in Australia, wrote in the blog. “I expected to find consistency in those reconstructions displayed in natural history museums, but the differences, even there, were so severe that I almost thought all previous practitioners had never encountered a single hominid reconstruction before commencing their own.” A previous analysis of reconstructions of 860 hominins (a group including humans, monkeys and their extinct close relatives) from 55 museum displays showed remarkable inconsistencies, even those depicting the same individuals. https://www.livescience.com/lucy-taung-child-facial-reconstructions.html
and as the following article noted, “a great deal of ‘scientific/artistic licence’ is inappropriately used in ‘hominin’ reconstructions.,,,”
Ancestor bias – Museum depictions of ‘human ancestors’ challenged—by evolutionists by Philip Robinson – Nov. 2022 Excerpt: A team of researchers recently looked at artistic renderings of humans’ alleged ape-like ancestors. They openly discussed a wide range of issues of concern in how these are depicted.1 The team noted that there have been very few ‘hominin’ fossils ever found. In fact, they highlighted that the total number of finds is less than the number of anthropologists active today. So, comparing reconstructions of the small number of individual hominin finds is relatively easy.,,, In wanting to appear to present a coherent and convincing story of evolution, a great deal of ‘scientific/artistic licence’ is inappropriately used in ‘hominin’ reconstructions.,,, In fact, australopithecines in many respects “clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.”4 Also, they did not, as many believe, walk upright in the human manner.5 https://creation.com/museum-apemen-challenged-by-evolutionists
Imagination and speculation, not science, plays a far larger role in ‘artistic reconstructions’ for human evolution than the general public is aware of. As Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science, “Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it…. Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.
Paleoanthropology Excerpt: Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at Yale University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.[3] In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.[4] Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey’s book Origins in the journal American Scientist and he stated the following: “…perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.”[5],,, In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature: “Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it…. Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.[13][14]” https://www.conservapedia.com/Paleoanthropology
As Earnest A. Hooton of Harvard stated, “alleged restoration of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public”
The Fragmented Field of Paleoanthropology – July 2012 Excerpt: “alleged restoration of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public” Earnest A. Hooton – physical anthropologist – Harvard University http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/the_fragmented_062101.html
bornagain77_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

How do you propose they do it? Step by step please.
Cart before horse. Data before interpretation. There isn't any yet.Alan Fox_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Then is NASA brain dead when they propose/fall for this "test"? How do you propose they do it? Step by step please.Nonlin.org_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

I wonder if humans are “capable of Darwinian evolution”.
Individual organisms, including humans, do not evolve. The evolutionary process occurs with changes in allele frequency within populations.Alan Fox_{March 9, 2023
March
03
Mar
9
09
2023
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

I wonder if humans are "capable of Darwinian evolution". Can we see some proof?Nonlin.org_{March 9, 2023
March
03
Mar
9
09
2023
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply