Evolution Human exceptionalism Intelligent Design

At Sci.News: Human Bipedalism May Have Evolved in Trees, Study Says

Spread the love

Bipedalism — walking upright on two legs — us a defining feature of the human lineage. It is thought to have evolved as forests retreated in the Late Miocene to Pliocene period.

Chimpanzees living in analogous habitats to early hominins offer a unique opportunity to investigate the ecological drivers of bipedalism that cannot be addressed via the fossil record alone. In new research, scientists focused on a community of eastern chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) in the Issa Valley, Tanzania, as the first test in a living ape of the hypothesis that wooded, savanna habitats were a catalyst for human bipedalism.

“Terrestrial (land-based) bipedalism is a defining feature of modern humans, and its morphological adaptations are critical to distinguishing fossils that fall within the human clade (hominins) from those of other apes (hominoids) over the past 7 million years,” said University of Kent researcher Rhianna Drummond-Clarke and colleagues.

“The shift to more arid and open environments in the Late Miocene-Pliocene (10 to 2.5 million years ago) has played a central role in hypotheses about hominin evolution.”

“In particular, the emergence and evolution of bipedalism is often considered to be a key adaptation to more open, dry habitats — termed ‘savanna,’ which includes wooded habitats with a grassy understory rather than only treeless grassland assumed in traditional ‘savanna hypotheses’ — in which hominins reduced the time spent in trees and increased terrestrial foraging and traveling as forests retreated.”

Drummond-Clarke et al. show that trees were an essential component of the hominin adaptive niche, with bipedalism evolving in an arboreal context, likely driven by foraging strategy. Illustration by Arturo Asensio, via Quo.es.
Drummond-Clarke et al. show that trees were an essential component of the hominin adaptive niche, with bipedalism evolving in an arboreal context, likely driven by foraging strategy. Illustration by Arturo Asensio, via Quo.es.

Note: Did the genetic information required for bipedalism already exist within hominoids? If not, no amount of environmental opportunity can reasonably be the cause of “the emergence and evolution of bipedalism.”

“Issa chimpanzees are well situated for testing the savanna effect on chimpanzee positional behavior, not only through comparison to forest-dwelling communities but also by comparing how individuals adjust their positional behavior across vegetation types within a savanna-mosaic habitat.”

The researchers recorded more than 13,700 instantaneous observations of positional behavior from 13 chimpanzee adults (six females and seven males), including almost 2,850 observations of individual locomotor events (e.g., climbing, walking, hanging, etc.), over the course of the 15-month study.

They then used the relationship between tree/land-based behavior and vegetation (forest vs woodland) to investigate patterns of association.

Similarly, they noted each instance of bipedalism and whether it was associated with being on the ground or in the trees.

“We found that the Issa chimpanzees spent as much time in the trees as other chimpanzees living in dense forests, despite their more open habitat, and were not more terrestrial as expected,” they said.

“Furthermore, although we expected the Issa chimpanzees to walk upright more in open savanna vegetation, where they cannot easily travel via the tree canopy, more than 85% of occurrences of bipedalism took place in the trees.”

Despite these findings, why humans alone amongst the apes first began to walk on two feet still remains a mystery.

“To date, the numerous hypotheses for the evolution of bipedalism share the idea that hominins came down from the trees and walked upright on the ground, especially in more arid, open habitats that lacked tree cover. Our data do not support that at all,” said Dr. Fiona Stewart, a researcher at University College London.

“Unfortunately, the traditional idea of fewer trees equals more terrestriality just isn’t borne out with the Issa data.”

“What we need to focus on now is how and why these chimpanzees spend so much time in the trees — and that is what we’ll focus on next on our way to piecing together this complex evolutionary puzzle.”

Full article at Sci.News.

The “mystery” of “why humans alone amongst the apes first began to walk on two feet,” and “why these chimpanzees spend so much time in the trees” presents yet another disconnect between the expectations of evolutionary theory and reality. However, both of these findings are in complete accord with the model of intelligent design, in which the Designer intended humans to walk on two feet and chimpanzees to spend most of their time in trees.

27 Replies to “At Sci.News: Human Bipedalism May Have Evolved in Trees, Study Says

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    and here we go again:

    and were not more terrestrial (land-based) as expected .

    The authors say that their findings contradict widely accepted theories that suggest that it was an open, dry savanna environment that encouraged our prehistoric human relatives to walk upright

    … Our data do not support that at all …

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/12/221214180655.htm

    Seversky, Sir Giles, JVL, Chuckdarwin and Co.

    This is how it ends, when you believe in just-so stories ….

    PS1: Darwinists are always wrong ….

    PS2: this article reminds me of why giraffes got their long necks :))) you know, the reaching-high-branches-to-feed just-so story …

  2. 2
    Nonlin.org says:

    The “common ancestor” would have been identical to the modern ape and entirely different than humans in all aspects where apes and humans differ.

    For instance, the ancestor would be hairy like apes and unlike humans, knuckle walker like apes and unlike humans, etc.

    So how could it be that one and only one branch (humans) deviates when all others (apes) do not change where it matters ? It wouldn’t. Hence the evo story makes no sense.

  3. 3
    relatd says:

    Does not even qualify as speculative fiction.

    Humans spending their time in trees instead of walking on two feet? How did they get water?

    There were no ‘primitive’ humans, just humans.

    Apes/monkeys were always apes/monkeys.

  4. 4
    Sir Giles says:

    However, both of these findings are in complete accord with the model of intelligent design, in which the Designer intended humans to walk on two feet and chimpanzees to spend most of their time in trees.

    But let’s be honest. You can use design to explain everything. Even evolution.

  5. 5
    relatd says:

    SG at 4,

    Unguided evolution does not allow for design except by accident.

    “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
    ([I]Biology[/I], by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

    “Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
    (Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)”

  6. 6
    martin_r says:

    Sir Giles

    You can use design to explain everything. Even evolution.

    Sure. But explaining things using design/creation arguments is what makes sense.
    Your random mutations/natural selection theory is as absurd as it gets. And it is fascinating, that so many well educated people STILL believe this nonsense.
    Darwinists always wrong, but for some unknown reason, people still believe what these guys say …

  7. 7
    martin_r says:

    Relatd,

    “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
    ([I]Biology[/I], by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

    I am not sure if you have heard of professor Michael Levin. He was mentioned here on UD in the past.
    He is a developmental and synthetic biologist at Tufts University.

    However, a few days ago, he released a very interesting Youtube presentation
    “Where is Anatomy Encoded in Living Systems?”
    I strongly suggest to watch the part where he is explaining his experiments with frogs limbs (starting at 10:35)

    In the end, he sums up (kind of funny when you consider he is a mainstream biologist):

    Biologists don’t love to think about goal directed processes, the idea is, there supposed to be emergence and kind of emergent complexity, but this idea that things are working towards a goal the way that any navigational system fundamentally does, is really not something that is very comfortable certainly for molecular biology …

    Levin’s video presentation is here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC2_S-wcJes

    The frog-limbs experiment presentation starts here:
    https://youtu.be/AC2_S-wcJes?t=636

  8. 8
    relatd says:

    Martin_r at 6,

    People have to believe in unguided evolution to prop up a worldview. The origin of the human being is accidental. Intelligent Design tells everyone: You were designed. So, like used car salesmen, the product – evolution – continues to be sold no matter how faulty it really is. No matter how contrary to the evidence. I mean, do you really want Intelligent Design textbooks in public schools? That would ruin years of accidents…

  9. 9
    Sir Giles says:

    Relatd@5, are you suggesting that your god is incapable of designing the universe to utilize evolution? I thought he was all powerful.

  10. 10
    relatd says:

    SG at 9,

    A simple statement but the real answer is more complicated.

    1) Science excludes God – any God.

    2) So, using the Catholic view, if a process occurred, it was entirely guided by God. Since Intelligent Design points to an intelligence then God is the answer.

    3) Public school textbooks cannot mention this at present. Any hint that the Designer is God will just draw lawsuits.

  11. 11
    Querius says:

    Comments on an earlier post are also relevant to this post:

    Querius December 15, 2022 at 2:05 pm
    And THIS is called science????

    Early humans may have first walked upright in the trees
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/12/221214180655.htm

    “May have”???? Hahahaha.

    If the researchers ever climbed any actual trees, they’d know that having hands at your lower limbs is FAR better for survival. Also, most travel in trees is vertically up and down, plus the fastest way to travel horizontally is by swinging and hurtling to the next branch.

    One wonders whether the researchers ever visited a zoo.

    -Q

    And . . .

    Querius December 15, 2022 at 2:10 pm
    Also, consider dexterity studies involving motor control of muscles. If we’re into science FANTASY with regard to evolution, I have a far better [science-fantasy] theory:

    Humans became bipedal as they depended increasingly on dexterous use of their hands. Bipedalism allowed humans to travel using two limbs, freeing up two limbs for wielding tools and throwing rocks with deadly accuracy.

    Any Darwinist care to disagree?

    -Q

    Again, any Darwinist here care to disagree?

    -Q

  12. 12
    chuckdarwin says:

    The researchers completely misinterpret these findings. Chimps and humans were both created ex nihilo as terrestrial, walking primates. Then after the debacle in the Garden of Eden, the chimps decided to steer clear of humans to avoid any more guilt by association and thus took to the trees en masse. An object lesson on making sure you pick the right neighborhood……

  13. 13
    chuckdarwin says:

    Relatd/10
    You know that religious groups have always been free to set up their own schools and teach what they want, teach from the Bible and pray to their heart’s content. Likewise, non-sectarian and non-religious families are entitled to public schools free of religion and religion-based curricula. Per No. (2) in your outline, you clearly envision teaching religion in science class, thus pushing your agenda in a public school setting would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment……..

  14. 14
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @12,

    The researchers completely misinterpret these findings.

    Really? What “findings” are you referring to?

    Assuming that you’ve chosen to mock Genesis rather than agreeing or disagreeing with the science-fantasy that passes for science or react to my own, more-likely science fantasy, let me point out that you’re not familiar with Genesis either.

    Genesis describes a sequence of creation, gross to fine, culminating in Eve. The first animal life followed vegetation, and was described as follows in the literal, word-for-word reading of the Seputagint.

    And God said, “Let the waters bring forth reptiles of living lives and flying winged creatures upon the earth under the firmament of the heaven.” And it was so. And God made the great sea monsters and every life of living creatures of reptiles which the waters brought forth according to their types, and every feathered winged creature according to type.”

    After that, God made land animals from the earth. He originally created them vegetarian. When the text comes to Adam, it describes Adam as being formed by God out of dust/ground/soil, and Eve was cloned from Adam, not ex nihilo.

    Tell me, how this is different from the current scientific consensus?

    And there are some major differences along with a high level of abstraction. And this is not a scientific explanation based on observable evidence, nor should it every be used in place of scientific investigation, which needs to follow a strict path of observation and evidence, leading to constantly changing ideas and theories.

    So back to the bipedal theory proposed and my question. Do you agree with bipedalism being the result of common ancestors of chimpanzees walking around in tree tops?

    -Q

  15. 15
    Sir Giles says:

    Relatd: 1) Science excludes god – any god.

    If you will excuse the vulgarity, bullshit.

  16. 16
    relatd says:

    Cd at 13,

    And there it is – religion in science class, followed by legal action. For the record, I don’t want any particular religion promoted in science class. That said, there’s this:

    ‘The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

    • “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

    • ‘Quoting our late Holy Father John Paul II: “The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”

    ‘Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. ‘

  17. 17
    Querius says:

    As I mentioned before as an analogy, historians agree that Alexander the Great conquered the entire world known to him. However, they’re not saying that he himself did this all himself, personally.

    Likewise, God doesn’t create everything ex nihilo, but provides it ways to reproduce and adapt. HOW he automates all this is, however, exactly in the realm of scientific investigation!

    -Q

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    Note: Did the genetic information required for bipedalism already exist within hominoids? If not, no amount of environmental opportunity can reasonably be the cause of “the emergence and evolution of bipedalism.”

    If there is a conservation law of information which holds that it can be neither created nor destroyed then the information required for bipedalism must always have existed in some form. Of course, such a hypothesis tends to obviate the need for a Creator/Designer.

    As for “new” information, the words in an English dictionary can be arranged by human authors into any number of books or articles. Are those books new information, given that those specific arrangements of words did not exist previously, or aren’t they, given that the words already existed in the dictionary?

    Is genetic information the same as the information we exchange here or is it something different, in which case, isn’t there a risk of ambiguity and equivocation in using the same term for both?

    The “mystery” of “why humans alone amongst the apes first began to walk on two feet,” and “why these chimpanzees spend so much time in the trees” presents yet another disconnect between the expectations of evolutionary theory and reality.

    Not really, this research seems to call into question the prevailing view that bipedalism was driven by substantial changes in the environment from predominantly forest to arid bushland but it is still conceivable that it could also be explained by our ancestors exploiting a ground-dwelling niche environment that was not occupied by other apes at that time. This would be in addition to the other advantages of bipedalism such as freeing forelimbs to be used for manipulation.

    However, both of these findings are in complete accord with the model of intelligent design, in which the Designer intended humans to walk on two feet and chimpanzees to spend most of their time in trees.

    Almost anything can be in accord with an all-purpose intelligent designer but that is not an explanation of “how” it’s just a speculation about a possible “who”.

  19. 19
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/10

    1) Science excludes God – any God.

    No, gods are not excluded, it’s just that their followers have not given science a good reason to include them.

    2) So, using the Catholic view, if a process occurred, it was entirely guided by God. Since Intelligent Design points to an intelligence then God is the answer.

    That may be the Catholic view but Catholicism has thus far been unable to provide good reasons to include it in science.

    3) Public school textbooks cannot mention this at present. Any hint that the Designer is God will just draw lawsuits.

    Any attempt to insert unsubstantiated religious beliefs into public school science textbooks would be both unethical, unconstitutional and rightly vulnerable to legal challenges.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    As to: “The shift to more arid and open environments in the Late Miocene-Pliocene (10 to 2.5 million years ago) has played a central role in hypotheses about hominin evolution.”

    Seeing that savannas existed 12 million years ago, not 10 to 2.5 million years ago, this would seem to present yet another ‘little’ problem to the ‘hypothesis’ that humans evolved from some ape-like creature,

    Another Difficulty with Darwinian Accounts of How Human Bipedalism Developed – David Klinghoffer – February 21, 2013
    Excerpt: A Darwinian evolutionary bedtime story tells of how proto-man achieved his upright walking status when the forests of his native East Africa turned to savannas. That was 4 to 6 million years ago, and the theory was that our ancestors stood up in order to be able to look around themselves over the sea of grasslands, which would have been irrelevant in the forests of old.
    A team of researchers led by USC’s Sarah J. Feakins, writing in the journal Geology, detonate that tidy explanation with their finding that the savannas, going back 12 million years, had already been there more than 6 million years when the wonderful transition to bipedalism took place (“Northeast African vegetation change over 12 m.y.”).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....69411.html

    Also, another ‘little’ problem for Darwinian ‘just-so stories’ is the fact that, “the energetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are smaller than the differences between very closely related species that share the same type of locomotion”

    Energy Efficiency Doesn’t Explain Human Walking? Sept. 17, 2012
    Excerpt: Why hominids evolved upright walking is one of the biggest questions in human evolution. One school of thought suggests that bipedalism was the most energetically efficient way for our ancestors to travel as grasslands expanded and forests shrank across Africa some five million to seven million years ago. A new study in the Journal of Human Evolution challenges that claim, concluding that the efficiency of human walking and running is not so different from other mammals.
    Physiologists Lewis Halsey of the University of Roehampton in England and Craig White of the University of Queensland in Australia compared the efficiency of human locomotion to that of 80 species of mammals, including monkeys, rodents, horses, bears and elephants.,,,
    To evaluate whether energy efficiency played a role in the evolution of upright walking, Halsey and White note that hominids should be compared to their closest relatives. For example, if human walking is more efficient than chimpanzee walking than you would expect based on chance alone, then it lends support to the energy-efficiency explanation. But that’s not what the researchers found. In fact, the energetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are smaller than the differences between very closely related species that share the same type of locomotion, such as red deer versus reindeer or African dogs versus Arctic foxes. In some cases, even different species within the same genus, such as different types of chipmunks, have greater variation in their walking efficiencies than humans and chimps do.
    http://blogs.smithsonianmag.co.....n-walking/

    In short, as far as energy efficiency is concerned, there simply is no reason why it would be advantageous for an ape to evolve into a bipedal mode of locomotion.

    As to the main finding of the present paper,

    Human Bipedalism May Have Evolved in Trees, Study Says – Dec 15, 2022
    Excerpt: “We found that the Issa chimpanzees spent as much time in the trees as other chimpanzees living in dense forests, despite their more open habitat, and were not more terrestrial as expected,” they said.
    “Furthermore, although we expected the Issa chimpanzees to walk upright more in open savanna vegetation, where they cannot easily travel via the tree canopy, more than 85% of occurrences of bipedalism took place in the trees.”
    Despite these findings, why humans alone amongst the apes first began to walk on two feet still remains a mystery.
    “To date, the numerous hypotheses for the evolution of bipedalism share the idea that hominins came down from the trees and walked upright on the ground, especially in more arid, open habitats that lacked tree cover. Our data do not support that at all,” said Dr. Fiona Stewart, a researcher at University College London.
    “Unfortunately, the traditional idea of fewer trees equals more terrestriality just isn’t borne out with the Issa data.”
    “What we need to focus on now is how and why these chimpanzees spend so much time in the trees — and that is what we’ll focus on next on our way to piecing together this complex evolutionary puzzle.”
    https://www.sci.news/othersciences/anthropology/human-bipedalism-11482.html

    So yet again, we find another imaginary ‘just-so story’ for evolution bites the dust when it is confronted with real world data.,,,, How unsurprising!

    Stephen Jay Gould once ‘let the cat out of the bag’, so to speak, in revealing just how reliant Darwinists are on pure imagination rather than on any substantiating scientific evidence.,,, Gould, in an article entitled “The Art of Story Telling” no less, stated that, “When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”

    Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530

    And no where is this science-free ‘art of storytelling’ more abused by Darwinists than in their various speculative ‘narratives’ of human evolution.

    “most hominid fossils, even though they serve as a basis for endless speculation and elaborate storytelling, are fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls.”
    – Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, page 126 (W.W. Norton, 1980).

    “The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”
    – Ernst Mayr – What Makes Biology Unique?, p. 198 (2004).

    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/

    As to, “it’s just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever”, in the following article it was noted that, “A recent issue of Science presents the six different explanations of hominid evolution,,,”

    Human Evolution
    Excerpt: Tattersall thinks H. erectus was an evolutionary dead end. Uconn says he was our immediate ancestor. There are several other differences which we won’t take the time to point out.
    A recent issue of Science presents the six different explanations of hominid evolution at the right, which they refer to as “Figure 1.” Their caption says:
    Figure 1. Cladograms favored in recent early hominin parsimony analyses. (A) Most parsimonious cladogram recovered by Chamberlain and Wood (19) using Chamberlain’s (18) operational taxonomic units. Homo sp. = H. rudolfensis. (B) Most parsimonious cladogram obtained in Chamberlain (18). African H. erectus = H. ergaster. (C) Cladogram favored in Wood (9). Homo sp. nov. = H. rudolfensis and H. aff. erectus = H. ergaster. (D) Most parsimonious cladogram recovered by Wood (2). A. boisei includes A. aethiopicus. (E) Most parsimonious cladogram obtained by Lieberman et al. (20). 1470 group = H. rudolfensis; 1813 group = H. habilis. (F) Cladogram favored by Strait et al. (17).
    http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i4f.htm

    Shoot, even three different members of the same Leakey family produced three different ‘family trees’ for supposed human evolution,

    The Truth About Human Origins:
    Excerpt: “It is practically impossible to determine which “family tree” (for human evolution) one should accept. Richard Leakey (of the famed fossil hunting family from Africa) has proposed one. His late mother, Mary Leakey, proposed another. Donald Johanson, former president of the Institute of Human Origins in Berkeley, California, has proposed yet another. And as late as 2001, Meave Leakey (Richard’s wife) has proposed still another.,,”
    http://books.google.com/books?.....8;lpg=PT28

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    And given the susceptibility of humans to fall prey to the old sins of pride and greed, then one can easily see why there are so many different conflicting ‘narratives’ for human evolution. As the late Phillip Johnson humorously noted, “Any economist can give you the answer to that. Human ancestors have a great American value and so they are produced at a much greater rate.,,”

    “What I saw about the fossil record again,, was that Gould and Eldridge were experts in the area where the animal fossil record is most complete. That is marine invertebrates.,, And the reason for this is that when,, a bird, or a human, or an ape, or a wolf, or whatever, dies,, normally it does not get fossilized. It decays in the open, or is eaten by scavengers. Things get fossilized when they get covered over quickly with sediments so that they are protected from this natural destructive process. So if you want to be a fossil, the way to go about it is to live in the shallow seas, where you get covered over by sediments when you die,,. Most of the animal fossils are of that kind and it is in that area where the fossil record is most complete. That there is a consistent pattern.,, I mean there is evolution in the sense of variation, just like the peppered moth example. Things do vary, but they vary within the type. The new types appear suddenly, fully formed, without an evolutionary history and then they stay fundamentally stable with (cyclical) variation after their sudden appearance, and stasis (according) to the empirical observations made by Gould and Eldridge. Well now you see, I was aware of a number of examples of where evolutionary intermediates were cited. This was brought up as soon as people began to make the connection and question the (Darwinian) profession about their theory in light of the controversy. But the examples of claimed evolutionary transitionals, oddly enough, come from the area of the fossil record where fossilization is rarest. Where it is least likely to happen.,,,
    One of things that amused me is that there are so many fossil candidates for human ancestorship, and so very few fossils that are candidates for the great apes.,, There should be just as many. But why not? Any economist can give you the answer to that. Human ancestors have a great American value and so they are produced at a much greater rate.,,
    These also were grounds to be suspicious of what was going on,,,
    ,,,if the problem is the greatest where the fossil record is most complete and if the confirming examples are found where fossils are rarest, that doesn’t sound like it could be the explanation.” ?- Phillip Johnson – April 2012 – audio/video 15:05 minute mark to 19:15 minute mark ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....age#t=903s?

    In short, there is the temptation of fame and fortune for the person who makes the supposed ‘next’ great paleontological discovery in human evolution. Whereas a dry academic career await those who don’t ‘rock the boat’ so to say. Which is, obviously, hardly the type of environment that one needs in order to foster dispassionate and honest appraisal of the fossil evidence.

    Moreover, the propensity of the mainstream media to overhype any finding in supposed human evolution, no matter how ‘stretched’ that finding may be, certainly does not help matters.

    As Casey Luskin noted at the 9:49 minute mark of the following video, the mainstream media will severely ‘hype’ a new fossil find that supposedly ‘proves’ human evolution, and then subsequently ignore, and/or ‘bury’, any falsifying evidence that inevitably comes shortly thereafter,

    Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution: Hype or Good Science?
    https://youtu.be/uuU_UELy4hQ?t=588

    As well there is the ‘little’ problem of untethered ‘artistic license’ that goes into reconstructing our supposed ape-like ancestors in museums,,, an untethered ‘artistic license’ that further leads an unsuspecting public astray.

    As the following 2021 articles stated, “(artistic) hominin reconstructions vary in appearance considerably”,,, and,, “a great deal of ‘scientific/artistic licence’ is inappropriately used in ‘hominin’ reconstructions.,,,”

    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

    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

    And as a leading researcher of the previous 2021 paper 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

    For example of untethered ‘artistic license’ in reconstructing our supposed evolutionary past, 4 artists, using the same bone fragments, produced 4 very different ‘ancestor’ drawings.

    “The (National) Geographic’s art department gave casts of 7 incomplete bone fragments (left) to 4 “candidates” who would be competing for a very prestigious, possibly lucrative, position with a highly respected and well known magazine.
    These “candidates” were told that the bones were from a “female”, (how they know this is a mystery) Homo habilis fossil. They were also told that “she” is a two-million year old (using falsified radiometric dating methods) evolutionary ancestor of man and that they were looking for a “realistic-looking hominid”.
    Wanting to please their possible future employer, these artists “independently” produced the 4 very “different” ancestors you see here.
    Based on these “guidelines”, predetermined results and an artist wanting to land a job, you get the results you see. This is not “empirical science”. It is “metaphysical science” pure and simple!”?
    “Behind the Scenes,” National Geographic 197 (March, 2000): 140?http://www.omniology.com/JackalopianArtists.html?

    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/2.....62101.html

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    As if misleading the public was not bod enough, it also turns out that the overt racism of Charles Darwin himself, and yes he was an overt racist no matter what Darwinists may try to claim to the contrary,

    “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 artistic reconstructions of human evolution in 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 racially motivated, 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, for all intents and purposes, based entirely 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 fantasy and fairy tales than it does 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.’

  23. 23
    relatd says:

    What a load of baloney. Human beings need to eat today and every day. This fake fiction that a change in the environment ‘forced’ humans to start walking does not read like good fiction should. It is a fake idea made to sound true but is only an elaborate story. Nothing more.

    Regarding misleading the public, there are a few here who promote evolution as if it happened as described in Biology textbooks. However, it exists primarily to promote an atheist worldview. To tell people they are accidents. The result of a long process that did not have humans in mind. You would think that textbooks would exclude philosophy or religious references but that is not true. The following shows the real ‘value’ of teaching evolution to people.

    “By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
    ([I]Evolutionary Biology[/I], by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

  24. 24
    Caspian says:

    To SG@9:
    You ask: “are you suggesting that your god is incapable of designing the universe to utilize evolution? I thought he was all powerful.”
    The question is not, “Could he?” but “Did he?”
    Since God, by definition, is all-powerful, the answer to the first question is “Yes.”
    Since our study of nature shows that evolutionary processes could not have brought about life as we know it by natural processes within our universe, the answer to the second question is “No.”
    Given the laws of physics extant within our universe, abiogenesis by the forces of nature is beyond the capabilities of those forces. Therefore, life would have to be formed by divine intervention. Everything we know about nature affirms this conclusion.

  25. 25
    Caspian says:

    To Seversky @18:
    You say, “If there is a conservation law of information which holds that it can be neither created nor destroyed then the information required for bipedalism must always have existed in some form. Of course, such a hypothesis tends to obviate the need for a Creator/Designer.”
    You seem to miss the point. Let me rephrase the issue:
    If there is a conservation law of information which holds that information cannot be systematically increased by natural processes within the universe, and if the origin of even a single living cell represents an exponential increase in the information content of the universe, then the origin of that cell did not happen naturally, but it must have come about by an input of information from beyond the physical universe. This conclusion is consistent with the record of the Bible, which states that God is the author of life.

  26. 26
    relatd says:

    Caspian at 25,

    Make sure this doesn’t get into public schools or the first call will be to the ACLU.

  27. 27
    Querius says:

    Looks like Chuckdarwin concedes my points @14 and has retreated to another discussion, ignoring my question:

    So back to the bipedal theory proposed and my question. Do you agree with bipedalism being the result of common ancestors of chimpanzees walking around in tree tops?

    If nothing else, it demonstrates a higher priority of pontificating in newer posts than answering questions in older ones. In my estimation, this reduces his credibility to the level of a verbal form of vacuous graffiti spray painted on a wall.

    -Q

Leave a Reply