Humans descended from ape-like creatures? A skeptical look at the fossil record

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 28, 2013

Human evolution}

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

From the new special edition of science and culture mag Salvo on science and faith:

Casey Luskin asks,”Has Science Shown That We Evolved from Ape-like Creatures?

It is not uncommon for evolutionary scientists like Wetherington (even those who teach at Christian universities) to be adamant about the evidence in favor of human evolution. Digging into the technical literature, however, we find a situation that’s starkly different from the one presented by Wetherington and many other evolutionary scientists who engage in public debates.

A closer look at the literature shows that hominin fossils generally fall into one of two categories—ape-like species or human-like species (of the genus Homo)—and that there is a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the claims of many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors. In fact, scientists are quite sharply divided over who or what our human ancestors even were. Newly discovered fossils are often initially presented to the public with great enthusiasm and fanfare, but once cooler heads prevail, their status as human evolutionary ancestors is invariably called into question. More.

Comments

If brain sizes had been getting larger, it would have been accepted uncritically as Yet Another Proof of Darwinism. But since brain sizes have instead been observed to be getting smaller, it gets a little more complicated. First, it has to be noted that brain size does not always correlate with intelligence, and that evolution MUSTA resulted in a more efficent organization of the brain, allowing it to become smaller, faster, and facilitating childbirth. So, despite the initial scare, it will then be confirmed that smaller brain sizes are Yet Another Proof of Darwinism. And people wonder why some of us have a problem calling this Science?Querius_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PST}

goodusername, though I have already noted Luskin's and Geim's valid complaint that Darwinists have focused on this one single variable to the exclusion of all the rest of the evidence that Luskin presents to support his case for an abrupt appearance, I have one more piece of evidence. A piece of evidence directly countering the Darwinist's singled minded focus on skull sizes. A piece of evidence that comes from where our record is far more complete than the disjointed and fragmented fossil record for skulls that Darwinist are currently trying to build their present case with:
If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
Why is it always when we get to where the evidence is real clear for us instead of murky and hard to make out, that the evidence, with that added clarity, always runs counter to Darwinian expectations? Also of interest to brain sizes is the fact that Darwinists cannot even account for the origination of a single neuron, much less the entire reorganization of a brain. Consider the complexity being dealt with:
Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html
It is simply beyond ludicrous to believe that that level of fantastic complexity, sitting inside each of our skulls, accidentally, through blind/random material processes, organized itself into what has repeatedly referred to as the 'most complex structure in the universe'. Shoot we cannot even accurately model a single neuron accurately due to the level of integrated complexity involved:
"Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 2012 Excerpt: "This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years.,,, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.",,, Even with shortcuts like averaging, "any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system," Koch said. to read more go here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html
Of course none of these deep underlying issues which should give severe pause, if not outright falsification of the Darwinian account, are ever honestly dealt with by Darwinists. It's all a big yawn for them as far as I can tell. But by golly give them a crushed bone fragment from half a million years ago and they think they have just verified General Relativity to another order of magnitude. I truly would have never believed such dishonesty would be allowed in science until I seen it first hand for myself!bornagain77_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PST}

Quoting Ian Tattersall (#10) for evidence against hominid evolution is bound to be out of context - he made distinguished contributions to our understanding of human evolution. Based in some part on what I have learned from him, here is the forest, where this discussion seems to be over trees. First, fossilized remains of anything are very rare, so forget trying to find (or demanding that someone find) the "missing link" between chimpanzee/bonobo ancestors and human ancestors. If it follows the path of most speciation, the founding population was very small, and likely not located in a spot that would both create fossils and then yield them up to the surface for us to find. Second, (and definitely Tattersall's point) our evolution is more like a bush than a tree, and the fossils we to have are more likely twigs a bit off the stem than directly ancestral to human beings. Every paleoanthropologist demands that his fossil is obviously directly ancestral, since that's how you make a stellar career in that business (those guys fight with sharp knives), but they are more likely similar to, but not quite on, the line. Third, there are bunches of dead ends, some of which we have. Not all those Austrolopithicus species could be directly ancestral, and it is only recently (Tattersall's point again) that there has been only one hominid species on Earth at the same time. Overall, the fossil record keeps improving, and the conflicts keep getting argued out, so we are getting much closer to an understanding of our lineage. There has been a big change in the forty years that I have been in contact with (but not a participant in)the field. Sadly, we have virtually nothing on the other side - the evolution from the split seven or so million years ago down to the chimps and bonobos today. It appears that they simply did not live in areas that allowed fossils to form.tkeithlu_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PST}

BA #94
Moreover, I don’t hold any firm position on the fossil record as I am a complete novice in this area as I stated before. Thus my suggestion that Dr. Torley correspond with Luskin personally so as to iron out their differences.
Fair enough. A discussion between the two would be interesting.
Well I certainly can see the disparity he is talking about, especially when the color is added to the graph and the disputed fossils (skulls) are boxed (plus when ‘artistic license’ is considered).
Well, of course, the reason why certain fossils are "disputed" is because they're intermediate. Notice that the disputed fossils are those with "multiple designations," in other words some paleontologists argue that a fossil is Homo while others argues it's australopithecine. Obviously if you were to remove from the graph all such "disputed" fossils, it will create a gap between australopithecines and Homo, since you just removed the fossils on the border. :-)goodusername_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PST}

Bornagain77 observed
Which brings me to the main evidence. Darwinists HAVE NO DEMONSTRATED MECHANISM to explain the changes even if the fossil record did offer a non-punctuated view of life.
Exaggerating some previous responses . . . But it MUSTA happened, so it's just a matter of time before a plausible explanation surfaces that a consensus of evolution scientists agree on, gets published in a refereed journal, and is taught in schools and colleges, which makes it true. Unlike God-of-the-gaps explanations, Darwin-of-the-gaps explanations are infinitely more scientific, assuming that God doesn't exist, of course.
Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees.
Of course! - That's why among some previously cannibalistic peoples, it was discovered that pork tasted like human flesh. In the Marquesas Islands of Polynesia, human flesh was called "long pig." - According to at least one Islamic scholar, the Qur’an does NOT call Jews the offspring of “pigs and apes” (it was referring to a specific ancient town in which Jews lived, and among them were people who broke the Sabbath law). - Winston Churchill famously said, "I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." While none of these points in itself provides definitive proof of the McCarthy Hypothesis, taken together, they provide remakable synergistic convergence. It's just matter of time before conclusive genetic evidence is assembled. ;-)Querius_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PST}

Well I certainly can see the disparity he is talking about, especially when the color is added to the graph and the disputed fossils (skulls) are boxed (plus when 'artistic license' is considered). Moreover, I don't hold any firm position on the fossil record as I am a complete novice in this area as I stated before. Thus my suggestion that Dr. Torley correspond with Luskin personally so as to iron out their differences. I'm just stating my very unqualified opinion as a novice that I don't see anything convincing from this line of evidence, especially considering the severe bias of Darwinists in interpreting the evidence, that should make me think that the punctuated pattern observed for the rest of the fossil record was somehow granted a special exception between humans and primates. It simply doesn't make sense from a science perspective!,,, As to Tattersall's nuanced position, I plead ignorance again as I don't know his subtleties of interpretation of the fossil record, but I do know, again as a novice, that for him to adamantly claim that gaps are present, especially considering his unprecedented access to the fossils as curator of the Natural History museum, does not bode well at all for those who want hold to a atheistic myth for how we originated. Which brings me to the main evidence. Darwinists HAVE NO DEMONSTRATED MECHANISM to explain the changes even if the fossil record did offer a non-punctuated view of life. Go figure! How in the world can claim with certainty they know for a fact we got here with no mechanism is beyond me. But alas, that what we are faced with with the outlandish claims of Darwinists!bornagain77_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PST}

BA #88
“You’ve got a pretty clear division point”
Yes, he says that, but like I said, I can't tell where's he's talking about, as there is no division point at all. And, of course, he had just admitted that a moment earlier.
taken in full context of ‘all the evidence’, as Luskin does, the gap between man and monkey is undeniable. Even Tattersall, paleontologist and emeritus curator at the American Museum of Natural History, states in regards to the skull evidence:
Do you agree with Tattersall on this? Luskin certain doesn't. You keep quoting him arguing a point that I'm pretty sure you don't hold. If you do agree, are you saying that H. erectus, Neandertals, H. heidelbergensis, etc are all "monkeys"?
Moreover, the evidence for transistion is far more dubious than most Darwinists are willing to let on to the general public. For instance, homo habilis,, Who Was Homo habilis—And Was It Really Homo? – Ann Gibbons – June 2011 Abstract: In the past decade, Homo habilis’s status as the first member of our genus has been undermined. Newer analytical methods suggested that H. habilis matured and moved less like a human and more like an australopithecine...
Well, it is dubious as to whether habilus was Homo or Australopithecine, and some designate H. habilus as A. habilus. Equally, there are those arguing that A. afarensis should be H. afarensis. Why do you suppose that is?goodusername_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PST}

supplemental note: Double Standards and a Single Variable - Casey Luskin - August 2012 Excerpt: (arguments) revolving around a single variable (brain size) which he claims (wrongly) shows smooth, gradual evolution. Even if this variable did evolve smoothly, I provide an extensive discussion in my chapter of why that would not demonstrate that humans share a common ancestor with apes. McBride fails to engage my discussion of the evolution of brain size, ignoring my arguments why skulls of "intermediate" size demonstrate very little. And as we'll see in a further article, the authorities he relies upon to claim that the evolution of cranial capacities displays a "lack of discontinuity" in fact argue that there is great discontinuity -- including "punctuational changes" and "saltation" -- in the hominin fossil record as it pertains to skull size. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/part_1_double_s063661.htmlbornagain77_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PST}

Of somewhat related interest, so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans: A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? - July 3, 2013 Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,, The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal "valves of Kerkring," heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html Moreover, Physorg had another article up showing that this pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than Darwinists had originally supposed it would be to shoot down: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence - July 25, 2013 Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy. ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html The obvious question is, of course, if such a dubious theory, such as the pig-chimp hybrid theory, can cause such havoc with you original theory, what makes anyone think we evolved from apes or anything else in the first place? Any reasonable person would realize that if such a dubious theory as the pig-chimp hybrid theory can cause such a commotion (and still not be shot down), for what was suppose to be such a well established science, then perhaps the Darwinian theory for human origins is not nearly as robust as Darwinists have dogmatically held it to be in the first place? Some might even hold that such 'flimsiness' in ones theory would be a clear indication that the original theory is not really hard science but a highly speculative pseudo-science (which is, in fact, what Darwinism actually is, as even Dr. Torley admits): Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details - Dr. V. J. Torley - February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/bornagain77_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PST}

goodusername, 32:44 minute mark of the video, Dr. Geim states, "You've got a pretty clear division point" But again this is only the skull evidence Geim is looking at and which Luskin readily admitted that there was 'skulls of intermediate size', but taken in full context of 'all the evidence', as Luskin does, the gap between man and monkey is undeniable. Even Tattersall, paleontologist and emeritus curator at the American Museum of Natural History, states in regards to the skull evidence: “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall, The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 246. (emeritus curator at the American Museum of Natural History) Moreover, the evidence for transistion is far more dubious than most Darwinists are willing to let on to the general public. For instance, homo habilis,, Who Was Homo habilis—And Was It Really Homo? - Ann Gibbons - June 2011 Abstract: In the past decade, Homo habilis's status as the first member of our genus has been undermined. Newer analytical methods suggested that H. habilis matured and moved less like a human and more like an australopithecine, such as the famous partial skeleton of Lucy. Now, a report in press in the Journal of Human Evolution finds that H. habilis's dietary range was also more like Lucy's than that of H. erectus, which many consider the first fully human species to walk the earth. That suggests the handyman had yet to make the key adaptations associated with our genus, such as the ability to exploit a variety of foods in many environments, the authors say. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6036/1370.summary And the hyper variable homo erectus, with its wide open classification system that Tattersall noted, still cannot be conclusively claimed to be intermediate: 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 So thus, taken all together, and noting the 'bedtime story' (Henry Gee) nature of the fossil evidence, how much weight you place on this evidence is entirely at you own risk, and, as I've pointed out, where our evidence is strongest, i.e. our observational evidence, the transitional 'bedtime story' becomes untenable because codes, such as the alternative splicing code, must be implemented all at one time. Supplemental note as to reconciling the with our observational evidence: Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: So the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree based on 129 skull and tooth measurements for living hominoids, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, and did the same with 62 measurements recorded on Old World monkeys, including baboons, mangabeys and macaques. They also drew upon published molecular phylogenies. At the outset, Wood and Collard assumed the molecular evidence was correct. “There were so many different lines of genetic evidence pointing in one direction,” Collard explains. But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match15 (see figure, below). Collard says this casts grave doubt on the reliability of using morphological evidence to determine the fine details of evolutionary trees for higher primates. “It is saying it is positively misleading,” he says. The abstract of the pair’s paper stated provocatively that “existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable”.[10] http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/following_the_evidence_where_i047161.html#comment-9266481bornagain77_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PST}

TheisticEvolutionist wondered
Ok if there’s a global conspiracy theory to teach common descent when it is actually a flawed theory then please explain the creationist scientific replacement that can be observed, testable, repeatable etc etc.
You're giving up too easily. Personally, I think there's a lot of evidence available to create a better naturalistic explanation for adaptation, but it's going to be significantly more technical. Origins are tough because, as you point out, it's hard to come up with anything that could be observed, measured, or repeated. What I think needs more attention is not defending the points of agreement with current theory, but investigating the interesting points at variance. Then you start asking questions. A lot of them! And so on.Querius_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PST}

Querius:
I can’t for the life of me understand the logic of what you’re trying to say.
As someone who seems to deny that anything at all useful can be inferred from the fossil record I am not surprised.
Microevolution doesn’t necessitate macroevolution.
I never said it did. I am talking about the fossil record and whether it provides any sort of evidence for evolution within kinds, whether microevolution or macroevolution it doesn't really matter. Young Earth Creationists just don't get to have it both way. They cannot both affirm and deny evidence for evolution in the fossil record. Well, they can, and do, but I try to point it out when I see it.Mung_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PST}

Without the geological context the hominds would just be apes living alongside historical man. If conclusions about biological descent must be based on geological context and without it IT is all worthless then the whole matter is not a issue of science. Science demands the subject being studied must make its case on the subject itself. Not use a neighbour for help.Robert Byers_{October 1, 2013
October
10
Oct
1
01
2013
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PST}

BA #76
The gap in skull sizes is gone over at the 29:11 minute mark in the following video
I watched that part of the video several times trying to tell which part of the graph he's talking about, because there's no gap anywhere. He then even says, “Yes, there’s an overlap right here, but it’s fascinating that they’re that way.” Huh? He seems to be talking about a jump in brain size with H. erectus, although as the graph shows, they overlap previous species of Homo (such as habilus) in both brain size and time range.goodusername_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PST}

BA, Try and understand what these studies are sauing... The results reported this week showed that “83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical So, the average protein is ~ 300 amino acids long. This study found 0.17 of these proetins where identical, from which you can estimate amino acid identity across the two genomes as 0.17^(1/300) = 99.4% Luskin doesn't understand something called incomplete lineage sorting, Tomkins method (if I understand it) doesn't account for genetic rearrangements.wd400_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PST}

Ok if there's a global conspiracy theory to teach common descent when it is actually a flawed theory then please explain the creationist scientific replacement that can be observed, testable, repeatable etc etc.TheisticEvolutionist_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PST}

"Common descent is a fact. It’s taught in nearly all schools and universities around the world. 99.9% of scientists support it." LOL just like it was taught that the native americans happily and willingly helped europeans ... and they were a primitive culture..and christopher columbus discovered america... and all those other "facts" that the text books preach. don't ever question the facts!wentzelitis_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PST}

One way to understand why this is so devastating to (bottom up) neo-Darwinian evolution is by taking a look at ‘ontogenetic depth’
Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/
But perhaps the best way to understand why this is so devastating to neo-Darwinian (bottom up) evolution is by taking a look at what Richard Dawkins has said about what would happen if one were to 'randomly' change part of the genetic code once it is in place:
Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life - and Another Dawkins Whopper - March 2011 Excerpt:,,, But first, let's look at the reason Dawkins gives for why the code must be universal: "The reason is interesting. Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation...this would spell disaster." (2009, p. 409-10) OK. Keep Dawkins' claim of universality in mind, along with his argument for why the code must be universal, and then go here (linked site listing 23 variants of the genetic code). Simple counting question: does "one or two" equal 23? That's the number of known variant genetic codes compiled by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. By any measure, Dawkins is off by an order of magnitude, times a factor of two. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_tree_044681.html
The bottom line is that if any regulatory code, such as the alternative splicing code, or the protein address codes, or the acetylation codes, or the RNA codes, or the metabolic codes, or the cytoskeleton codes, or the histone codes, is ‘randomly changed’ in part, it throws the entire code out of whack and will be ‘instantly catastrophic’, to use Richard Dawkins most appropriate term, thus rendering gradual change to the code impossible. The entire code must be implemented ‘top down’, all at one time, when the species is created! Perhaps now, Dr. Torley, you can see, from observational evidence, why I find a gradual scenario severely implausible, especially a materialistic/Darwinian scenario to be implausible but even a Theistic scenario! Moreover please note that Darwinists went, in a few short years (about a decade), from having something like 99% similarity, to having nothing really solid whatsoever that they can point at to support their atheistic/materialistic case. Perhaps the evidence may come back for them somewhat, but I highly doubt it. As far as I can tell, It is a sheer disconnect and moreover, the further we dive into the complexity of the genome, the worse evidence becomes for the neo-Darwinists! I seriously don't see a reversal for Darwinists! Verse and Music:
Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Jason Gray - Remind Me Who I Am - http://myktis.com/songs/remind-me-who-i-am/
bornagain77_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PST}

Even Jerry Coyne himself, the self appointed grand inquisitor of Darwinism, admits to a large percentage of Orphan genes:
From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012 Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics and censorship of ID proponents.
moreover the gene count is now known to be broadly similar across species, even at the most ‘primitive’ level:
More Questions for Evolutionists – August 2010 Excerpt: First of all, we have 65% of the gene number of humans in little old sponges—an organism that appears as far back as 635 million years ago, about as old as you can get [except for bacteria]. This kind of demolishes Darwin’s argument about what he called the pre-Silurian (pre-Cambrian). 635 mya predates both the Cambrian AND the Edicarian, which comes before the Cambrian (i.e., the pre-Cambrian) IOW, out of nowhere, 18,000 animal genes. Darwinian gradualism is dealt a death blow here (unless you’re a ‘true believer”!). Here’s a quote: “It means there was an elaborate machinery in place that already had some function. What I want to know now is what were all these genes doing prior to the advent of sponge.” (Charles Marshall, director of the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley.) I want to know, too! https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-questions-for-evolutionists/
and even Zebrafish,,
Family Ties: Completion of Zebrafish Reference Genome Yields Strong Comparisons With Human Genome – Apr. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Researchers demonstrate today that 70 per cent of protein-coding human genes are related to genes found in the zebrafish,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130417131725.htm
and even Kangaroos and opossums had a surprise,,
First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals “Junk DNA” Surprise – 2007 Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,, The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070510-opossum-dna.html
Yet what accounts for such drastic differences in the species if the gene count is basically the same across species? Alternative splicing does. But alternative splicing is found to be species specific:
Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F The mouse is not enough – February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/
Moreover alternative splicing arises, in large measure, from RNA sequences, but RNA sequences are far more uncooperative to the Darwinian narrative than DNA sequences were (as uncooperative as DNA sequences were to alignment):
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution - Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. - Elie Dolgin - 27 June 2012 Excerpt: “I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. "...they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.” (Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution, Nature 486,460–462, 28 June 2012) (molecular palaeobiologist - Kevin Peterson) Mark Springer, (a molecular phylogeneticist working in DNA states),,, “There have to be other explanations,” he says. Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. “What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,” says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, who is collaborating on the project. “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong. http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885
And considering that the recent ENCODE study, which found 80% plus functionality for the genome, is calling for a redefinition of the entire concept of a ‘gene’, I don't see ever changing my mind in the future about the 'observational' fact that the 99% genetic similarity figure is now completely overthrown:
Landscape of transcription in human cells – Sept. 6, 2012 Excerpt: Here we report evidence that three-quarters of the human genome is capable of being transcribed, as well as observations about the range and levels of expression, localization, processing fates, regulatory regions and modifications of almost all currently annotated and thousands of previously unannotated RNAs. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11233.html Demise of the Gene – September 19, 2012 Excerpt: Although the gene has conventionally been viewed as the fundamental unit of genomic organization, on the basis of ENCODE data it is now compellingly argued that this unit is not the gene but rather the (RNA) transcript (Washietl et al. 2007; Djebali et al. 2012a). On this view, genes represent a higher-order framework around which individual transcripts coalesce, creating a poly-functional entity that assumes different forms under different cellular states, guided by differential utilization of regulatory DNA. (What does our genome encode? John A. Stamatoyannopoulos Genome Res. 2012 22: 1602-1611.) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/demise_of_the_g064371.html
All of the preceding evidence is far more devastating than most people realize.. ,,,The reason why finding very different alternative splicing codes between closely related species is devastating to (bottom up) neo-Darwinian evolution is partly seen by understanding ‘Shannon Channel Capacity’:
“Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible” Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life Shannon Information – Channel Capacity – Perry Marshall – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/
bornagain77_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PST}

But Dr. Torley, instead of rehashing this highly questionable historical evidence, lets get to the observational evidence for seeing if there is an unbridgeable gap between man and monkeys. I think you will readily agree that observational evidence provides, by far, our best source of evidence as to ascertaining a whether something is possible or not? right? Well, much like the Neanderthal evidence, I've watched with quite a bit of interest as a gap between monkeys and man has widened within the genetic evidence to the point of providing an 'unbridgeable' chasm between the two. Though I've already laid out some of the evidence, bear with me as I back up to the beginning of the evidence so that you may get the full flavor for which way the observational evidence is heading. First, it is found that the genetic similarity one derives is highly subjective to ‘various methodological factors’
Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He’s a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity – 2009 Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think.html
Even ignoring the subjective bias of ‘various methodological factors’ that Darwinists introduce into these similarity studies, the first inkling, at least for me, that something was terribly amiss with the oft quoted 99% similarity figure was this,,,
Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows – 2002 Excerpt: Genetic studies for decades have estimated that humans and chimpanzees possess genomes that are about 98.5 percent similar. In other words, of the three billion base pairs along the DNA helix, nearly 99 of every 100 would be exactly identical. However, new work by one of the co-developers of the method used to analyze genetic similarities between species says the figure should be revised downward to 95 percent. http://www.caltech.edu/content/humans-and-chimps-have-95-percent-dna-compatibility-not-985-percent-research-shows
and then this,,,
Chimps are not like humans – May 2004 Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that “83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect,” Sakaki said. http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm
this had caught my eye in 2008,,,
Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 – Dr Richard Buggs – research geneticist at the University of Florida …Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf
And then this caught my eye in 2011:
Study Reports a Whopping “23% of Our Genome” Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny – Casey Luskin – June 2011 Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html
In late 2011 Jeffrey P. Tomkins, using an extremely conservative approach, reached the figure of 87% similarity:
Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89% – Jeffrey P. Tomkins – December 28, 2011 Excerpt: A common claim that is propagated through obfuscated research publications and popular evolutionary science authors is that the DNA of chimpanzees or chimps (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) is about 98–99% similar. A major problem with nearly all past human-chimp comparative DNA studies is that data often goes through several levels of pre-screening, filtering and selection before being aligned, summarized, and discussed. Non-alignable regions are typically omitted and gaps in alignments are often discarded or obfuscated. In an upcoming paper, Tomkins and Bergman (2012) discuss most of the key human-chimp DNA similarity research papers on a case-by-case basis and show that the inclusion of discarded data (when provided) actually suggests a DNA similarity for humans and chimps not greater than 80–87% and quite possibly even less. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/blastin Genomic monkey business – similarity re-evaluated using omitted data – by Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman Excerpt: A review of the common claim that the human and chimpanzee (chimp) genomes are nearly identical was found to be highly questionable solely by an analysis of the methodology and data outlined in an assortment of key research publications.,,, Based on the analysis of data provided in various publications, including the often cited 2005 chimpanzee genome report, it is safe to conclude that human–chimp genome similarity is not more than ~87% identical, and possibly not higher than 81%. These revised estimates are based on relevant data omitted from the final similarity estimates typically presented.,,, Finally, a very recent large-scale human–chimp genome comparison research report spectacularly confirms the data presented in this report. The human–chimp common ancestor paradigm is clearly based more on myth and propaganda than fact. http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated
Then earlier this year, 2013, with better resolution of data, and still using an extremely conservative approach, Tomkins reached the figure of 70% genetic similarity between chimps and humans:
Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome
Moreover, due to the conservative approach Tomkoins employed, I'm fairly certain that Tomkins did not even include the Orphan gene percentages in his 70 percent figure:
Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story – 16 January 2013 – Helen Pilcher Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these “orphan genes” are high achievers (are just as essential as ‘old’ genes),,, But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn’t be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven’t-quite the opposite, in fact.,,, The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, “the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero”.,,, Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing. Per Harvard edu Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed ‘non-answer’ from Darwinists) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY
bornagain77_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PST}

Mung, You wrote
I just can’t for the life of me understand why there was common descent after the flood but not before it. And if there was common descent before the flood, why isn’t it reflected in the fossils?
I can't for the life of me understand the logic of what you're trying to say. Microevolution doesn't necessitate macroevolution. For example . . . Certainly you'll agree that bacteria are some of the most well-adapted and highly adaptable organisms in the planet. So, after millions of years of evolution, why aren't we seeing some lucky bacteria evolving into something other than bacteria right now? We should be seeing a whole range of hopeful organisms that have bacteria as their most recent ancestor--AS EVIDENCED BY THE CLOSE SIMILARITY OF THEIR DNA. I'm aware that Pseudomonas aeruginosa can "evolve" multiple flagella in certain environments: http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/abstract/S2211-1247%2813%2900388-4 Or perhaps Pseudomonas aeruginosa evolved back from an ancestor with multiple flagella but poorer biofilm production--I don't know how anyone would know. But I'm referring to *entirely new feature* that requires more than a single point mutation. - Perhaps such as a mutated subspecies of a bacteria that have nuclei, that first tiny step to "higher" organisms. - Or maybe a bacterial colony with specialized and differentiated cells. - Or how about flagellum that have evolved into helicopter-like propellers adapted for flying in the air! - What about flagella that look like modern ship propellers? If plant hoppers can evolve gears, then with millions of times the reproduction rate, bacteria should be able to evolve the gears for a simple simple transmission. Surely, examples of all these moacroevolutionary advancements are commonly found in-progress among all bacteria today! Right?Querius_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PST}

Dr. Torley, thank you for your thoughtful reply (I'm going to save the drawings portraying the 'artistic license' of Darwinists.) But to the main point,,, The gap in skull sizes is gone over at the 29:11 minute mark in the following video, in an extremely fair and even even-handed manner by Dr. Geim, and, frankly, I don't see the gradual transistion that is adamantly claimed to be so evident by Darwinists and by you.
Science and Human Origins--Objections (Part 3) 7-27-2013 by Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07eo83l_yMQ&list=UUaBAwmf0uZeTYejbXpXV7VQ
Personally, in the chart he presents laying the fossil evidence out, I see much disjointed, i.e. 'gappy', evidence pieced together to fit a preconceived historical narrative, but when looked at objectively, as I hold Dr. Geim does in an extremely even handed manner, THE MAIN GAP REMAINS, as Dr Geim himself notes in the end of his analysis of the objections leveled against Luskin about skull sizes. As well, I can only agree with Dr. Geim when he notes that the Darwinists who objected to Luskin's conclusions never addressed the main part of his argument but only to peripheral issues where they thought they could score some points. That by itself sends up a huge red flag for me. Luskin himself noted the prejudiced manner in which the evidence was evaluated in his response to McBride,,,
Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride's Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His - Casey Luskin - August 31, 2012 Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we've seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,, The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/read_your_refer_1063841.html
Dr. Torley, thus, considering the fossil record itself and the disingenuous way in which Darwinists have tried to undermine Luskin's main argument, color me unpersuaded that the main gap is not real. Perhaps you can have a personal discussion with Luskin privately to iron out your disagreement as he knows this evidence quite a lot better than I do.,, In my personal opinion, Your strongest evidence against the creationist narrative, that you did hit on, is Neanderthal and Heidelberg man, and, leaving Heidelberg aside, frankly I've been quite mystified as I've watched Neanderthal, over the past few years, from the genetic evidence, morph from being a brutish caveman into being practically one of the human family, instead of a being completely separate species as it once was considered. This certainly was not a good development for Darwinists, nor for you either. Particularly since you too, like Darwinists, want a gradual scenario to be true so as to fit your preconceived position. So thus, with this scientific morphing of Neanderthal, practically before my eyes, into being 'one of the family', and being the complete novice I am in this matter, I'm left scratching my head as to what else I have been misled about on the fossil evidence from Darwinists. I have literally dozens of links showing Darwinists hyping evidence in headlines for human evolution and only later, after the hype dies down, is the evidence shown to be far less robust to supporting its position than its initial claim led people to believe. I don't know about you Dr. Torley, but I find such a manner of practicing science to be extremely distasteful, and I'm certainly not so easily persuaded, by this fossil evidence especially when I seen so much to question within it. Moreover, I remind you of the extremely questionable status of this historical evidence as compared to our direct observational evidence:
“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way… To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” - Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life
bornagain77_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PST}

Good point, niwrad! It would be interesting to see whether any DNA fragments could be extracted from some of these ancient bones, which are presumably much younger than those of dinosaurs. My guess is that considering the genetic choke point indicated by Mitochondrial Eve, it's likely that there once was a much greater genetic diversity among humankind. This loss of genetic diversity might have been due to a regional or even global catastrophe, such as a flood of Martian proportions. ;-)Querius_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PST}

Querius:
How would it be reflected in the fossils?
Don't ask me! Ask the people who claim the fossil record supports "microevolution" within "kinds" bu doesn't support "macroevolution" or descent from a universal common ancestor. I'm merely pointing out the inherent inconsistency.Mung_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PST}

TheisticEvolutionist
Common descent is a fact. It’s taught in nearly all schools and universities around the world. 99.9% of scientists support it.
That defense is as silly as claiming that Science is fixed and immutable. Science is never fixed and immutable. That schools and universities teach something is never evidence of the accuracy of what is taught. These same institutions and the books they promote also derided continental drift about 40-45 years ago. Your *identical* arguments would have vigorously defended the fixed locations of the continents as a "fact." Think about it!Querius_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PST}

News: I thought I might let you know that there's something very odd going on with posts on this thread. I haven't pinpointed exactly what it is, but it appears that there may be a very low length limit, and also some hyperlinks cause problems. All I know is that when I attempt to post, I often get thrown out and asked to complete a security check before posting - and when I do so, I get a message which says, "Your comment is awaiting moderation" - except that it never gets moderated! The only way I've found to dodge that obstacle is to chop my posts up into tiny little bits and to experiment with removing some links - however, I can't figure out exactly what it is in the links that's triggering this last-minute security check. Any ideas from the technical staff? Something funny is definitely going on.vjtorley_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PST}

TheisticEvolutionist
If the Bible had not been written you would have no problem with accepting the evidence for common descent.
Not at all. I deny CD from a pure engineering point of view. No engineer on earth would make systems transforming themselves when they are working, because it is an engineering suicide. Imagine to transform a car engine into a gas turbine while it is running? If this is an impossibility for an engine, go figure transforming living beings during their life, which are far more complex and fragile systems. The scientists supporting CD are not engineers.niwrad_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PST}

2. Concerning the taxon Homo erectus you write: "Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class." Even if they're right, it doesn't matter: all I need to show is that one of these could have evolved into Heidelberg man, and that in one of the continents, Heidelberg man could have evolved into Homo sapiens. In any case, I would agree that African Homo erectus probably deserves to be placed in a separate species (Homo ergaster), and perhaps Homo georgicus as well. I can't see why the European and Asian specimens of Homo erectus should be classified separately, however. 3. You make a good point when you highlight the 'artistic license' for human evolution in drawings of prehistoric man. This can be seen if we look at drawings of Homo ergaster / erectus, for instance. This picture makes him look subhuman: somehow he doesn't look as if he's quite all there. This picture, on the other hand, makes him look quite shrewd and intelligent, as does this one and this one. Whom are we to believe? Little details like the whites of the eyes, the prominence of the brow and the expression on the face can make quite a difference in one's intuitive assessment of whether a prehistoric face shows the spark of intelligence. Artistic license, indeed! 4. I was very interested to read Phillip Johnson's sagacious observation that "the examples of claimed evolutionary transitionals, oddly enough, come from the area of the fossil record where fossilization is rarest." That remark certainly should give one pause. Does it count against the truth of Darwinism? Yes, decisively so. Does it count against intelligently guided evolution? I don't think so. One could argue that the species which fossilize least are the very ones most in need of intelligent guidance in their diversification from an ancestral form - which means that on the rare occasions when they do fossilize, they'd be more likely to leave behind transitional fossils. Just a thought. 5. Finally, I was very heartened to see you quoting from Dr. Branko Kozulic's paper, Proteins and Genes, Singletons and Species. As Dr. Kozulic shows, each species has hundreds of chemically unique proteins associated with it (incidentally, geneticist Jeff Tomkins writes: "Modern humans and Neanderthals are essentially genetically identical.") This fact alone should be enough to silence those who doubt the case for Intelligent Design in the human lineage. The idea that random copying errors could transform an ape-like creature into a human being, when the differences between the two are so profound, is frankly ridiculous, for reasons that I have explained in this post. Thanks once again for your comments, bornagain77.vjtorley_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PST}

1. (d) Nevertheless, I will admit that the highly distinctive rounded skull of Homo sapiens, evidence for changes in the temporoparietal cortex with the appearance of our species (see Dubreuil's article) and the relative dearth of evidence for art prior to Homo sapiens (apart from a few cases of the use of red ocher by Heidelberg and Neadertal man and shells by Neandertal man, 50,000 years ago), does support the claim of intelligent engineering of the human brain, not only 700,000+ years ago (with the emergence of Heidelberg man) but also 200,000 years ago, resulting in a cognitive leap of some sort. The question is: why would God tinker with the human brain not only at the dawn of human history, but 500,000+ years later? I have to say: I have no idea. It does sound odd. But there it is. To be continued...vjtorley_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PST}

1. (c) That being the case, the claim by Tattersall, that "[w]e [i.e. members of Homo sapiens - VJT] differ from our closest known relatives in numerous features of the skull and of the postcranial skeleton, in important features of brain growth, and almost certainly in critical features of internal brain organization as well," doesn't support the creationist claim that human beings appear suddenly in the fossil record. For if there were true human beings living before Homo sapiens, then what we really need to show is that they appeared suddenly in the fossil record. But if Heidelberg man is the first instance of true human beings, possessing rationality, language and a capacity for symbolic thought, then we have to honestly admit that the fossil evidence doesn't support a sudden origin for this species. It's not easy to draw the line between Heidelberg man and Homo antecessor, for instance, or between Homo antecessor and Homo ergaster. What does support a sudden origin for Heidelberg man is the evidence from Dubreuil's article of a substantial increase in the prefrontal cortex coinciding with the appearance of this species, coupled with genetic evidence that the transition from 48 to 46 chromosomes (which took place somewhere between 740,000 and 3,000,000 years ago ) may have coincided with the emergence of Heidelberg man. To be continued...vjtorley_{September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PST}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply