Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Humans not special after all?

arroba Email

Notice how quickly some humans move in. And why, exactly?

Hey, this is on a level with New Scientist’s claim that Earth is not especially life friendly compared to planets about which various theorists claim there could somehow be life (if their theories happen to be correct).

From Ars Technica, ,

Recent discoveries point to shared traits and blurred borders with our closest relatives.

As one intriguing fossil discovery after another has made headlines over the past year, our understanding of our species’ history has started to shift, and a new story is emerging: one where our extinct relatives share many of the traits we had thought were uniquely human, and our own species is not that special after all. More.

Nope. They don’t.

Wait till we dig up something like a New Volkswagen among some chimp bones. Then let’s talk.

The critical question is, why is this obviously false cant such a big deal in pop science? Who or what really benefits?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

The complete link is at: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/humans-arent-so-special-after-all-the-fuzzy-evolutionary-boundaries-of-homo-sapiens/ ayearningforpublius
Sorry about my truncated comment yesterday. Let me try to finish the thought today: If you look at the graphic at http://arstechnica.com/science.....o-sapiens/, it looks like the boundaries are not “fuzzy”, but in the sense of evidence presented they are “non-existent.” At each supposed branch you see what … just wood. No cartoon faces - no apes, chimps, humans or neandros. Just that empty space at the branch where the common ancestors face presumably should sit. Why should I or anyone else consider this sort of contrived evidence to be some sort of proof of a troubled theory. And in reading through the article itself, I am once more astounded at the admitted paucity of solid evidence to support the conclusions of evolutionary thought and theory. The deity of evolution is "DEEP TIME" --- blessed be its name and its creative powers. ayearningforpublius
If you look at the graphic at http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/humans-arent-so-special-after-all-the-fuzzy-evolutionary-boundaries-of-homo-sapiens/, it looks like the boundaries are not "fuzzy", but in the sense of evidence presented they are "non-existent." At each supposed branch you see what ... just w ayearningforpublius
"and a new story is emerging: one where our extinct relatives share many of the traits we had thought were uniquely human, and our own species is not that special after all." "Human" not special - but "Homo" special. Homo VERY special. Not Ape. Split not lump. This is a good trend. Comparing us to our ancient ancestors instead of comparing us to chimps & bonobos. This is a good thing. ppolish
as to:
"Wait till we dig up something like a New Volkswagen among some chimp bones. Then let’s talk."
Reminds of the old farmer who said:
"I'll believe in evolution when I see chimps build rockets to send other chimps to the moon own."
Of note, the authors themselves offered these disclaimers in their article:
It’s difficult to decide on how to classify a species based on isolated remains, the authors write: “because at present we cannot be certain what the rest of the dentition, skull or skeleton of [the Ledi jaw] might have looked like.”,,, "The tools do bear some resemblance to the products of chimpanzee nut-cracking,,,," "there’s no real context for grander interpretations regarding what this means for H. erectus and its cognitive abilities"
Moreover, the word 'fuzzy' is used in their headline to claim that humans are no so special after all. I hold that the word 'fuzzy' is much more appropriately used to describe the state of evidence that they are relying on to try to make their grand (i.e. imaginary) claims of human evolution from. This is especially true since there is no solid, real time, empirical evidence that neo-Darwinists can appeal to to support their grand claims that one kind of species can randomly morph into another kind of species.
Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html David Berlinski: "Dogs stay dogs, bacteria stay bugs". - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TLlOxDYvlI
Moreover, the overall fossil record pattern is one of sudden appearance and stasis and is not one of gradualism. i.e. It is a 'top down' pattern of disparity preceding diversity:
“Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas." James W. Valentine - as quoted from "On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine" - (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8&feature=player_detailpage#t=4595
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Charles Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this 'top down', disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” TS Kemp - Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians
This 'top down' pattern is even true for the human fossil record.
“A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012) Skull "Rewrites" Story of Human Evolution -- Again - Casey Luskin - October 22, 2013 Excerpt: "There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know." - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/skull_rewrites_078221.html 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 Scientists Discover Proof That Humanity Is Getting Dumber, Smaller And Weaker By Michael Snyder, on April 29th, 2014 Excerpt: An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly. Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 percent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors. And if that’s not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller. The findings reverse perceived wisdom that humans have grown taller and larger, a belief which has grown from data on more recent physical development. The decline, said scientists, has happened over the past 10,000 years. http://thetruthwins.com/archives/scientists-discover-proof-that-humanity-is-getting-dumber-smaller-and-weaker “Neanderthals are known for their large cranial capacity, which at 1600cc is larger on average than modern humans.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Anatomy
Moreover, differences between the present races of humans are found to wrought by the culling of genetic information, not by the generation of new genetic information as was, and is, falsely believed in Darwinian thought.
"We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012) Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,, "One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,, "Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older." (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,, The report shows that "recent" events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers. The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128132259.htm
Thus, as is usual for anything a person looks at in Darwinian evolution, the closer one looks at the evidence the more the evidence falls apart for the Darwinian storyline. Darwinists simply have no hard scientific evidence whatsoever to support their grand claims that humans, or anything else, evolved from simpler creatures. bornagain77

Leave a Reply