Human evolution Naturalism

Search for our earliest ancestors: Signals in the noise

Spread the love

Science-Fictions-square.gif

Naturalism commands us to believe that mud somehow produced mind. Therefore, our ancestors are not gods or heroes but half human or less. Our long-vanished cousins were not human. We don’t experience the discovery as a profound problem mainly because we’ve never found them.

Not for want of trying. Paleontologists have long hungered for a species halfway between human and ape, to cast in the world’s face as irrefutable evidence for mud at work. And what have they found?

See also:

Pop human evolution: What multitudes believe

What to do with our education in human evolution? Stuff it!

Why didn’t natural selection prevent sister’s schizophrenia?, writer asks (Because “natural selection,” as generally understood, is a spook that can’t prevent anything.)

and

Science-Fictions-square.gif The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)

6 Replies to “Search for our earliest ancestors: Signals in the noise

  1. 1
    anonym says:

    I seem to recall that Chauvet dating being pretty heavily disputed; from what I’ve read about the controversy around it I wouldn’t take it to the bank.

  2. 2
    NeilBJ says:

    If, as James M. Tour says, no scientist knows how evolution works, then all the intermediate fossils in the world would not tell us anything new.

    This is not to dismiss what scientists would learn from finding new fossils. Can fossils really tell us anything about the mechanism of evolution?

  3. 3
    Dionisio says:

    Search for our earliest ancestors…

    Should we try finding them on Facebook? 😉

  4. 4
    Robert Byers says:

    NeilBJ
    Amen. I say fossils say nothing more then that fossil. No just silect on mechanism but silent on everything.
    The only reason they use fossils is because of a geological presumption of the deposition of the fossil.
    Without the geology there is no biology evidence.
    I say this nullify’s fossils as biological evidence.
    Its just data points being connected by non biological evidence.
    Even if true data points of evolution it STILL isn’t biological evidence.
    This has been a major logical flaw in evolutionists research.
    its a flaw with iD folks too and even YEC are sloppy.

  5. 5
    Moose Dr says:

    NeilBJ, “Can fossils really tell us anything about the mechanism of evolution?”
    They surely can. If gradualism were true, we would see a smooth migration from one kind to another in the fossils. We don’t. Gradualism in its simplest form, therefore, cannot be an accurate description of evolution. This must affect one’s view of the mechanism.

    The cambrian explosion provided a huge challenge for Darwin. He presumed that there must be a plethora of lost fossils prior to the cambrian. As fossils are found in the late precambrian, they invalidate this hypothesis. This data must be factored into one view of the mechanism.

    However, there is a general pattern in the fossils that make a 6,000 year old earth very difficult to envision. The 6,000 year old model, of course, requires a specific mechanism of “evolution”.

    So the fossils paint a landscape. Our theory as to the mechanism of evolution must fit that landscape. Many proposed mechanisms do a poor to ridiculous job of it. So fossils do tell us something (not everything) about the mechanism of evolution. Now, does one new fossil make a great difference to the landscape for which we must find a theory? Not likely. About 18 gazillion* fossils have been found. Of those about 18 million* offer significant clues to the nature of historical nature. So the next significant find should increase our knowledge base by about 1 in 18 million*.

    *Rhetorical. I am not proposing any scientific basis for theses numbers.

  6. 6
    Robert Byers says:

    Moose DR
    Fossils can’t tell anything, scientific, about evolution. This is a logical flaw.
    Even if gradualism was true and fossils show a graduation from onew type to another they still wouldn’t be showing evolution. For all they show is what they show.
    Your evolution or your criticism of evolution only works with fossils after you saw their deposition and you did not.
    They don’t show biological information of any kind about their relationship except they look alike to one degree or another.

Leave a Reply