Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sima cave people not exactly Neanderthals, researchers say

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From ScienceDaily:

“What makes the Sima de los Huesos site unique,” Arsuaga said, “is the extraordinary and unprecedented accumulation of hominin fossils there; nothing quite so big has ever been discovered for any extinct hominin species — including Neanderthals.”

“This site has been excavated continuously since 1984,” Martínez added. “After thirty years, we have recovered nearly 7,000 human fossils corresponding to all skeletal regions of at least 28 individuals. This extraordinary collection includes 17 fragmentary skulls, many of which are very complete.”

From this, they deduce that

“We think based on the morphology that the Sima people were part of the Neanderthal clade,” Arsuaga said, “although not necessarily direct ancestors to the classic Neanderthals.” They were part of an early European lineage that includes Neanderthals, but is more primitive than the later Pleistocene variety.

Critically, many of the Neandertal-derived features the researchers observed were related to mastication, or chewing. “It seems these modifications had to do with an intensive use of the frontal teeth,” Arsuaga said. “The incisors show a great wear as if they had been used as a ‘third hand,” typical of Neanderthals.”

The work of Arsuaga et al. suggests that facial modification was the first step in Neandertal evolution. This mosaic pattern fits the prediction of the accretion model.

This story is interesting from the perspective that it is written as if it were some kind of history when it is at most guesses based on fragments, and the next team reporting may well say something quite different.

Fascinating if you don’t take it too seriously.

Here’s a handy guide to the complexities surrounding human evolution: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)

and

The Little Lady of Flores spoke from the grave. But said what, exactly?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
StephenA This long post amounts to nothing more than "god-of-the-gaps" or the argument from incredulity. We have found meteorites that contain amino acids. Thes were produced naturally. Why is it so hard to believe that these acids could have formed in the early earth and even evolved due to some appropiate condition? Is this really harder to believe than god poofed it? humbled Yes, I'm angry. I don't like to be fooled by creationists or theistic evolutionists on the science or theology. I haven't chosen to stick my fingers in my ears. I don't choose anything. There is no free will. I do what I do becuase my neurons make me. If the creation science was valid then my neurons would shift postions and believe in creationism. If creationism is correct, the majority of scientists would believe it. They are athiests because the scientific evidence for god isn't there not because they use the science to disprove him. Andre So your following another lie instead? Whay don't you and humbled go talk to your christian brother in love, Jimpithicus and tell him how wrong he is. The lord will guide you all into the truth. Joe What I'm saying is that no methodology will satisfy you. Science has come up with plenty of evidence to show evolution is random but you can always shift the goalposts and ask "how do we know that's random?" If you think it's designed then where are the experiments to show this? I want experiments not inferences, assertions or opinions. The experiment that I mentioned was to illistrate how you can show everyone that we are wrong about evolution. Show us that evolution is designed by experimentation. Stop sticking your figures in you ears and coming up with arguments that amount to nothing more than "I know you are but what am I". Upright Biped My question wasn't directed at you or ID (for once). It was directed at theistic evolution. If you don't like the question, you don't have to provide an answer.JLAfan2001
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Jimpithicus:
There is no evidence against a designer’s involvement.
There is plenty of evidence for a designer's involvement.Joe
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
JLAfan:
You do realize that you are asking us to prove something that you will always find a way out, right?
LoL! So now you can read my mind. My bet is you have nothing and this is just another bluff.
No matter what we show you, it can be turned around and argued “how do you know it’s random?”
True you do need a methodology. Are you admitting that you don't have one?
If you can conduct an evolution experiment and predict what mutation will happen in any given environment over and over again then you will have evidence that it’s not random.
That had better be a joke. So there isn't any evidence to support unguided evolution. There is no methodology behind it and it cannot produce a testable model. All science so fat :rolleyes:Joe
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
Yeah I ignored the evidence for 34 years......... The day however comes when you can no longer hide from the truth......Andre
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
JLA, you are emotional, confused and angry, this is normal for someone in your "condition". You have chosen to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the ever growing body of evidence demolishing the short lived Victorian fantasy of evolution. You claim to be a nihilist, a position common for those who lose their faith. If that is the case then why bother? Why get up, why go on living? Go eat, drink and be merry young one. Forget about trying to explain anything as nothing, in your confused worldview, can make any sense. It's all just mutations, accidents and gobbledegoop.humbled
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
Judging by what you have said here and elsewhere, you used to be a creationist, but then abandoned that position. Is this correct?
I used to believe that the universe was created last Thursday. But then I became a Popperian, and decided that the theory that the universe was created last Thursday could not be proved nor disproved. But then I encountered the idea that Popperianism could not itself be shown to be true or false. So now I am evolutionist, because absolutely anything (and it's opposite) is provable. That a great theory! And Popper was wrong about evolution, don't you know. He even admitted it.Mung
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
"If ID was the best explanation, evidence to support it will amass to the tipping point at which time the paradigm shift would occur." Judging by the steady stream of evidence favouring ID that shouldn't be too much longer ...PeterJ
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
Axel: "‘The BEST EXPLANATION AT THE TIME’ constitutes a paradigm shift!!!???? Well, that’s a new one on me" Read what I said more carefully. The "best explanation at the time" is the one that has some level of consensus at the time. The "paradigm shift" comes withe the explanation that replaces it or significantly modifies it. General acceptance of ID would be another paradigm shift. But this will not happen until it stops using, as its fundament strategy, cherry picking and quote mining information that it thinks is not consistent with current evolutionary theory. If ID was the best explanation, evidence to support it will amass to the tipping point at which time the paradigm shift would occur.Acartia_bogart
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Hello again JLAFan. I do enjoy your posts, as abrasive as they may be. Judging by what you have said here and elsewhere, you used to be a creationist, but then abandoned that position. Is this correct? I am a creationist myself. You have stated that creationists (in fact all Christians) deserve only ridicule, but surely you agree that an open minded creationist can be won over by reasonable arguments. Or was it ridicule that persuaded you that creationism was false? I like to think that I am a pricipled seeker for truth. If good evidence in a valid argument is presented to me, I will try to make sure that I don't reject it just because I don't like the conclusion. I would like to invite you to work with me so that we can discover the true nature of things together. I too had a period where I questioned Christianity and creationism. I asked myself "How do I know that what I have been taught is true?" I found that much of the evidence for evolution was not as powerful as it's supporters claimed, but that the creationists were also inclined to overstate the evidence in their favor. However, there were a couple of 'clinchers'. Two arguments (which have since been joined by a third) that absolutely proved to me... not that creationism or Christianity are true, but that materialism is false. The first is the absolute empirical impossibility of life originating by chance. The materialist/naturalist counter argument is that "A million monkeys on a million typewriters working for a million years will eventually produce the works of Shakespear." In other words, with enough time and enough chances, the seemingly impossible becomes probable. But does it? What happens if we actually run the numbers? Let's say we almost have the first lifeform, except that it is missing one particular protein (this is a massive assumption that makes the case for the origin of life orders of magnitude easier). Proteins are strings of amino acids in a chain, and there are twenty different amino acids that are used in lifeforms. Let's say the the magic protein that we need to complete the first life is 200 amino acids long (another generous assumption, proteins are usually much longer). What are the odds of randomly assembling this protein by chance? Getting the first amino acid correct means selecting one amino acid out of twenty, so the odds of that are one in twenty. The odds of getting both the first and the second correct are calculated by multiplying the individual odds. so that would be one in twenty times twenty, or 1:20*20. It is easier to express this using exponents, in which case the odds for getting the entire protein right are 1:20^200. Ok, so the odds are pretty low, but what about the number of chances we have to get it right? Well we can calculate those too. The number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be about 10^80 (see wikipedia). The universe is claimed to be about 14 billion years old, which is about 10^17 seconds. What this means is that if every atom in the universe were a protein with 20 amino acids, and every second they all recombined into different proteins and they had been doing this for entire (claimed) age of the universe, they would have made 10^97 different proteins. The chance of finding the correct combination of amino acids this way is less than 1 in 10^103. That's not enough. That's not nearly enough. The number of combinations we need to search through is over 100 orders of magnitude larger than we we can search through by blind chance even with all those ridiculous assumptions that make the odds for blind chance easier. I'll go though the other 'clinchers' at another time I think. This post is already longer than I would like.StephenA
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
1) Is the book of Genesis to be taken as historical or scientific? A) If so then how do you reconcile science with the account as one can see it’s clearly wrong? B) If not then where does the history start and the allegory end? C) If it is metaphor or allegory then why did the historical church understand it as literal? Why should I believe the bible’s account over other creation myths? Why can’t I take the Norse account and say “this is what actually happened. Odin created the world except the account is not science or history just morality. Odin teaches us how to live through his metaphors.” D) How do you reconcile Non historical Adam with the book of Romans?
#1 This has nothing to do with ID, and does not alter the physical eviodence of design in nature. #1A This has nothing to do with ID, and does not alter the physical eviodence of design in nature. #1B This has nothing to do with ID, and does not alter the physical eviodence of design in nature. #1C This has nothing to do with ID, and does not alter the physical eviodence of design in nature. #1D This has nothing to do with ID, and does not alter the physical eviodence of design in nature. Fan, you are on the wrong blog. You do not have the self discipline to separate your personal anxieties from empirical evidence. Your'e wasting your time here. You need to be somewhere where the exercise of your emotions are met with the echoes of those just like you, and where no one cares about searching for the actual truth of the matter.Upright BiPed
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
I should have inserted in parentheses, 'paradigm shifts', after quoting your sentence: 'Darwin's theory was one of these...', at the start of your fourth paragraph.Axel
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Sorry Jerry, but there are plenty of comments and responses in UD that demonstrate exactly what JLA described.
I haven't a clue what JLA was trying to say. It was nonsense.
So how do you define his statement as gibberish?
If someone was going to write double talk, this would be a good example. It says absolutely nothing. I am flabbergasted that someone would defend the comment. But then again it makes my basic point.jerry
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
A-b 26: I'm sure you're right about the coveted nature of the paradigm shift, though, undergraduate level studies were as slavish as grammar-school 'A' Level studies, in my experience, and I evidently drew the unsound inference from that. But there again, maybe undergraduates just read the set books and acknowledged authorities and parrot them for lack of interest or insight, confident that it will be enough to see them pass the exams. However..... do you not see the foolishness of your contention, below? 'Darwin’s theory was one of these. The new synthesis was another. Neutral theory is yet another. Each of these met with initial resistance but were eventually accepted as the best explanation at the time. 'The BEST EXPLANATION AT THE TIME' constitutes a paradigm shift!!!???? Well, that's a new one on me. They might well have been taken for such at the time, for lack of knowledge, but, you know, a miss is as good as a mile...! Indeed, it can be stated, rather, that while paradigm shifts created by others can bring out the worst of human nature in those who are supposed to be the best in their professions, opposition to the discoverers and their putatively-seminal discoveries is no guarantee of their validity.Axel
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
For sure, Andre. And there is Science in the Bible that is still over our 21st Century heads. Prophets being prophetic:)ppolish
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Hebrews 11:3 I love this verse. In the 20th century we finally knew what it meant.... "By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God; that from invisible things visible things might be made."Andre
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Bible was not meant to be Science, but it contained great science. http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml True in it's day, still profound today. And 2000 years from now too. "Evolution is True!" - let's see how that one holds up:)ppolish
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
I just don't see how Neanderthals and Denisovans (or whatever) can be counted as evidence for Darwinian evolution. All it shows is that there is a great variability in the human genome. We see a similarly great variety in the genomes of other species. Canines, for example, run the gamut from wolves and coyotes to Great Danes and diminutive Chihuahuas. No Darwinian evolution in the picture. Zilch.Mapou
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Ppolish Indeed, the bible did not call atoms by name but it was the first book to say world is made of that which is unseen. Also that air had weight.Andre
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Jimpithecus Do you believe that Jesus is our God Lord savior? I do and there is two ways to look at this either everything in the bible is true or everything is false. Since Jesus claims to be God he is either speaking the truth when he talks about the truthfulness of the old testament or he is a liar, He can not be both. You know the four pillars of the world, or corners the bible speak of is north, east, south and west..... you knew that right? The issue that people tend to forget about what they read in the Bible is an issue of translation. Hebrew has about 80 000 words and English has more than a million by now. A Good example, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth". You have been bamboozled by atheists pointing out to you how crazy this is right, I mean the earth is a sphere right? Well the English word sphere was only invented in the 13th century. I am glad that the bible has stayed as faithful as possible to the original words. As an intelligent being, I understand the context it was used 2000 years ago.Andre
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
JLA, the science in the Bible was true when it was written. Some World Class Science for the time I might add. Heck, I will add.ppolish
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Jimpithecus I have seen this reasoning many times before and no christian has given me an adequate answer. Let's see how you do. 1) Is the book of Genesis to be taken as historical or scientific? A) If so then how do you reconcile science with the account as one can see it's clearly wrong? B) If not then where does the history start and the allegory end? C) If it is metaphor or allegory then why did the historical church understand it as literal? Why should I believe the bible's account over other creation myths? Why can't I take the Norse account and say "this is what actually happened. Odin created the world except the account is not science or history just morality. Odin teaches us how to live through his metaphors." D) How do you reconcile Non historical Adam with the book of Romans? Why should I believe what Biologos teaches over what the historical church has taught for centuries? It wasn't until the enlightenment that catch-all metaphor began to appear more prominently. When science disproved the bible, you guys fell back on metaphor rather than admit you were wrong. As I said, you either twist the meaning of the texts over centuries of teaching or you admit the bible is unreliable. Just positing metaphor doesn't cut it.JLAfan2001
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
There is no evidence against a designer's involvement.Jimpithecus
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
OK then, let us forget about all the conjecture, the extrapolation and the putting up of arguments that will supposedly just be "wiggled" out of. Let's lay it out on the table. By the way, as a side-track, you can hardly criticize and call those who reject evolution as anti-scientific and the like when the apparent "scientific community" accept multiverse theory and abiogenesis, neither of which have any credible evidence or mechanism/postulated theory for. That is what we sometimes refer to as the "Pot, kettle, black" scenario. Anyway, as there is so much conjecture in these debates, and we cannot "observe" these long periods of time so we have to make inference, the onyl true way to settle this argument is through sound, mathematical models. Not the models like Einstein used where you stick in an arbitrary constant to avoid admitting the universe had a beginning, or some Darwinist program that positively sways and selects mutations that would never be selected for in nature as they offer nothing, but a realistic fair mathematical model. That also means, not covering the earht with 10 feet deep of bacteria as well. To this we can turn to threads like ones Kairofocus has posted recently, thinking about the mathematics of randomly generating the most simplist organism present on earth. The problem is, even to get to that stage there is simply nowhere near enough time-space for this to occur. I.e. to generate the necessary functional information through random unguided chance to give the most simplist organism. I have yet to see any convincing argument against such mathematical models and questions that take a fair unbiased approach. That is as well, not even taking into consideration effects outside simple genetics (epigenetics and non-DNA transmissible information). Please, do enlighten those of us who subscribe to ID rebuttals that address these problems and allow for a functional single-celled organism through mathematics of unguided random chance. Until that can be done adequately, it does not matter what you find in the fossil record, it does not matter what you find molecularly (unless it changes the mechanism of evolution i.e. unguided random mutation and chance), evolution is falsified as it does not stand up to mathematical criteria. It is therefore mere extrapolation, assumption and conjecture founded on nothing substantial. Therefore, to claim it has more credence than a designer is also false despite whether you agree with the views of those that do subscribe to a designer or not (christian "God" or other god or alien intervention or whatever). Once you provide us with solid mathematics to justify the random abilities of neo-Darwinism, I would also be grateful for explaining how acceptance of abiogenesis, with no understanding of a mechanism, no theory, and no proof except "it just had to have happened, somehow" is more "scientific" or justified than a transcendent force creating through design. Secondly, I would love to understand a) the proof for detection of a multiverse (and why "we may never be able to detect it" is acceptable in science yet the same argument for a designer god is mocked and vehemently unacceptable in the scientific community), and b) assuming there is a multiverse, by what means or mechanisms are universes generated in the first place (and why those theories are more plausible than a transcendent god creating universes). Thanks in advance for your wisdom, foresight and most importantly, proof of these things and why they have more evidence that clearly negates any possibility of a designer's involvement.Dr JDD
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Here is the link to the Harlow paper: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calvin.edu%2Facademic%2Freligion%2Ffaculty%2Fharlow%2FCreation%2520according%2520to%2520Genesis.pdf&ei=mc8rS8qwFYOXtgeOscGKCQ&usg=AFQjCNHGyRfbkUt3uXahuAjf_JZIW21g_A&sig2=ufPqZIKykPNut3e4r5-VfwJimpithecus
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
JLAFan2001, your criticisms assume that we are attempting to view the bible as a science textbook and are twisting it to fit the science of the day. That is not what evolutionary creationists are doing. We are saying at the outset: "this is not a science textbook." Conrad Hyers noted that it is absurd for us to think that the Bible was written in such a way that we would, hey presto, understand its scientific truths some four thousand years later. If one reads the Bible in its cultural context and with an understanding of why it was written, no "deception" is necessary. There are very good reasons not to view the Bible as a science textbook. As Daniel Harlow puts it: "If we were to insist that the Bible gives an accurate picture of the physical cosmos, then to do so with integrity, we would have to believe that the earth is flat, immobile, and resting on pillars; that the sky is solid and has windows in it; that the sun, moon, and stars are set in the sky and move along it like light bulbs along a track; that the sun literally rises, moves, and sets; that there is an ocean of water surrounding the earth; and that beyond the waters above the sky is the very heaven of God. That’s what the Bible says." We read the Bible for its scriptural truths and because it is a story about who God is and what He is to us. We don't read it to figure out how the physical world works. If one reads the Bible as if it exactly described the physical world and universe around us, it would do two things: it would render one's faith flat and lifeless and it would obviate any sort of correct understanding of said world and universe.Jimpithecus
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Of note: where Darwinian theory most needs plasticity in order to be viable as a hypothesis, i.e. in developmental gene regulatory networks, is the place where it is found to be least flexible.
A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html 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/
Yet, it is in these developmental gene regulatory networks where the greatest differences between chimps and humans are found!
Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ 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
Of further note:
Peer-Reviewed Paper: Development Needs Ontogenetic Information that Cannot Arise from Neo-Darwinian Mechanisms - Casey Luskin - June 2, 2014 Excerpt: Jonathan Wells has published a new peer-reviewed scientific paper in the journal BIO-Complexity, "Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA." With over 400 citations to the technical literature, this well-researched and well-documented article shows that embryogenesis depends on crucial sources of information that exist outside of the DNA. This ontogenetic information guides the development of an organism, but because it is derived from sources outside of the DNA, it cannot be produced by mutations in DNA. Wells concludes that because the neo-Darwinian model of evolution claims that variation is produced by DNA mutations, neo-Darwinism cannot account for the origin of epigenetic and ontogenetic information that exists outside of DNA. (Read more here:) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/peer-reviewed_p_2086201.html
Thus, despite your belief that Darwinism is a fact as well established as gravity, the fact of the matter is that Darwinian evolution has major unsettled issues that go directly to its theoretical core. In fact if Darwinism were a normal science, instead of being foundational to the atheistic/materialistic religion, it would be crushed by such findings.bornagain77
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Jerry: "More gibberish. You and Jimpithecus and Acartia_bogart should start a blog with all the nonsense you believe in. My question is does Barry pay people like this to comment here to make the pro-ID people look good." Sorry Jerry, but there are plenty of comments and responses in UD that demonstrate exactly what JLA described. So how do you define his statement as gibberish?Acartia_bogart
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
"mosaic" is code for whenever character traits are found in disarray with regards to any kind of consistent evolutionary trend. of course, evolution predicts contradictions to evolution as well. it explains everything.lifepsy
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Love this short video by Dawkins showing the complexity of H.sapien evolution. This will get funnier & funnier as years pass:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE&feature=youtube_gdata_playerppolish
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
You do realize that you are asking us to prove something that you will always find a way out, right? No matter what we show you, it can be turned around and argued “how do you know it’s random?” If you can conduct an evolution experiment and predict what mutation will happen in any given environment over and over again then you will have evidence that it’s not random.
More gibberish. You and Jimpithecus and Acartia_bogart should start a blog with all the nonsense you believe in. My question is does Barry pay people like this to comment here to make the pro-ID people look good. Oh, for an honest Darwinist.jerry
June 24, 2014
June
06
Jun
24
24
2014
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply