Why you are fat and the chimp isn’t

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 5, 2015

Human evolution, News}

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

As a genus, humans, from Homo sapiens (that’s us) to our extinct ancestors Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus, are wanderers. Over the vast majority of our history, which spans hundreds of thousands of years, we have roved from place to place, inhabiting a wide range of habitats. We moved with the seasons, we moved to find food, we moved — perhaps — just to move. Our adaptability was our key adaptation, an evolutionary leg-up on the competition. The ability to store fat was vital to this lifestyle. Body fat cushions internal organs, but it also serves as a repository of energy that can be readily broken down and used to power muscles. Humans might fatten up at one environment, then move on to another. When food was scarce, we could count on our fat to sustain us, at least temporarily.

Chimpanzees, on the other hand, are localized to specific environments where food is often plentiful, primarily the forests of West and Central Africa. Fatty stores of energy aren’t required, but strength to climb food-bearing trees is. Natural selection favored brawn, causing chimps to shed fat as unnecessary weight.

Clever idea. But thoughts from readers?

(Who would want to be a chimp just to be thin?)

See also: Why human evolution did not go the way analysts would have predicted

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

wd400
I don’t know what this even means.
Ok, as I said, the rest of us understood right away but you don't. That's ok, I understand.
It’s true I’m not all that interested in philosophy of grand narratives.
I've seen that, and it's good to see you admit it. But it's important to recognize that evolution is a grand narrative. It's a worldview. That's what you're defending. I'd suggest that you should become more familiar with it -- because often when people look at the grand claims there are enormous problems. Seeing the forest in this case, is more important than just seeing trees. That's why it's not enough to point to micro-evolution as if that answers all of the problems. There is a network - inter-connectivity that fills the biosphere. Bacteria, plants, animals, fish - evolution has to explain the totality.
Evolutionary biology is a science — a means by which we can propose and test hypotheses. I laid out one small example of that above, referring specifically to the topic of this thread. How would ID handle the same observations?
I'm pretty sure you don't understand the thesis that ID is defending. Like many, you think that ID is some kind of counterpoint to the evolutionary worldview and that ID proposes to explain the development of the entire biosphere just as Darwinism does. But that's not the case. It's important to understand what ID proposes.Silver Asiatic_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Ppolish @ 22, thanks of the Wired article (http://www.wired.com/2011/11/chimp-throwing/ ). It's hilarious! Chimpanzee poop fights are now credited with the evolution of the human brain! Who makes this stuff up? LOL By the way, Silver Asiatic, thanks for compiling the comedy at 9! And wd400 @ 96, you might want to note that your novel spelling of "Evoltutionary" (sic) includes an insertion that might actually be evolving into a brand new original thought! ;-) Shhh! Let's see what happens . . . -QQuerius_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Querius
1. First create a plausible story–how the leopard got its spots, how the giraffe got its long neck, etc., 2. Then find facts and fossils to fit into the story. It’s sorta like creating a mosaic. 3. Fill in the cracks with wild speculation, millions of years, and large latin words. 4. Contend that the story is now a *FACT* backed by Mountains of Evidence(tm). Ridicule any dissenters as anti-scientific. It’s fun and profitable. You could end of teaching university courses on the subject. ????
That method has really worked wonders for all these years! The story of the giraffe might be the funniest of them all. Of course, "they had to stretch to reach leaves at the tops of trees". :-) Things haven't changed much since Darwin gave this famous story:
"In North America the black bear was seen . . . swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."(The Origin of Species, 1st edition, chapter 6, p. 184)
They would just get larger mouths because they wanted more insects ... and then they become whales. What's so unreasonable about that? :-)Silver Asiatic_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

As I explained elsewhere, evolution proposes a “bigger picture” than merely something like why some male chimps have no fat. As I pointed out, you tend to avoid the bigger issues and focus on the minutiae.
I don't know what this even means. It's true I'm not all that interested in philosophy of grand narratives. Evolutionary biology is a science -- a means by which we can propose and test hypotheses. I laid out one small example of that above, referring specifically to the topic of this thread. How would ID handle the same observations?wd400_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

reverendspy
Exactly what part of what you wrote is a wonderful fact about evolution? Be honest and admit it is nothing more than conjecture and assumption. It surely is not science. maybe pseudoscience.
You're right. Evolutionary theory is nonsense. I don't think anybody really takes it seriously. Evolutionists just make up stories and they feel no hesitation to change or discard them at any time. See Querius @85 for the 'methodology'.Silver Asiatic_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

wd400
What on earth are you going on about? None you latest rant appears to be related in any meaningful way to anything in teh OP or this thread.
I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was saying and you found nothing meaningful in it. So, it's understandable why you can't respond to it. I'm glad others understood what I was saying.
In 15 I laid out a pretty simply testable hypothesis to explain this observation. If you dont’ like that what is your alternative and how would you test it?
As I explained elsewhere, evolution proposes a "bigger picture" than merely something like why some male chimps have no fat. As I pointed out, you tend to avoid the bigger issues and focus on the minutiae. Evolution proposes a story - a story for the development of all the massive diversity of life, and all of its diverse features, in the entire biosphere on earth since "having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one". You've got all the space you need here to elaborate on that story. Make it convincing - to us, not you. I already know you're convinced. You find it all very reasonable. But again, I don't think you see the problem. It's certainly not solved by statistical analysis of fat-friendly genes. In your reply @ 32 you were a bit more bold than usual -- yes, looking at the bigger issue, but in merely a cryptic way. For you (without any additional information) you see the difference between human and chimp as one of degree - merely a physical difference. The gap can be bridged by gradualism. Or perhaps you don't see a significant difference between human and chimp? Again, you really offer very little on those kinds of issues. But at least you got started with that.Silver Asiatic_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

"The human fossil record is still there regardless." Yep, and there is still a 'big gap' there regardless of how many ways Darwinists rearrange to fossils to try to fit their preconceived conclusion:
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.” So we’re left right back where we started: lots of disagreements, a big mystery and big gaps in the fossil record. What else is new? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/skull_rewrites_078221.html “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)
Hey, I have an idea goodusername that will resolve this issue, since Darwinists have a less than stellar record in dealing forthrightly with the fossil record for supposed human evolution. Do you think you could ever actually experimentally demonstrate that it is possible to change on of God's creatures into another one of God's creatures? Or is actual empirical evidence too much to ask? wd400 seemed to shy away when I asked him for actual evidence that such a transition was actually possible in reality: https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/why-you-are-fat-and-the-chimp-isnt/#comment-567658bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

goodusername, so you think, contrary to Zach, that getting rid of ‘half a dozen different species of early human ancestor’ and having them all re-classified as just one species (which I guess is still ‘homo-erectus’?) is a good thing? Really???
A "good thing" in what way? I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean. Is it a bad thing? Where did Zach say it was a bad thing? It's just an argument regarding classification. The human fossil record is still there regardless. The argument is just on how many ways to split the series up into species. It’s the old lumper vs splitter debate. One person might split the series up into 3 species, another into 10. If we had convenient gaps, we wouldn’t have these problems. Should the fossils of 1.8 million years ago be divided into erectus, ergaster, habilis, georgicus, and rudolfensis? Or should it just be habilus and erectus? Or just erectus? That debate has nothing to do with Darwinism. Toss Darwinism aside and the fossils don't suddenly disappear, and the arguments regarding categorization will still be there.
By golly,, Dr. Hunter is right, there simply is never any bad news if you are a Darwinist.
Wait, you think that the Dmanisi fossils are a problem for those that believe that erectus evolved from habilis? Really? Most Darwinists believed that erectus gradually transitioned from habilis around 1.8 million years ago. Luskin argued that there was a wide unbridgeable gap between habilis and erectus. The Dmanisi find is evidence that around 1.8 million years ago, it was impossible to draw any line between habilis and erectus. And this find is bad news for… the former group? If we don’t have intermediate fossils between two groups, that’s a problem for Darwinism. If we then find fossils with intermediate features of the two groups so that even experts can’t agree on classification, that’s a problem for Darwinism. Heads you win; tails you win. Looking at your posts above, I notice that you repeatedly argue that we don't have transitional fossils, but you also mention a lot about fossils from around the time that a transition supposedly took place with intermediate features of both groups that are difficult for even experts to classify into either group A or group B. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
,,, More realistically though, as goodusername highlighted when he contradicted Zach, there seems to be as many opinions on erectus’s status as there are paleontologist who offer an opinion on its status: https://uncommondescent.com.....ent-567671 Human Evolution?A recent issue of Science presents the six different explanations of hominid evolution at the right, which they refer to as “Figure 1.”?http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i4f.htm
I’m not sure where you think I contradicted Zach, but the links you posted are just more lumper vs splitter disputes. In this case, mostly on whether erectus should be one species or split into erectus and ergaster.goodusername_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

BA
I’m sure Darwinism can also explain, i.e. make up a just so story, as to why we would suspect that Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a real science! :)
LOL - there was a selection advantage for humans to think that Darwinism is a pseudo-science. Plus, chimps don't care about evolution at all, so there you have it!Silver Asiatic_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

goodusername, so you think, contrary to Zach, that getting rid of 'half a dozen different species of early human ancestor' and having them all re-classified as just one species (which I guess is still 'homo-erectus'?) is a good thing? Really??? By golly,, Dr. Hunter is right, there simply is never any bad news if you are a Darwinist. No matter what the evidence is it always ends up confirming the theory no matter what. Talk about job security! :) ,,, More realistically though, as goodusername highlighted when he contradicted Zach, there seems to be as many opinions on erectus's status as there are paleontologist who offer an opinion on its status: https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/why-you-are-fat-and-the-chimp-isnt/#comment-567671 Human Evolution A recent issue of Science presents the six different explanations of hominid evolution at the right, which they refer to as “Figure 1.” http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i4f.htmbornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Zach as to:
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray The implications of the find are still in dispute, and many scientists believe the findings represent taxic diversity rather than in-species diversity.
So if a fossil find tears down decades of Darwinian research it is just a problem for further research for Darwinists? Nice to know. Of course others might suspect that such 'flexibility', of a supposedly scientific theory, in the face of any and all contrary evidence was sure sign that we are dealing with a pseudo-science instead of a real science.,,, But, as SA has brilliantly highlighted, I'm sure Darwinism can also explain, i.e. make up a just so story, as to why we would suspect that Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a real science! :)bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Anyways, that was exactly what all the uproar was about when the discovery was announced. To repeat: Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray – OCT. 17, 2013?Excerpt: Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.,,,?If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis, H ergaster and possibly H habilis.?http://www.theguardian.com/sci.....-evolution
Try to read for comprehension. Why do you suppose that this may end the names of habilus, ergaster, etc? Because the Dmanisi find shows that 1.8million years ago, specimens that would have been classified as separate species if found separately, are actually all the same species. The only people that this is a problem for are those, like Luskin, who made the ridiculous argument that there was some huge unbridgeable gap between habilus and erectus. Here we have specimens that would have been classified as habilis and erectus if found separately, and, yet, not only are they of the same species, but may even had been family members! Oops. Some gap there. The “disarray” mentioned in the title is about the naming convention and categorization of the fossils. But, of course, that’s precisely the kind of disarray and problems that should happen if there was a gradual transition.goodusername_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

“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, there are 'yawning chasms' in the 'morphological space' between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,
"Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space." Stephen Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as 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
bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

So Zach,
If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. "That’s actually always been part of the theory of evolution,"
Always??? Really???
"Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures… To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer… The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." —Chapter IX, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin - fifth edition (1869), pp. 378-381. What Types of Evolution Does the Cambrian Explosion Challenge? - Stephen Meyer - video - (challenges Universal Common Descent and the Mechanism of Random Variation/Natural Selection) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaF7t5wRFtA&list=UUUMhP2x7_7psVO-H4MJFpAQ Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin's Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg
As Dr. Wells points out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin's tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,
The Theory - Diversity precedes Disparity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif
But that 'tree pattern' that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin's theory predicted.
The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark - upside-down fossil record) video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY Part 2 – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish Excerpt: "In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution." Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion - 'Darwin's Doubt' (Disparity preceding Diversity) - infographic http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/its_darwins_dou074341.html The Cambrian Explosion - Stephen Meyer and Marcus Ross - video Various phylum are discussed in the first part of the video (Top down, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is discussed at 33:00 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLpSb-iDNyw
bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic
This is all directly observed from watching the habits of primitive people – like Egyptians butterfly collectors and folk musicians. And by watching chimps of course. It’s evolution in action. Lab-tested. I think we could fill an entire textbook with all of these wonderful facts about evolution!
The key here is 1. First create a plausible story--how the leopard got its spots, how the giraffe got its long neck, etc., 2. Then find facts and fossils to fit into the story. It's sorta like creating a mosaic. 3. Fill in the cracks with wild speculation, millions of years, and large latin words. 4. Contend that the story is now a *FACT* backed by Mountains of Evidence(tm). Ridicule any dissenters as anti-scientific. It's fun and profitable. You could end of teaching university courses on the subject. ;-) -QQuerius_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray The implications of the find are still in dispute, and many scientists believe the findings represent taxic diversity rather than in-species diversity. A feature of common descent is that the closer organisms are to their common ancestor, the more difficult it is to distinguish an ancestor from a near cousin. That’s why scientists argue over whether a particular fossil is on the direct line to humans or a side-branch. More data is needed to improve the resolution. bornagain77: If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. That's actually always been part of the theory of evolution, Darwin saying "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."Zachriel_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic >74 Exactly what part of what you wrote is a wonderful fact about evolution? Be honest and admit it is nothing more than conjecture and assumption. It surely is not science. maybe pseudoscience. The very same conjecture and assumption was made of coelacanth below is an excerpt from Walt Browns “in the beginning” "Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds,and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?) J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths (nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs”) and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all. Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours! Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution. If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years"reverendspy_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

SA, What on earth are you going on about? None you latest rant appears to be related in any meaningful way to anything in teh OP or this thread. Moreover, why do you think male chimps have almost no body fat? Even when raised in captivity, or compared humans living in hunter-gatherer societies? In 15 I laid out a pretty simply testable hypothesis to explain this observation. If you dont' like that what is your alternative and how would you test it?wd400_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Zach, "what fossils are those?": to repeat for the umpteenth time: Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray – OCT. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.,,, If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis, H ergaster and possibly H habilis. per the guardianbornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

SA at 74 :)bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, Gotcha,,,, so predictions only count when they confirm, however dubiously, Darwinian predictions, and they don't count when they falsify, however crushingly, Darwinian predictions. Man that is some neat little 'scientific' theory you got there. It explains everything and can be falsified by nothing.
"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter "When their expectations turn out to be false, evolutionists respond by adding more epicycles to their theory that the species arose spontaneously from chance events. But that doesn’t mean the science has confirmed evolution as Velasco suggests. True, evolutionists have remained steadfast in their certainty, but that says more about evolutionists than about the empirical science." ~ Cornelius Hunter Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition - June 17, 2014 Excerpt: "With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony." - Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.html Darwin's (Failed) Predictions: An Interview with Cornelius Hunter, Part I and II http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/darwins_failed_predictions_an021311.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/darwins_failed_predictions_an_1021321.html Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. *Introduction Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Responses to common objections *Early evolution predictions The DNA code is not unique The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal *Evolutionary causes predictions Mutations are not adaptive Embryology and common descent Competition is greatest between neighbors *Molecular evolution predictions Protein evolution Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time *Common descent predictions The pentadactyl pattern and common descent Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships Biology is not lineage specific Similar species share similar genes MicroRNA *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions Genomic features are not sporadically distributed Gene and host phylogenies are congruent Gene phylogenies are congruent The species should form an evolutionary tree *Evolutionary pathways predictions Complex structures evolved from simpler structures Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved Nature does not make leaps *Behavior Altruism Cell death *Conclusions What false predictions tell us about evolution https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: you do know that the questionable fossils that you are saying confirmed a prediction of Darwinism also overturned 4 of 5 other fossils that were held, for decades, to be proof of human evolution? What fossils are those? In any case, a feature of common descent is that the closer organisms are to their common ancestor, the more difficult it is to distinguish an ancestor from a near cousin. That's why scientists argue over whether a particular fossil is on the direct line to humans or a side-branch.Zachriel_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Thanks, Silver Asiatic.daveS_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

daveS
That’s certainly true of me personally; I don’t have enough knowledge to make a case for Darwinism.
That is an admirable response - and refreshing to hear. I also think you're right to explore theological issues at the same time. Even if you find those arguments inconclusive, at least you're taking the time to research.Silver Asiatic_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

No I was confirming that Darwinists justified slaughter of aboriginals because of their brow ridges and small brains.
How did I answer my own question (about all Homo fossils being human) then?
Are you certain that the fossils are questionable and cannot currently be used to to support your position?
No, I'm not certain about that; I don't know enough about them to be sure.
So you don’t really care but you do really care? Which is it.
Heh. I don't care about the origin of the claims. I do care whether they are true or not.
All I did was pointed out that you conceded the empirical high ground to me and resorted to theological debate to try to defend Darwinism.
No. Even if the fossil is not human, that doesn't mean Darwinism is correct, so this is not about Darwinism. But why can't we empirically test biblical claims?
That’s all fine and well, but you would do much better in discussing these matters with reverendspy than with me, especially since he is in Theology and I am primarily concerned with the actual empirical science at hand.
Ok, I would also like to see what others think about this issue.daveS_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

BA77
Perhaps it would help [wd400] and Zach’s credibility, and stop us from laughing at you, if you guys actually demonstrated that it is possible to change one creature into another creature?
Exactly -- along with much, much more. I have to thank those guys ... this is one of the funniest threads we've had in a while. I love the ad hoc explanations. Going for a ride on their epicycles. :-) When evolution gave us bigger brains, we had to go wandering around to find meat. We got bigger brains by eating seeds, but we really needed meat to make those brains work right. Humans found some meat and it tasted great. No problem digesting raw meat - it's just like eating a banana except better for your brain! No problem killing animals with your bare hands either in the hopes that meat would actually be better for your brain than bananas. Of course, it was pretty obvious: "If I eat an antelope, that will be good, because I have a bigger brain than a chimp and raw antelope meat tastes better than bananas anyway and every hominid knows that meat is good for your brain. So, we'll risk our lives to get meat, but it's not a big risk because evolution gave us fat!" Modern day evolutionary statistics have shown that humans still prefer raw mammalian flesh over fruit. And humans generally don't like bananas because you would have to be a chimp to like those and they only grow on trees - so come on! Fortunately, evolution gave humans fat so they could wander around for a while until they learned how to kill, skin and rip out the good tasting parts of an animal. They tried just eating fur but that wasn't as good for the brain, in spite of tasting great and being so easy to swallow. Modern evolutionary studies have shown that among humans, vegetarians have smaller brains, like chimps. Obviously, they don't eat meat which is necessary for big brains. Vegans actually have even smaller brains - sort of like fruitflies who don't eat any meat or dairy products. Fattyness is vital to the human lifestyle so we could do more with less food. Bacteria never thought about that so they have to eat all the time and stay skinny. Chimps didn't need to be fat because they have a lot of bananas. Evolution decided that it's more efficient for them to have to find food every day, rather than just eat once a month and store fat. Plus, chimps brains stayed small but humans' got big. Trees need colorful tasty fruit to spread seeds, otherwise they'd be like other trees that have dull, uncolorful seeds. Chimps learned to climb because selection favored brawn. Humans didn't want to climb because whatever they were eating alongside of chimps on the ground, it gave humans bigger brains and evolution told them to 'move just to move' and then go find some meat. Otherwise, their bigger brains wouldn't work very well and evolution would turn them into chimps again - and humans certainly didn't want that! This is all directly observed from watching the habits of primitive people - like Egyptians butterfly collectors and folk musicians. And by watching chimps of course. It's evolution in action. Lab-tested. I think we could fill an entire textbook with all of these wonderful facts about evolution!Silver Asiatic_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

daveS,
Some of which have very small brains and heavy brow ridges?” I thought you were confirming that all Homo fossils were from offspring of Adam and Eve. Is that not the case?
No I was confirming that Darwinists justified slaughter of aboriginals because of their brow ridges and small brains
Australian Aboriginal with prominent brow ridge – picture http://mmmgroup2.altervista.org/aborig2.jpg Aboriginal peoples Excerpt: Because Aboriginals have slightly larger eyebrow protrusions, a more downwardly slanted jaw and a smaller brain volume than Western peoples, they were thought to be living examples of transitional species. In order to produce proofs of evolution, evolutionist paleontologists together with fossil hunters who accepted the same theory dug up Aboriginal graves and took skulls back to evolutionist museums in the West. Then they offered these skulls to Western institutions and schools distributing them as the most solid proof of evolution. Later, when there were no graves left, they started shooting Aboriginals in the attempt to find proof for their theory. The skulls were taken, the bullet holes filled in and, after chemical processes were used to make the skulls look old, they were sold to museums. This inhuman treatment was legitimated in the name of the theory of evolution. For example, in 1890, James Bernard, chairman of the Royal Society of Tasmania wrote: “the process of extermination is an axiom of the law of evolution and survival of the fittest.” Therefore, he concluded, there was no reason to suppose that “there had been any culpable neglect” in the murder and dispossession of the Aboriginal Australian.5 http://harunyahya.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16234/aboriginal-peoples
as to:
So you don’t know what the fossils are, just that they overturned Darwinism.
No question mark? Anyways, that was exactly what all the uproar was about when the discovery was announced. To repeat:
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray – OCT. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.,,, If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis, H ergaster and possibly H habilis. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution
as to:
The experts apparently are not in agreement, so I would say the statement that they are of “questionable interpretation” is accurate.
Are you certain that the fossils are questionable and cannot currently be used to to support your position? as to
I don’t really care about the origin (theological or scientific) of the claims that all humans descended from Adam and Eve, and that Adam to Jesus is about 76 generations. Lots of people I know believe it’s historical fact. I would like to know once and for all whether it’s true. This fossil would have some bearing on the truth of those claims if it’s human. What’s wrong with investigating further?
So you don't really care but you do really care? Which is it? All I did was pointed out that you have conceded the empirical high ground to me and resorted to theological debate to try to defend Darwinism. That's all fine and well to have questions about God, but you would do much better in discussing these personal Theological issues with reverendspy than with me, especially since he is in Theology and I am primarily concerned with the actual empirical science at hand.bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

BA77,
as to: “It would be interesting to take your proposal that the Dmanisi specimens and other “homo erectus” individuals were descendants of Adam and Eve and see what the consequences are.” That is not my proposal. That is Casey Luskin’s position.
Hmm. Based on this exchange:
are you saying aboriginals were not created by God and are sub-human? daves: “no” then you answered your own question: “So are all the genuine Homo fossils we find offspring of Adam and Eve? Some of which have very small brains and heavy brow ridges?”
I thought you were confirming that all Homo fossils were from offspring of Adam and Eve. Is that not the case?
My position, due to the ‘gap’, and due to my ignorance of exactly what the fossils are, is to say that the fossils, which apparently overturned the Darwinian meta-narrative on supposed human evolution up to that point, are inconclusive.
So you don't know what the fossils are, just that they overturned Darwinism.
The experts can’t make a case and you can’t make a case. Can I quote you that the fossils are of questionable interpretation? :)
The experts apparently are not in agreement, so I would say the statement that they are of "questionable interpretation" is accurate.
You do realize that in doing so you have left the realm of empirical science and have entered squarely into Theological speculation to try to make your case for Darwinism? In other words, you have in your appeal to Theology, in fact, directly underscored my claim that Darwinism is reliant on (faulty) Theological presuppositions instead of on confirming real-time empirical science! i.e. Darwinism is a religion not a science!
I don't really care about the origin (theological or scientific) of the claims that all humans descended from Adam and Eve, and that Adam to Jesus is about 76 generations. Lots of people I know believe it's historical fact. I would like to know once and for all whether it's true. This fossil would have some bearing on the truth of those claims if it's human. What's wrong with investigating further?daveS_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

as to:
"It would be interesting to take your proposal that the Dmanisi specimens and other “homo erectus” individuals were descendants of Adam and Eve and see what the consequences are."
That is not my proposal. That is Casey Luskin's position. For the two cents it is worth, my personal position, due to the 'gap', and due to my ignorance of exactly what the fossils are, is to say that the fossils, which apparently overturned the Darwinian meta-narrative on supposed human evolution up to that point, are inconclusive.
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.”
You seem to agree that the fossils are inconclusive and that a case cannot be made for Darwinism with them.
That’s certainly true of me personally; I don’t have enough knowledge to make a case for Darwinism.
Thus, the experts can't make a case and you can't make a case. Go figure! Can I quote you also that the fossils are of highly questionable interpretation and are of little use for establishing whether Darwinism is true? :) I note that you do not contest the fact that Darwinism is falsified as far as the empirical science itself is concerned, but that you, true to Darwinian form, instead go straight to perceived theological issues, specifically dating discrepancies, to try to make your case.
According to Luke, Adam to Jesus consists of 76 different generations, if I’m reading correctly. I don’t know what the average generation length would be, but it would have to be less that 1000 years, right? That would give an upper bound in the 70,000 year range for the ages of these fossils.
You do realize that in doing so you have left the realm of empirical science and have entered squarely into Theological debate to try to make your supposedly 'scientific' case for Darwinism? In other words, you have, in your appeal to Theology, in fact, directly underscored my claim that Darwinism is reliant on (faulty) Theological presuppositions instead of on any confirming real-time empirical science! i.e. Darwinism is a religion not a science! of supplemental note as to when the 'image of God' may have appeared in man:
“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) The mystery of language evolution - May 7, 2014 Excerpt: Paleontology and archaeology,,, Although technologies became more complex over the history of the genus Homo (Tattersall, 2012), indications of modern-style iconic and representational activities (Henshilwood et al., 2002, 2004) begin only significantly after the first anatomically recognizable H. sapiens appears at a little under 200 thousand years ago,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4019876/ Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.” http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
More interesting still, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. the unique ability to process information inherent to man, are the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic that is found to be foundational to life:
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer - video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU
As well, as if that was not 'spooky enough', information, not material, is found to be foundational to physical reality:
"it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley)) Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf Quantum physics just got less complicated - Dec. 19, 2014 Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum 'uncertainty principle' in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,, "The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,",,, http://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made 'in the image of God', than finding that both the universe and life itself are 'information theoretic' in their basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information. I guess a more convincing evidence could be that God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God. But who has ever heard of such overwhelming evidence as that? Verse and Music:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. Casting Crowns - The Word Is Alive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9itgOBAxSc
bornagain77_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

BA77,
daveS, my position is simple. Darwinists don’t have the fossils, nor a mechanism to make their case.
That's certainly true of me personally; I don't have enough knowledge to make a case for Darwinism. It would be interesting to take your proposal that the Dmanisi specimens and other "homo erectus" individuals were descendants of Adam and Eve and see what the consequences are. For example, can we establish a timeline? If so, how would this timeline square up with the biblical genealogies of Jesus? According to Luke, Adam to Jesus consists of 76 different generations, if I'm reading correctly. I don't know what the average generation length would be, but it would have to be less that 1000 years, right? That would give an upper bound in the 70,000 year range for the ages of these fossils.daveS_{June 6, 2015
June
06
Jun
6
06
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply