A physicist looks at biology’s problem of “speciation” in humans

A few notes:

Hominids, Homonyms, and Homo sapiens - 05/27/2009 - Excerpt: Homo erectus is particularly controversial, because it is such a broad classification. Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class. “In his 1950 review, Ernst Mayr placed all of these forms firmly within the species Homo erectus,” they explained. “Subsequently, Homo erectus became the standard-issue ‘hominid in the middle,’ expanding to include not only the fossils just mentioned, but others of the same general period....”. They discussed the arbitrariness of this classification: "Put together, all these fossils (which span almost 2 myr) make a very heterogeneous assortment indeed; and placing them all together in the same species only makes any conceivable sense in the context of the ecumenical view of Homo erectus as the middle stage of the single hypervariable hominid lineage envisioned by Mayr (on the basis of a much slenderer record). Viewed from the morphological angle, however, the practice of cramming all of this material into a single Old World-wide species is highly questionable. Indeed, the stuffing process has only been rendered possible by a sort of ratchet effect, in which fossils allocated to Homo erectus almost regardless of their morphology have subsequently been cited as proof of just how variable the species can be." By “ratchet effect,” they appear to mean something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: i.e., “Let’s put everything from this 2-million-year period into one class that we will call Homo erectus.” Someone complains, “But this fossil from Singapore is very different from the others.” The first responds, “That just shows how variable the species Homo erectus can be.” https://crev.info/2009/05/hominids_homonyms_and_homo_sapiens/ 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 Review of "Contested Bones" (Part 4 - Chapter 4 "Homo erectus") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rtK0ScrQn4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm&index=4 Good-bye Heidelberg Man: You Never Existed - July 11, 2014 Excerpt: “If someone kills one person they go to jail,” anthropologist Zeresenay Alemseged of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco noted last month at a meeting here in France’s deep south. “But what happens if you kill off a whole species?” The answer soon became apparent: anguished debate. In the balance was Homo heidelbergensis, a big-brained human ancestor generally seen as a pivotal figure, (common ancestor of modern humans and our extinct closest cousins, the Neandertals), during a murky period of evolution. At the invitation-only meeting, researchers debated whether this species really was a major player—or "no more than a paleoanthropologists’ construct". http://crev.info/2014/07/heidelberg-man-never-existed/ "Habilis is widely recognized by paleo-experts as an invalid taxon, or at best an incoherent assemblage of fragmentary bones. Habilis is a "wastebasket taxon"- a comixture of Australopithecus (ape) and Homo (human) bones. Habilis has failed to fill the "vast gulf" that separates australopith and man. Habilis can now be added to the growing list of falsely claimed "ape-men." John Reader is a distinguished human evolution researcher in the department of Anthropology at University College, London. In his book 'Missing Links'. Reader effectively summarizes the current status of Habilis. "Nearly half a century of accumulating evidence has left Homo Habilis more open to question, more insecure than it ever was... Homo Habilis remains more of an evolutionary idea than an example of anatomical fact linking one species to another." - John Reader - Missing Links - Quote at the 41:49 minute mark: - Review of "Contested Bones" (Part 8 - Chapter 8 "Homo habilis") 3-24-2018 by Paul Giem https://youtu.be/C68QYWePB64?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm&t=2504 A Big Bang Theory of Homo - Casey Luskin - August 2012 Excerpt: To the contrary, she explains, habilis "displays much stronger similarities to African ape limb proportions" than even Lucy. She called these results "unexpected in view of previous accounts of Homo habilis as a link between australopithecines and humans." Without habilis as an intermediate, it is difficult to find fossil hominins to serve as direct transitional forms between the australopithecines and Homo. Rather, the fossil record shows dramatic and abrupt changes that correspond to the appearance of Homo. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/a_big_bang_theo063141.html New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution - U of M Press Release Excerpt: "The earliest H. sapiens remains differ significantly from australopithecines in both size and anatomical details. Insofar as we can tell, these changes were sudden and not gradual." University of Michigan anthropologist Milford Wolpoff http://www.ns.umich.edu/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html

bornagain77

daves- As far as I am concerned there was never a common ancestor between chimps and humans. To me kinesiology alone blows that alleged transformation out of the water. So, to me, who were the first humans is a fool's errand because the answer is whoever the first humans were. And also, to me, the sub-humans are the ones banning teleological explanations from science. :razz: :cool: They are devo DEVO ET

ET,

It wouldn’t be if we had actual specimens to examine. But having what we do the best we can say is that under the scenario that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor sub-human populations had to have existed.

Do you see the pattern (or lack thereof?) In answer to the question "who were the first humans?": 1) You say there is a clear boundary between humans and non-humans, but more evidence is needed to locate it 2) Casey Luskin says Homo erectus 3) vjtorley says Homo heidelbergensis 4) someone else suggests Homo sapiens daveS

To further refute daveS's claim that

“it’s very difficult to find a clear boundary between the humans and non-humans.”

Although daveS may find it "very difficult to find a clear boundary between the humans and non-humans", Ian Tattersall and Jeffery Schwartz had no trouble finding a 'clear boundary. Specifically they stated, "Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species."

Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”,,,, “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

Ian Tattersall and Jeffery Schwartz are hardly the only leading experts to note this 'clear boundary'. As the following study found, "there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system,"

Darwin's mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. - 2008 Excerpt: Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as "one of degree and not of kind" (Darwin 1871).,,, To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18479531

And as Juan Arsuaga noted, "No other mammal controls and uses fire, writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or prays. This is not a question of degree. It is all or nothing",,,

"There is no other animal species that truly resembles our own. A physical and mental chasm separates us from all other living creatures. There is no other bipedal mammal. No other mammal controls and uses fire, writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or prays. This is not a question of degree. It is all or nothing: there is no semi-bipedal animal, none that makes only small fires, writes only short sentences, builds only rudimentary spaceships, draws just a little bit, or prays only occasionally. The extraordinary originality of our species is not common in the living world. Most species belong to groups of similar ones.,," - Juan Arsuaga (paleoanthropologist) - The Neanderthals Necklace - 2002 - page 3-4

And as the following study noted, "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,,"

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/

And in the following study Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin stated that "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." To which Casey Luskin rightly noted, “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”

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).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html

Thus daveS may have a difficult time finding a clear boundary, but leading experts in the field certainly have no trouble whatsoever finding that 'clear boundary'. The late best selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession by leading Darwinists that he wrote a book, "Kingdom of Speech", on the subject. Here is one of his main arguments in his book:

“Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.” —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech

That is to say, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, and sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and, more specifically, to infuse information into material substrates in order to create, 'intelligently design' tools that are extremely useful for our survival, etc.. etc... What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, and have come to dominate the world through the ‘top-down’ infusion of information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. As Vlatko Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, stated, "The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena."

"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

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 foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our ability infuse information into material substrates. I guess a more convincing evidence could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God. And that is precisely the claim of Christianity.

Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

Verse:

Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

bornagain77

daveS repeats his false claim,,,

"it’s very difficult to find a clear boundary between the humans and non-humans."

Yet as was mentioned in post 14 in response to when he first made his false claim, there is a clear boundary in the fossil record between humans and apes:

Any confusion between ape and human fossils is solely due to overeager Darwinists who constantly try to stuff imaginary ‘missing links’ into the the chasm that separates us from apes. Yet when one delves into the details of the fossil record, and sees how disingenuous Darwinists have been with the fossil record, the confusion disappears, and the record reveals itself to be one of sudden appearance and stasis (just like the pattern for the rest of the fossil record)... etc.. etc.. etc.. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-physicist-looks-at-biologys-problem-of-speciation-in-humans/#comment-663659

And given the fact that the entire fossil record, as was briefly mentioned in post 4, contradicts Darwinian predictions for gradualism, one would expect that Darwinists would have fairly compelling empirical evidence to substantiate their belief that one type of species can morph into a fundamentally new type of species. But no such empirical evidence exists. In the following paper, Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, states that 'Bacteria are ideal for this kind of study, But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another,'

Scant search for the Maker - 2001 Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282

Ann Gauger and Doug Axe have found that Darwinian processes would need a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that requires just a few mutations.

When Theory and Experiment Collide - Douglas Axe - April 16th, 2011 Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/

Michael Behe, in his book ‘The Edge of Evolution’, noted that the ability of the malaria parasite to develop resistance to chloroquine is a two mutation event with a probability of occurring of 1 in 10^20. He then notes that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (or 1 quadrillion years)

Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

Michael Behe then put what he has dubbed 'the edge of evolution' to be at 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. ,,, Behe puts the edge of evolution at 10^40 since, as he states, 'there have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years,'.

“The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146

Moreover, in terms of morphology, billion year old bacteria "surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," and the similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,”

Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330

And on and on it goes. As the following video shows, multiple studies conducted on microbes consistently contradict Darwinian claims that one species can morph into another.

Darwin vs. Microbes - video https://youtu.be/ntxc4X9Zt-I

This is not a matter of "Well we have abundant empirical evidence supporting evolution so we can overlook the gaps in the fossil record". Not in the least. No, this is a matter of, "We have multiple lines of empirical evidence that directly contradict Darwinian claims but we will still pretend that the gaps in the fossil record are no big deal". Given Darwinists refusal to ever deal with the evidence properly, Darwinian evolution certainly does not qualify as a testable/falsifiable science. But is more properly classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience and/or even a religion that requires extraordinary amounts of blind faith to believe in.

Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ

bornagain77

daves:

You’re actually illustrating my point—assuming common ancestry, there were non-human populations in our branch, but it’s very difficult to find a clear boundary between the humans and non-humans.

It wouldn't be if we had actual specimens to examine. But having what we do the best we can say is that under the scenario that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor sub-human populations had to have existed. That is what Denyse was referring to ET

ET,

Clearly, if humans and chimps shared a common ancestor then there had to have been sub-humans. That is populations along our branch that were not humans or not quite human.

I agree, assuming your interpretation of "sub-human". You're actually illustrating my point---assuming common ancestry, there were non-human populations in our branch, but it's very difficult to find a clear boundary between the humans and non-humans. daveS

daves:

In binomial nomenclature, please.

So every transitional population has been so labeled? Take your moving goalposts and - well never mind. Clearly, if humans and chimps shared a common ancestor then there had to have been sub-humans. That is populations along our branch that were not humans or not quite human. Or is it that the concept too difficult to grasp? ET

ET,

Wow- any of them who didn’t and couldn’t produce any technology. Knuckle-walkers, obviously

In binomial nomenclature, please. daveS

TE Joshua Swamidass wrote:

Um, I do not accept neo-Darwinism. No one in science does. Neo-Darwinism was falsified in the 1960s with Haldane and Kimura.

bornagain77 was right- the Darwinian atheists didn't do anything ET

Bobby:

They may not be the sort of Christian you like, but Christianity is a broad church, and Fisher and modern-day TEs are certainly not atheists.

TE's say that Darwinism is a joke. "Christian Darwinist" is an oxy-moron. Mendel definitely was not a Darwinist ET

daves:

Who are “they”, specifically?

Wow- any of them who didn't and couldn't produce any technology. Knuckle-walkers, obviously ET

Well seeing as you consistently argue for atheistic materialism until it is pointed out to you that atheistic materialism undermines free-will and personhood, then you switch to arguing for some ill defined form of pantheism, I would hardly consider you a paragon of logically consistent reasoning. But alas, that is only "my" personal opinion, but at least in Christian Theism, I can consistently ground the free will and personhood necessary to have a valid personal opinion in the first place. Of note: Dr. Craig states that Metaphysical Naturalism (Atheism) is reducto ad absurdum on (at least) these eight following points: (8 points which, by the way, Dr. Craig pulled from Dr. Rosenburg's own book on atheism.)

1.) Argument from intentionality 1. If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything. 2. I am thinking about naturalism. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 2.) The argument from meaning 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2. Premise (1) has meaning. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 3.) The argument from truth 1. If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences. 2. Premise (1) is true. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 4.) The argument from moral blame and praise 1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions. 2. I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 5.) Argument from freedom 1. If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely. 2. I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1). 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 6.) The argument from purpose 1. If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything. 2. I (Dr. Craig) planned to come to tonight's debate. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 7.) The argument from enduring 1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time. 2. I have been sitting here for more than a minute. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 8.) The argument from personal existence 1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist. 2. I do exist! 3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s following presentation of the 8 points to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheist's) position actually is.

Is Metaphysical Naturalism (Atheism) Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ

,,,Some of the insanity inherent in Atheism in Rosenberg's own words,,,

"There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again. (…) So, the fiction of the enduring self is almost certainly a side effect of a highly effective way of keeping the human body out of harm’s way. It is a by-product of whatever selected for bodies—human and nonhuman—to take pains now that make things better for themselves later. For a long time now, Mother Nature has been filtering for bodies to postpone consumption in the present as investment for the body’s future. It looks a lot like planning. Even squirrels do it, storing nuts for the winter. Does this require each squirrel to have a single real enduring self through time? No. If not, then why take introspection’s word for it when it has a track record of being wrong about things like this, when the self just looks like part of the same illusions and is supposed to have features that physics tells us nothing real can have." - A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

bornagain77

Typical: anyone who disagrees with you is biased, but you - you aren't biased, you're right! That's quite a bit of arrogance. jdk

correction: "This reader biased atheist votes for Bob!" There all better! :) bornagain77

This reader votes for Bob! :-) jdk

Whatever Bob (and weave), I'll let the readers decide for themselves who is being honest towards the evidence and who is being disingenuous. As to people who falsely pretend to be believers in God but are, in reality, not, Jesus himself held religious hypocrites to be especially contrary to the will of God above everyone else. In fact the religious leaders and/or hypocrites were the ones who orchestrated his crucifixion. For example:

Matthew 23:13-15 “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either. “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell you yourselves are!

Needless to say, they certainly considered themselves believers in God, but Jesus would have none of their hypocrisy.

Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

bornagain77

Calling functional atheists Christians does not negate the “smell test” criteria for ascertaining whether something is true or not.

Wait, what? If someone believes in God, and that Jesus was His only begotten son, then they are a Christian, no? Next you'll be telling us that the Pope isn't a Christian either.

Moreover, I did not merely accuse you that you made a patently false statement,,

“we’ve (Darwinian Atheists) worked out the basis of heredity” Darwinian Atheists have done no such thing. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-physicist-looks-at-biologys-problem-of-speciation-in-humans/#comment-663649

,,, I proved it!

By providing a series of links to discussions that are not about working out the basis of heredity, but actually assume the mechanisms of heredity that were worked out. Yes, thank you for that interesting approach to logic. Bob O'H

ET,

They are/ were inferior.

Who are "they", specifically? I'm guessing you don't mean Neanderthals or Homo erectus. Which groups are inferior to humans? daveS

LOL, and this is a pristine example of Bob (and weave)'s debating style. Calling functional atheists Christians does not negate the "smell test" criteria for ascertaining whether something is true or not. Moreover, I did not merely accuse you that you made a patently false statement,,

“we’ve (Darwinian Atheists) worked out the basis of heredity” Darwinian Atheists have done no such thing. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-physicist-looks-at-biologys-problem-of-speciation-in-humans/#comment-663649

,,, I proved it! And again, I don't care if you read the response or not. bornagain77

bs77 -

Bob (and weave) O’ Hara, In case you did not notice, since you steadfastly refuse to ever be honest towards the evidence, my response was not even directed towards you in the first place, but was directed towards unbiased readers.

OK, so you want to comment on what I write, but you're not interested in responding to me? Nice that you accuse me of falsehoods, and then go on to acknowledge that I was right: not all Darwinians were atheists. They may not be the sort of Christian you like, but Christianity is a broad church, and Fisher and modern-day TEs are certainly not atheists. Bob O'H

Bob (and weave) O' Hara, In case you did not notice, since you steadfastly refuse to ever be honest towards the evidence, my response was not even directed towards you in the first place, but was directed towards unbiased readers. I could care less if you ever read the response or not. My purpose was to expose your argument as fraudulent for those who care for the truth. I have given up any hope that you will ever be truthful towards the evidence at hand. As to religion, you could have thrown Charles Darwin himself in as well. After all, his college degree was in Theology (not 'science or math), and his book, "Origin", is basically one long (bad) Theological argument.

CHARLES DARWIN: VICTORIAN MYTHMAKER By A.N. Wilson (Book Review By Jonathan Wells) - - Wednesday, January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Darwin called “The Origin of Species” “one long argument,” and it was a theology-laden argument against creation by design. Many people have the mistaken impression that Darwin’s theory was accepted because he provided so much scientific evidence for it (he didn’t). Instead, his theory was accepted because it fit the increasingly secular spirit of the times.,,, So Darwinian evolution is not so much a scientific theory as it is a secular creation myth. According to Mr. Wilson, “Darwinism, as is shown by the current state of debate, is resistant to argument because it is resistant to fact. The worship of Darwin as a man, the attribution to him of insights and discoveries which were either part of the common scientific store of knowledge or were the discoveries of others, this is all necessary to bolster the religion of Darwinism.” Mr. Wilson’s book is not flawless, but on this point he’s right. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/31/book-review-charles-darwin-by-an-wilson/ Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

To this day, Darwinists still use (bad) liberal theology.

Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html

In fact, you can still find hundreds, if not thousands, of so called "Theistic Evolutionists" who still use bad liberal theology. As to Fisher in particular, seeing as he promoted both eugenics and racism,,,

In 1910 Fisher joined the Eugenics Society (UK) at University of Cambridge, whose members included John Maynard Keynes, R. C. Punnett, and Horace Darwin. He saw eugenics as addressing pressing social and scientific issues that encompassed and drove his interest in both genetics and statistics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher#Eugenics In 1950, Fisher opposed UNESCO's The Race Question, believing that evidence and everyday experience showed that human groups differ profoundly "in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher#Race

Seeing as he promoted both eugenics and racism, I consider his religion, much like Darwin's and modern day Theistic Evolutionists, to be functionally dead in regards to his public life, his science, and how he viewed others. Verse

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

bornagain77

ba77 @ 6 -

Bob (and weave) O’Hara falsely claims:

“we’ve (Darwinian Atheists) worked out the basis of heredity”

Darwinian Atheists have done no such thing.

Indeed. Mendel was a monk, so I don't think he was an atheist. And Fisher was a lay preacher. Again, not really an atheist. So, you managed to (a) use a deliberately insulting nickname, (b) incorrectly said I made a false claim, (c) mis-attribute my claim (I didn't write anything about the the religious views of the people who worked out heredity), (d) make another false claim (essentially that all of modern genetics is wrong). So, that's not a good start. Why should I bother reading the rest of your response to me? Bob O'H

They are/ were inferior. It isn't a negative connotation any more than saying college football teams are inferior to NFL teams. ET

ET, Here's part of a comment by Ms O'Leary from a previous thread:

The need to find a subhuman means imposing a hierarchy. Neanderthal man and Homo erectus lived pretty much the way other humans did, and not the way a single-celled organism does. If these groups weren’t inferior, where are the subhumans that Darwinian evolution needs? Note: Not every thesis in human evolution would need subhumans but a Darwinian thesis does.

The part I bolded indicates that "not inferior" implies "not subhuman", hence "subhuman" implies "inferior". daveS

daves, I can't see how anyone would read it any other way. Boundary? Technology would be a good start ET

ET, If by "subhuman", News simply means something like an ancestor to humans, without the obvious negative connotations, then perhaps you're right (although the boundaries between types will still be unclear). I don't think that's what she means, though. daveS

daves pointed out that some fossil skulls may be difficult to classify. Universal common descent demands their be a sub-type for every existing type. It cannot be any other way. So far from being a "strange theory" it is the way it has to be given the concept. ET

Here is my theory: In Darwinism, somebody has got to be the subhuman. Otherwise, there is no beginning to human history. Hence the dehumanizing terminology.

This is a very strange theory, even for this place. For evolutionary biologists the distinction between modern human, archaic humans, and apes is diffuse. We know from other species that the barriers between lineages get stronger as those lineages spend more time apart from each other (sometimes we can even measure the rate with a "speciation clock"), so we shold expect recently-diverged lineages to produce hybrids, and more distantly related ones to be more distinct. When we look to humans this is precisely what we see. Lineages with limited divergence like neanderthals and denisovans produce hybrids. But those hybrids didn't to that well, suggesting they were neverthless distinct lineages. On the hand, creationists believe in a very sharp distinction between man and ape. But, as daveS points out, no one can agree on where this obvious line exists! Amblyrhynchus

Quotes vjtorley and wd400 to support his false claim??? Well golly gee whiz, I'm going to start quoting the Wino on the street corner as an 'expert'. :) bornagain77