Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Apes and humans: How did science get so detached from reality?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From the Smithsonian: We and the chimpanzees “are one”:

Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

What does it mean to be humans” at Smithsonian Museum of Natural History

Except, we’re not “one”. The wall has not “been breached.” So far as anyone can tell, it is not even breachable.

Nobody thinks chimpanzees are the same as humans except a few researchers who may have spent too long in the bush.

“Spent too long in the bush”? As a child, I (O’Leary for News) spent some years in a northern wilderness, where we had occasion to use the expression “bushed.” It meant that a person had gone mad living alone in the wilderness.

One manifestation of this madness is believing that a nearby animal is like a human being. The mood is captured in a British Isles poem in which a lighthouse repairman comes to think that way about a seal.

Similarly, Canadian author Farley Mowat (1921–2014) recounts in Never Cry Wolf that, after spending a great deal of time among wolves, he began to think of them as people. In both these stories, friends noticed the odd behaviour and got the guy out of there. As I recall, bushed people in the far northern community in which I lived were generally sent south by bushplane to see a psychiatrist before something really crazy happened.

None of this silliness about “we are one” has anything to do with protecting chimpanzees or ensuring their humane treatment. That’s done by enforcing legal protection, backed up by education on humane principles, not by airing counterfactual theories.

If only the time and energy wasted on claiming that chimps are just like humans had been spent on rescuing chimps from awful conditions in labs and from the crackpots who try to make them into people and render them unfit for chimp life). The two have tended to coincide, all too often.

But meanwhile, what becomes of sciences that solemnly assert absurdities like “the wall… has been breached ,” commanding the assent of all? Certainly not credibility.

See also: Why can’t we make apes behave like people? A history of doomed recent efforts.

em>Further reading, courtesy Michael Egnor: Apes can be generous Are they just like humans then?

Can animals reason? My challenge to Jeffrey Shallit

and

University fires philosophy prof, hires chimpanzee to teach, research: A light-hearted look at what would happen if we really thought that unreason is better than reason

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Brother Brian survived a brain-eating amoeba infection by starving the invaders to death. :cool:ET
August 2, 2019
August
08
Aug
2
02
2019
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
Brother Brian:
My irony meter just blew up.
Your cowardice is still intact.ET
August 2, 2019
August
08
Aug
2
02
2019
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
Too bad you do not have a 'insane worldview' meter. You would not be an atheistic materialist if you did.bornagain77
August 2, 2019
August
08
Aug
2
02
2019
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
ET
Seversky- repeating stupidity doesn’t make it a valid argument.
My irony meter just blew up. Someone should warn us about this possibility.Brother Brian
August 2, 2019
August
08
Aug
2
02
2019
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Seversky's response at 63 (to the scientific fact that it is impossible, within the premises of Darwinian materialism, to rigorously demarcate what a species is), is to recite a poetic reflection from Edmund Burke? Honest people, who were concerned with maintaining integrity within their beliefs, would rightly reject Darwinism as the supposed scientific theory that can explain the 'origin of species' since it can't even define the primary object of what it is suppose to try to explain in the first place, i.e. a species.. But alas, for a Darwinist such as Seversky, such a catastrophic failure within the foundational premises of his worldview is apparently cause for poetic musing instead of serious reevaluation and rejection of the worldview that forced such insanity on him in the first place.bornagain77
August 2, 2019
August
08
Aug
2
02
2019
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Seversky- repeating stupidity doesn't make it a valid argument.ET
August 2, 2019
August
08
Aug
2
02
2019
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Asauber @ 46
If you can’t demarcate what a species is, then there is no such thing as speciation, which is what evolution is supposed to be.
Edmund Burke commented on that a few years ago:
“Though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable.” Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770).
Seversky
August 2, 2019
August
08
Aug
2
02
2019
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Mimus claims that "We only have difficulties defining species in the fuzzy bits early on in the speciation process." And yet, as was already pointed out in post 44, the fossil record is upside down from what Darwin predicted. Thus we can readily see that Hybridization is only possible between the sub-species of the originally created kind. Which is exactly what we would expect from a 'top down' creation perspective.
Response to a Critic: But What About Undirected Graphs? - Andrew Jones - July 24, 2018 Excerpt: The thing is, Ewert specifically chose Metazoan species because “horizontal gene transfer is held to be rare amongst this clade.” Likewise, in Metazoa, hybridization is generally restricted to the lower taxonomic groupings such as species and genera — the twigs and leaves of the tree of life. In a realistic evolutionary model for Metazoa, we can expect to get lots of “reticulation” at lower twigs and branches, but the main trunk and branches ought to have a pretty clear tree-like form. In other words, a realistic undirected graph of Metazoa should look mostly like a regular tree. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/response-to-a-critic-but-what-about-undirected-graphs/
Typical of Darwinists, Mimus tries to dishonestly use evidence that properly belongs to the creation model as confirming evidence for Darwinism. Of related note, like the 'upside down' fossil record, (post 44), the genetic evidence is also of no help to Darwinists:
Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution – May 28, 2018 Excerpt: Darwin perplexed,,, And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between. “If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.” The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model - Cornelius Hunter - July 20, 2018 Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data. Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model. Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree. Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process. Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model. Where It Counts Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous. Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent. Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other. We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand. Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse. Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division. The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division. Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth? Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models! By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent. 10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence. This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits. But It Gets Worse The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450. In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450. We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/
bornagain77
August 2, 2019
August
08
Aug
2
02
2019
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
BB, My criticism of the inability of your materialistic worldview to ground logic in the first place applies no matter who the comment was directed at. If you were as astute at logic, as you would like to believe yourself to be, you would have immediately realized that fact. Some 'commenters' may even 'cringe' that you missed such an obvious point in logic.bornagain77
August 2, 2019
August
08
Aug
2
02
2019
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
Brother Brian proves that logic and reasoning are not its forte. There isn't anything in bornagain77's response that says he thought Brian was referring to him. Talk about lost and desperate.ET
August 2, 2019
August
08
Aug
2
02
2019
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
BB states: “The logic of a couple of the commenters makes me cringe.” Hmmm, OH REALLY???
I wonder why this commenter automatically thought I was referring to him? Hmmm.Brother Brian
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Heterozygosity. For example, with the Creation model the original cat population(s) would have had a high degree of heterozygosity, along with the information and ability required:
He [the Creator] indeed seems to have “carefully crafted” information in His species giving them the ability to respond to environmental stimuli to alter their own genome to adapt to new environments. He then evidently let them wander where they will with the ability to adapt.- Dr. Lee Spetner “the Evolution Revolution” p 108
The Created Kinds evolved and adapted. The extant species emerged over time from common ancestors. Instead of a single tree, Creation has an orchard.ET
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
mimus:
Does any scientist disagrre that, say, lions are tigers are distinct species that shared a common ancstor ~5-10 million years ago?
Maybe. I've seen a liger. Does any scientist have a testable mechanism that can produce said alleged common ancestor? No. And mimus, you are confused. Creation does NOT argue for the fixity of species. ID definitely doesn't.ET
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
ET, Does any scientist disagrre that, say, lions are tigers are distinct species that shared a common ancstor ~5-10 million years ago? Once lineages have spent a long time apart they become more distinct and easier to diagnose. We only have difficulties defining species in the fuzzy bits early on in the speciation process. Which, again, is whay we'd expect if species emerge over time from common ancestors, not what you'd expect if they were created ex nihloMimus
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
Brother Brian:
The logic of a couple of the commenters makes me cringe.
You and mimus- yes, I agree that neither of you understand the concept of logic. Only a total lack of logic says that humans are great apes.
But I should step back and realize that they are doing the best they can.
And that is more than enough to prove that you are clueless.
Even if their best isn’t very good.
And yet it is much, much better than anything you have been able to muster.ET
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
mimus:
If the line between night and day is fuzzy then surely there can be no such thing as day-night cycle.
That doesn't follow. And it exposes your desperation. "Speciation is a lineage-splitting event that produces two or more separate species"- UCB So given that A) our definition of species is arbitrary and B) we expect smooth blending of characteristics given gradual change, the concept of speciation is fool's gold.ET
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
BB states: "The logic of a couple of the commenters makes me cringe." Hmmm, OH REALLY??? And please do tell how one might be able to derive logic from your atheistic materialism in the first place:
“One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.” —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason) The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0 (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism). (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD
This following site is an easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic cannot be accounted for unless we believe in God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.
Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php
Further notes:
Is God Real? Evidence from the Laws of Logic - J. Warner Wallace Excerpt: All rational discussions (even those about the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes. You’d have a hard time making sense of any conversation if the Laws of Logic weren’t available to guide the discussion and provide rational boundaries. Here are three of the most important Laws of Logic you and I use every day: The Law of Identity Things “are” what they “are”. “A” is “A”. Each thing is the same with itself and different from another. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features. The Law of Non-Contradiction “A” cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time, in the same way and in the same sense. Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. The Law of Excluded Middle A statement is either true or false. For any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true. There is no middle position. For example, the claim that “A statement is either true or false” is either true or false. These logical rules are necessary in order for us to examine truth statements. We also need them to point out when someone is reasoning illogically. We use the Laws of Logic all the time; you couldn’t even begin to read or reason through this blog post if you didn’t employ these laws. In fact, you’ve never had an intelligent, rational conversation without using these laws. They’re not a matter of subjective opinion; they are, instead, objectively true. So, here’s an important question: “From where do the transcendent, objective laws of logic come?” As an atheist, I would have been the first to describe myself as rational. In fact, I saw myself as far more reasonable than many of the Christians I knew. But, I was basing my rationality on my ability to understand and employ the Laws of Logic. How could I account for these transcendent laws without the existence of a transcendent Law Giver? (1) The Objective Laws of Logic Exist We cannot deny the Laws of Logic exist. In fact, any reasonable or logical argument against the existence of these laws requires their existence in the first place. The Objective Laws of Logic Are Conceptual Laws These laws are not physical; they are conceptual. They cannot be seen under a microscope or weighed on a scale. They are abstract laws guiding logical, immaterial thought processes. The Objective Laws of Logic Are Transcendent The laws transcend location, culture and time. If we go forward or backward a million years, the laws of logic would still exist and apply, regardless of culture or geographic location. The Objective Laws of Logic Pre-Existed Mankind The transcendent and timeless nature of logical laws indicates they precede our existence or ability to recognize them. Even before humans were able to understand the law of non-contradiction, “A” could not have been “Non-A”. The Laws of Logic were discovered by humans, not created by humans. (2) All Conceptual Laws Reflect the Mind of a Law Giver All laws require law givers, including conceptual laws. We know this from our common experience in the world in which we live. The laws governing our society and culture, for example, are the result and reflection of minds. But more importantly, the conceptual Laws of Logic govern rational thought processes, and for this reason, they require the existence of a mind. (3) The Best and Most Reasonable Explanation for the Kind of Mind Necessary for the Existence of the Transcendent, Objective, Conceptual Laws of Logic is God The lawgiver capable of producing the immaterial, transcendent laws preceding our existence must also be an immaterial, transcendent and pre-existent mind. This description fits what we commonly think of when we think of a Creator God.,,, https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/
Verse and quote:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html
bornagain77
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Mimus, But alas, there is never is a definitive day or night in the Darwinian scheme of things, only a continual dimension of imagination. A dimension we call The Twilight Zone. :)
The Twilight Zone (1959-64) Original Introduction HD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U5dU3af9yM
To repeat:
A Darwinist recently admitted that, according to Darwinian assumptions, the concept of what a species truly is, the most important concept in all of biology, is a complete mystery: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/apes-and-humans-how-did-science-get-so-detached-from-reality/#comment-681663
bornagain77
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Mimi, thanks for the laugh. The logic of a couple of the commenters makes me cringe. But I should step back and realize that they are doing the best they can. Even if their best isn’t very good.Brother Brian
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
If you can’t demarcate what a species is, then there is no such thing as speciation, which is what evolution is supposed to be.
At what moment does night become day? If the line between night and day is fuzzy then surely there can be no such thing as day-night cycle. heliocentrsts are so thick...Mimus
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Brother Brian:
Why opponents of evolution are always harping in this is a mystery to me.
Except that Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. Clearly Brian is happy to be willfully ignorant.ET
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
As to other less well known supposedly transitional fossils between us and apes, none of those supposedly transitional fossils live up to their billing either,
No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests - Oct. 21, 2013 Excerpt: The article, "No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans," relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins -- humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,, They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match. "None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor," Gómez-Robles said. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131021153202.htm Has Science Shown That We Evolved from Ape-like Creatures? by Casey Luskin - Fall 2013 (useful references at the end of the article) Excerpt: A closer look at the literature shows that hominin fossils generally fall into one of two categories—ape-like species or human-like species (of the genus Homo)—and that there is a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the claims of many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors. In fact, scientists are quite sharply divided over who or what our human ancestors even were. Newly discovered fossils are often initially presented to the public with great enthusiasm and fanfare, but once cooler heads prevail, their status as human evolutionary ancestors is invariably called into question. - http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo26-science-faith/has-science-shown-that-we-evolved-from-ape-like-creatures.php Contested Bones: Is There Any Solid Fossil Evidence for Ape-to-Man Evolution? - Dr. John Sanford and Chris Rupe Excerpt: We have spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on this subject. We have discovered that within this field (paleoanthropology), virtually all the famous hominin types have either been discredited or are still being hotly contested. Within this field, not one of the hominin types have been definitively established as being in the lineage from ape to man. This includes the famous fossils that have been nicknamed Lucy, Ardi, Sediba, Habilis, Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal. Well-respected people in the field openly admit that their field is in a state of disarray. It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils. We will show that the actual fossil evidence is actually most consistent with the following three points. 1) The hominin bones reveal only two basic types; ape bones (Ardi and Lucy), and human bones (Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal). 2) The ape bones and the human bones have been repeatedly found together in the same strata – therefore both lived at the same basic timeframe (the humans were apparently hunting and eating the apes). 3) Because the hominin bones were often found in mixed bone beds (with bones of many animal species in the same site), numerous hominin types represent chimeras (mixtures) of ape and human bones (i.e., Sediba, Habilis). We will also present evidence that the anomalous hominin bones that are of the human (Homo) type most likely represent isolated human populations that experienced severe inbreeding and subsequent genetic degeneration. This best explains why these Homo bones display aberrant morphologies, reduced body size, and reduced brain volume. We conclude that the hominin bones do not reveal a continuous upward progression from ape to man, but rather reveal a clear separation between the human type and the ape type. The best evidence for any type of intermediate “ape-men” derived from bones collected from mixed bone beds (containing bones of both apes and men), which led to the assembly of chimeric skeletons. Therefore, the hominin fossils do not prove human evolution at all.,,, We suggest that the field of paleoanthropology has been seriously distorted by a very strong ideological agenda and by very ambitious personalities. https://ses.edu/contested-bones-is-there-any-solid-fossil-evidence-for-ape-to-man-evolution/ “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.” Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a), When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor. Richard Lewontin - "Human Diversity", pg.163 (Scientific American Library, 1995) - Harvard Zoologist "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)
To repeat BB, the confusion, (with a lot of help from Darwinian propaganda that you gulp down as if it is Gatorade), is all in your own imagination.bornagain77
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
"The fact that the dividing line between species is often fuzzy is just more support for evolution." The confusion, (with a lot of help from Darwinian propaganda that you gulp down as if it is Gatorade), is all in your own imagination. I've already commented on the very unDarwinian pattern revealed in the overall fossil record. (A fact which you ignored), so to go on,,, Dr. Arthur Jones, who did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids, (which is a popular false Icon of evolution), comments on the distinctiveness of cichlids
"For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing." Dr. Arthur Jones - did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids - Fish, Fossils and Evolution - Cichlids at 29:00 minute mark (many examples of repeated morphology in cichlids) - video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/14
As well, Darwinists admit that they have no last common ancestor (LCA) between humans and apes,
The Human-Ape Missing Link — Still Missing - July 18, 2017 Excerpt: Here is a long, substantive, and interesting article from the BBC — “We still have not found the missing link between us and apes.” It is interesting for two reasons. - 1. It admits that we haven’t found anything that resembles the last common ancestor (LCA) between humans and apes, what author Colin Barras calls the “missing link.” - 2. It admits that it’s hard to even agree on what the LCA might have looked like. --- What it doesn’t do is admit the even bigger problem: that we don’t even have transitional forms between Australopithecus and Homo. This is a major omission.,,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/the-human-ape-missing-link-still-missing/
This is a very curious gap in the fossil record for Darwinists to admit to. since, as Phillip Johnson noted,,,
One of things that amused me is that there are so many fossil candidates for human ancestorship, and so very few fossils that are candidates for the great apes.,, There should be just as many. But why not? Any economist can give you the answer to that. Human ancestors have a great American value and so they are produced at a much greater rate.,, These also were grounds to be suspicious of what was going on,,, ,,,if the problem is the greatest where the fossil record is most complete and if the confirming examples are found where fossils are rarest, that doesn’t sound like it could be the explanation." - Phillip Johnson - April 2012 - audio/video 15:05 minute mark to 19:15 minute mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJDlBvbPSMA&feature=player_detailpage#t=903s
Likewise, Lucy, (another popular false Icon of evolution), fails to live up to its popular billing as the supposedly definitive transitional fossil between humans and apes:
"a team of paleo-experts from the State University of New York, Stony Brook, (which includes distinguished leaders in the field such as Tuttle, Tardieu, Senut, Susman, Stern, and Jungers, among others) insist Lucy was predominately a tree dwelling ape that did not habitually walk upright" Review of "Contested Bones" (Part 6 - Chapter 6 "Australopithecus afarensis" - "Lucy") by Paul Giem - 25:00 minute mark https://youtu.be/QHZnhOUAe4c?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm&t=1435 26:00 minute mark: Craig Stanford 2012, ",, Afarensis as an arboreal adapted species is still valid and still represents the consensus view held by paleoanthropologists today". 35:00 minute mark: Body size of an ape Skull of an ape Shoulders of an ape Rib cage of an ape Spine of an ape Hip of an ape Hands of an ape Feet of an ape Knee joint of an ape Conclusion: Lucy's kind in mostly ape. 36:00 minute quote: "Lucy's distinctly ape-like nature is defended by numerous experts in the field who have published in highly respected peer-reviewed scientific journals such as,,," Lucy - The Powersaw Incident - a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the evidence - 32:08 mark of video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4ADhPVpA0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1928
Here is the fraudulent reconstruction of Lucy displayed by Darwinists
Lucy - fraudulent reconstruction http://www.live-news24.com/assets/news_photos/2016/08/29/image-13376.jpg
Here is the anatomically correct reconstruction of Lucy
Lucy - a correct reconstruction - picture https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/campaigns/lucy-exhibit.jpg
Other 'Lucy' fossils have been found since the 'powersaw incident' that show that Lucy could not have possibly walked upright.
A Look at Lucy’s Legacy by Dr. David Menton and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on June 6, 2012 Excerpt: Other analyses taking advantage of modern technology, such as those by Christine Berge published in 1994-25 and 2010-26 in the Journal of Human Evolution, offer a different reconstruction allowing for a unique sort of locomotion. Berge writes, “The results clearly indicate that australopithecine bipedalism differs from that of humans. (1) The extended lower limb of australopithecines would have lacked stabilization during walking;,,, Lucy’s bones show the features used to lock the wrist for secure knuckle-walking seen in modern knuckle-walkers. https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/a-look-at-lucys-legacy/
bornagain77
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
"And, if evolutionary theory is correct, we wouldn’t expect to be able to." Brother Brian, If you can't demarcate what a species is, then there is no such thing as speciation, which is what evolution is supposed to be. You truly have some formidably thick mental blocks barricading your brain, don't you? Andrewasauber
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
August 1, 2019 at 5:08 am To repeat, the main problem for Darwinists is that they have no way to demarcate what a species truly is. Or to demarcate when one species ends and another species begins.
And, if evolutionary theory is correct, we wouldn’t expect to be able to. The fact that the dividing line between species is often fuzzy is just more support for evolution. Why opponents of evolution are always harping in this is a mystery to me.Brother Brian
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
To repeat, the main problem for Darwinists is that they have no way to demarcate what a species truly is. Or to demarcate when one species ends and another species begins. On a Darwinian view, there should be one long continuum of the blending together of characteristics. Yet this is not what we have, when we see a dog kind we immediately recognize it as belonging to the dog kind. There is no confusion on our part when we see a dog kind as to perhaps this dog we are looking is a cat, or perhaps it is a squirrel, or perhaps a rodent. But Darwin predicts there should be such a blending together of characteristics that would produce such confusion on our part. There is simply no way within the Darwinian scheme of things to tell when one kind of species ends and another kind of species begins. To repeat,,,
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt: Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
Moreover, when we look at the fossil record, we do not see the morphing of one kind of species into another kind of species. On the contrary, when a 'kind' of species appears in the fossil record it does so abruptly, with rapid diversification and then long term stability following afterwards. In fact, the fossil record is upside down from what Darwin predicted:
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 "The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright's (1) term as 'from the top down'." (James W. Valentine, "Late Precambrian bilaterians: Grades and clades," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91: 6751-6757 (July 1994).) Chinese microscopic fossil find challenges Darwin's theory - 11 November, 2014 Excerpt: One of the world's leading researchers on the Cambria explosion is Chen Junyuan from the Nanjing Institute of Palaeontology and he said that his fossil discoveries in China show that "Darwin's tree is a reverse cone shape". A senior research fellow at Chengjiang Fauna [fossil site], said, "I do not believe the animals developed gradually from the bottom up, I think they suddenly appeared".,,, http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1636922/chinese-microscopic-fossil-find-challenges-darwins-theory “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.” Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK) “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.” G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century “Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” – Ernst Mayr - Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University “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 “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.” Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 Bechly: In the Fossil Record, “Abrupt Appearances Are the Rule” - February 20, 2018, Excerpt: , you might think that the Cambrian explosion some 530 million years is a singularity, a freak of nature: the sudden appearance of phyla, major categories of life,,,, Yet Dr. Bechly points out that the problem posed by the Cambrian event is not singular but in fact has been repeated numerous times in the long history of life — sudden explosions, abrupt appearances, followed by diversification. Each should multiply the distress of Darwin’s defenders, if they are honest with themselves about it. In a chapter co-authored with philosopher of science Stephen Meyer in the recent book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (pg. 340-352), Bechly details 19 such “explosions.” As he observes, in the fossil record, “Abrupt appearances are the rule.” Each such event poses the same challenge to Darwinian thinking that the Cambrian explosion does. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/bechly-in-the-fossil-record-abrupt-appearances-are-the-rule/
bornagain77
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
Dog-fox Hybrids - Mammalian Hybrids EUGENE M. MCCARTHY, PHD GENETICS, Excerpt: The chromosome count of a red fox is 2n=34 (plus 3-5 micro-chromosomes) and that of a dog, 2n=78. So the difference in counts is large, with dogs having more than twice as many. This fact is often cited as somehow making such hybrids "impossible." But well-documented hybrids have been produced in many other crosses where the parents exhibit large differences in chromosome counts (for example, see the various equine crosses with large differences in parental chromosome counts documented here). In general, differences in the chromosome counts of the parents participating in a cross adversely affect the fertility of the hybrids, not their viability.,,, From the various foregoing accounts, it seems clear that foxes can interbreed with dogs and that a percentage of the resulting hybrids reach maturity. http://www.macroevolution.net/dog-fox-hybrids.html
Of related note:
The Dog Delusion - October 30, 2014 Excerpt: In his latest book, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany takes on the widespread view that dog breeds prove macroevolution.,,, He shows in great detail that the incredible variety of dog breeds, going back in origin several thousand years ago but especially to the last few centuries, represents no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels. Michael Behe writes: "Dr. Lönnig shows forcefully that one of the chief examples Darwinists rely on to convince the public of macroevolution -- the enormous variation in dogs -- actually shows the opposite. Extremes in size and anatomy come at the cost of broken genes and poor health. Even several gene duplications were found to interfere strongly with normal growth and development as is also often the case in humans. So where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution now?" The science here is indeed solid. Intriguingly, Lönnig's prediction from 2013 on starch digestion in wolves has already been confirmed in a study published this year.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/the_dog_delusio090751.html Greater than the sum of its parts - Oct. 31, 2015 The DNA from both wolves and dogs (the latter mostly large breeds, like Doberman Pinschers and German Shepherds), brings big advantages, says Dr Kays. At 25kg or more, many coywolves have twice the heft of purebred coyotes. With larger jaws, more muscle and faster legs, individual coywolves can take down small deer. A pack of them can even kill a moose.,,, Since coywolves continue to mate with dogs and wolves, the argument goes, they are therefore not a species. But, given the way coywolves came into existence, that definition would mean wolves and coyotes should not be considered different species either— http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21677188-it-rare-new-animal-species-emerge-front-scientists-eyes DNA Study Reveals the One and Only Wolf Species in North America - July 2016 Excerpt: Bridgett M. vonHoldt of Princeton University and her colleagues sequenced the genomes of 12 gray wolves, six Eastern wolves, three red wolves and three coyotes, as well as the genomes of dogs and wolves from Asia. Dr. vonHoldt and her colleagues found no evidence that red wolves or Eastern wolves belonged to distinct lineages of their own. Instead, they seem to be populations of gray wolves, sharing many of the same genes. What really sets Eastern wolves and red wolves apart, the researchers found, is a large amount of coyote DNA in their genomes. The new study revealed that coyotes and North American wolves shared a remarkably recent common ancestor. Scientists had previously estimated their ancestor lived a million years ago, but the new study put the figure at just 50,000 years ago. “I could not have put money on it being so recent,” Dr. vonHoldt said.,,, Dr. vonHoldt and her colleagues found that the genomes of Eastern wolves that lived in Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario were half gray wolf and half coyote. Red wolves are even more mixed: Their genomes are 75 percent coyote and only 25 percent wolf. Some wolf experts were startled by the finding,,, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/science/red-eastern-gray-wolves.html?_r=0
bornagain77
August 1, 2019
August
08
Aug
1
01
2019
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
Brother Brian:
Evolution, however, predicts that this will not always be possible.
What page is that on? Talk about making stuff up on the fly...ET
July 31, 2019
July
07
Jul
31
31
2019
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
Brother Brian:
But what about dogs from wolves? Wolves from coyotes? Coywolves from coyotes and wolves?
What about them? Clearly we can tell them apart- well maybe you can't.
What’s to distinguish? (between humans and apes)
Plenty. Humans are upright bipeds. Apes, including chimps, are not. And that alone requires different muscles and attachment points. With humans the spine connects to the head in a different position than with apes. The rib cage is different.
And based on these rules, we are one of the great apes.
Only if you are blind or willfully ignorant.
If you don’t like it, propose a different classification system.
The system is fine. The morons running it are the problem. You have to be desperate and on an agenda to group humans with apes.ET
July 31, 2019
July
07
Jul
31
31
2019
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
rhampton7- The Creation model- the YEC model- has God's original populations containing the information and mechanisms required to fill available niches.
He [the Designer] indeed seems to have “carefully crafted” information in His species giving them the ability to respond to environmental stimuli to alter their own genome to adapt to new environments. He then evidently let them wander where they will with the ability to adapt.- Dr. Lee Spetner “the Evolution Revolution” p 108
ET
July 31, 2019
July
07
Jul
31
31
2019
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply