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

Brother Brian survived a brain-eating amoeba infection by starving the invaders to death. :cool: ET

Brother Brian:

My irony meter just blew up.

Your cowardice is still intact. ET

Too bad you do not have a 'insane worldview' meter. You would not be an atheistic materialist if you did. bornagain77

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

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

Seversky- repeating stupidity doesn't make it a valid argument. ET

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 nihlo Mimus

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

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

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

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://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/apes-and-humans-how-did-science-get-so-detached-from-reality/#comment-681663

bornagain77

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

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

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

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

"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

"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? Andrew asauber

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

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

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

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

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

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

R7, very interesting. I wasn’t aware of this. Does this mean we have to stop calling some of them foxes? :) Brother Brian

Foxes. That’s the stumper. Unlike dogs/wolves/coyotes the many fox species are truly separate species with unique numbers of chromosomes. They may look like one kind, but in terms of chromosomes they most definitely splintered into many. Doesn’t really fit the YEC model rhampton7

Ha Ha Ha,, so you have trouble telling a dog from a cat?

Nope. But what about dogs from wolves? Wolves from coyotes? Coywolves from coyotes and wolves?

Or a human from an ape?

What’s to distinguish? Humans are different but still amongst the same group as chimps, gorillas and orangoutangs. Humans developed the system of classification and the rules used for it. These were based on measures that are as objective as are possible given the circumstances. And based on these rules, we are one of the great apes. If you don’t like it, propose a different classification system. Perhaps introduce a “God promised we were special” rule. Brother Brian

BB is having trouble telling kinds of species apart from each other. "The bigger question is why a designed system wouldn’t make the distinctions between species clearer than they actually are." Ha Ha Ha,, so you have trouble telling a dog from a cat? Or a fish from a bird? Or a human from an ape? If so, in case of the later, we are the ones who build and visit zoos, we do not live in them. Hope that helps you in sorting out your confusion. bornagain77

July 31, 2019 at 5:46 pm Brother Brian, in his own way, honestly concedes that his Darwinian framework cannot classify what a species truly is

And, strangely, no evolutionist claims that you can define what a species truly is. The concept of species long predates Darwin. It stems from the human “need” to classify everything we see. Evolution, however, predicts that this will not always be possible. A prediction that has proven to be true. Only creationists think this is a problem for evolution. The bigger question is why a designed system wouldn’t make the distinctions between species clearer than they actually are. Brother Brian

Brother Brian, in his own way, honestly concedes that his Darwinian framework cannot classify what a species truly is

A species is just the result of humans trying to slot organisms into a strict, well defined, classification system. Evolutionary theory predicts that doing so is not possible.

And yet even though he honestly concedes that there is no rigorous way for him to rigorously classify organisms within the reductive materialism of his Darwinian worldview, he still, none-the-less, wants to reach over into the Theistic worldview and 'borrow' some 'abstract' scheme for classifying organisms. He, of course, prefers to subjectively classify humans with great apes. Indeed that is his primary motivation for 'borrowing' some abstract scheme of classification. BB could care less about the actual science behind the matter. And although he listed no rigorous criteria for classifying apes with humans, and indeed, as he already conceded, he can have no rigorous criteria for doing so within his Darwinian worldview, He did so anyway. This is a shining example of intellectual dishonesty,,, a blatant contradiction in logic all within the space of the few sentences of BB's post. As he himself conceded, the reductive materialism of his Darwinian worldview simply cannot ground the 'immaterial' abstract concept of species. It gets worse for BB and other Darwinian materialists. To make this dilemma even more devastating to the Darwinian materialist, it turns out that atoms themselves are not the solid indivisible concrete particles, as they were originally envisioned to be by materialists, but it turns out that the descriptions we now use to describe atoms themselves, the further down we go, dissolve into “abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,”

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019 Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

In fact, according to quantum theory, the most fundamental ‘stuff’ of the world is not even matter or energy, (as Darwinian materialists presuppose) but is immaterial information itself

“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 operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” (48:35 minute mark) “In the beginning was the Word” John 1:1 (49:54 minute mark) Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2984

Thus, in irony of ironies, not even the material particles themselves turn to be are ‘real’ and concrete, (on the materialistic definition of what is ‘real’ and concrete), but turn out to be “abstract” immaterial information. This puts the die-hard materialist in quite the conundrum because, as Bernardo Kastrup further explains, to make sense of this conundrum of a non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind. i.e. we must ultimately appeal to God!

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019 Excerpt: “To make sense of this conundrum,,, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.,,, Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,, As I elaborate extensively in my new book, The Idea of the World, none of this implies solipsism. The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness—once our personal mental processes interact with it through observation. This mental universe is what physics is leading us to, not the hand-waving word games of information realism. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

Or to put it much more simply, as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”

The mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things. Excerpt: “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.” – Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

Of supplemental note: The Darwinian materialist, in his rejection of God, simply has no anchor for reality to grab onto: As I have pointed out several times now, assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387

Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

bornagain77

Brother Brian:

A species is just the result of humans trying to slot organisms into a strict, well defined, classification system. Evolutionary theory predicts that doing so is not possible.

Which is why evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy requires " a strict, well defined, classification system".

But when we follow basic cladistics and taxonomy to say that we fit best with the great apes (chimps, gorillas and orangutans) some people get all bent out of shape.

Because we do NOT fit with the great apes. We are upright bipeds. There are many glaring physical DIFFERENCES between humans and the great apes. It's as if our resident evos are blind or willfully ignorant. ET

BA77

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:

A species is just the result of humans trying to slot organisms into a strict, well defined, classification system. Evolutionary theory predicts that doing so is not possible. Humans are mammals. No argument. Humans are primates. Again, no argument. But when we follow basic cladistics and taxonomy to say that we fit best with the great apes (chimps, gorillas and orangutans) some people get all bent out of shape. Brother Brian

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:

What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery - July 16, 2019 Excerpt: What is a species? The most famous definition of a species comes from the 20th century German-born biologist Ernst Mayr, who emphasised the importance of interbreeding. The idea (roughly) is that two organisms are of the same species if they can breed with one another to produce fertile offspring. That is why a donkey and a horse aren’t the same species: they can breed and produce offspring, but not fertile offspring.,,, But it wasn’t long before the problems with Mayr’s approach became apparent. The definition makes use of the notion of interbreeding. This is all very well with horses and polar bears, but smaller organisms like bacteria do not interbreed at all. They reproduce entirely asexually, by simply splitting in two. So this definition of species can’t really apply to bacteria.,,, In the 1960s, another German biologist, Willi Hennig, suggested thinking about species in terms of their ancestry. In simple terms, he suggested that we should find an organism, and then group it together with its children, and its children’s children, and its children’s children’s children. Eventually, you will have the original organism (the ancestor) and all of its descendents. These groups are called clades. Hennig’s insight was to suggest that this is how we should be thinking about species. But this approach faces its own problems. How far back should you go before you pick the ancestor in question? If you go back in history far enough, you’ll find that pretty much every animal on the planet shares an ancestor. But surely we don’t want to say that every single animal in the world, from the humble sea slug, to top-of-the-range apes like human beings, are all one big single species? Enough of species? This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete. The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,, some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,, One of the great discoveries of evolutionary biology is that the human species is not special or privileged in the grand scheme of things, and that humans have the same origins as all the other animals. This approach just takes the next step. It says that there is no such thing as “the human species” at all. https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200

Well I guess that he is happy that he has no clue how to define what a species truly is just long as humans are, contrary to Christian presuppositions, "not special or privileged in the grand scheme of things". Of course others of us who are not so enamored with the idea of being so easily classified alongside pond scum,,,,

“human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.” John Gray - Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals - page 33 - 2002

,,,and who also expect to have a little more scientific rigor from a supposed scientific theory that purports to explain, of all things, 'The Origin of Species' itself, might find his flippant dismissal of the Darwinian ability to define what a species truly is to be a superficial dismissal of his self-admitted very serious shortcoming within his Darwinian framework. And indeed, this inability for Darwinists to define what a species truly is within the Darwinian framework gives a glimpse into a irredeemable, and catastrophic, defect within the Darwinist's reductive materialistic framework: Darwinists ultimately seek to 'scientifically' explain everything in materialistic terms. i.e. Reductive materialism. And yet, if something is not composed of particles or does not have physical properties (e.g., mass, energy, orientation, position, etc), it is abstract, i.e., spiritual. Numbers, mathematics, logic, truth, distance, time, beauty, ugliness, species, person, information, etc.. etc.. all fall into that category of being abstract. It is amazing how many things fall into that 'abstract' category even though most of us, including scientists, (“scientists” also happens to be an abstract term itself), swear they exist physically. The following article is good for explaining exactly why Darwinists will never be able to give an adequate account of what a species truly is

Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt: First, the problem of essences. G. K. Chesterton once quipped that “evolution . . . does not especially deny the existence of God; what it does deny is the existence of man.” It might appear shocking, but in this one remark the ever-perspicacious Chesterton summarized a serious conflict between classical Christian philosophy and Darwinism. In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Think about it: How is it that we are able to recognize different organisms as belonging to the same group? The Aristotelian provides a good answer: It is because species really exist—not as an abstraction in the sky, but they exist nonetheless. We recognize the squirrel’s form, which it shares with other members of its species, even though the particular matter of each squirrel differs. So each organism, each unified whole, consists of a material and immaterial part (form).,,, One way to see this form-matter dichotomy is as Aristotle’s solution to the ancient tension between change and permanence debated so vigorously in the pre-Socratic era. Heraclitus argued that reality is change. Everything constantly changes—like fire, which never stays the same from moment to moment. Philosophers like Parmenides (and Zeno of “Zeno’s paradoxes” fame) argued exactly the opposite; there is no change. Despite appearances, reality is permanent. How else could we have knowledge? If reality constantly changes, how can we know it? What is to be known? Aristotle solved this dilemma by postulating that while matter is constantly in flux—even now some somatic cells are leaving my body while others arrive—an organism’s form is stable. It is a fixed reality, and for this reason is a steady object of our knowledge. Organisms have an essence that can be grasped intellectually. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, 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. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, Implications for Bioethics This is not a mere abstract point. This dilemma is playing itself out in contemporary debates in bioethics. With whom are bioethicists like Leon Kass (neo-Aristotelian and former chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics) sparring today if not with thoroughgoing Darwinians like Princeton’s Peter Singer, who denies that humans, qua humans, have intrinsic dignity? Singer even calls those who prefer humans to other animals “speciesist,” which in his warped vocabulary is akin to racism.,,, If one must choose between saving an intelligent, fully developed pig or a Down syndrome baby, Singer thinks we should opt for the pig.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

This inability of Darwinists to ground abstract concepts in their reductive materialistic worldview is, as mentioned previously. catastrophic to Darwinian evolution as a scientific worldview. One of the main reasons this failure to ground abstract concepts is catastrophic to Darwinian evolution as a scientific worldview is that mathematics itself, (the very backbone of all science, engineering and technology), is an abstract concept that can find no basis within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution.

What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

Of supplemental note: The following video goes over several lines of scientific evidence that reveal that humans are not nearly as inconsequential in this universe, and on this earth, as Darwinists would, apparently, prefer to for us to believe.

Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives – video (review of the scientific evidence starts at the 13:00 minute mark) https://youtu.be/aqUxBSbFhog?t=782

bornagain77

Brother Brian:

Similarily, we commonly classify the gorilla, chimpanzee, orangutan and humans as the “great apes”.

And yet the only people to do so think that we evolved from them, albeit without any way to test the claim. So THAT is the problem.

Some humans get all bent out of shape about this...

Because it is question-begging nonsense.

Does anyone really think that the snow leopard gets all pissed off being lumped in with those other cats who can’t even purr?

You have to be daft to think that they even know or care ET

goodusername:

Close – I’d phrase it as that humans are *one* of the species of great ape, not that we are somehow all one great ape.

I would say that is question-begging nonsense ET

mimus:

If the group “great apes” exists is necessarily includes us.

Nonsense. We are only in that group to the willfully ignorant people on an agenda. We are NOT knuckle-walkers. We are NOT quadrupeds. ET

This has to be one of the strangest disagreents I have read here. Maybe this will put it in context. We commonly classify the tiger, lion, jaguar, leopard, and snow leopard as the “big cats”. Similarily, we commonly classify the gorilla, chimpanzee, orangutan and humans as the “great apes”. Some humans get all bent out of shape about this, presumably due to some misplaced idea about human exceptionalism. Does anyone really think that the snow leopard gets all pissed off being lumped in with those other cats who can’t even purr? Brother Brian

No. It's like saying "squares are not only like rectangles, they are one". If the group "great apes" exists is necessarily includes us. That's all there is to it. The great apes are not "indivisible", but it you want to divide the group it cant be {(orangs, gorillas, chimps)(humans)}, as you seem to wish, because chimps are more close to humans that gorillas. The taxonomically valid divisions are { (organs) (gorillas, chimps, humans)} { (organs) (gorillas) (chimps, humans)} { (organs) (gorillas) (chimps) (humans)} Mimus

News,

I supposed they meant the first and you supposed they meant the second – that we are all one great ape.

Close - I’d phrase it as that humans are *one* of the species of great ape, not that we are somehow all one great ape. It’s similar to how some people might mistakenly say that since dogs are related to wolves, that therefore “dogs are related to carnivora”. Well, that’s true, kind of, but it gives the impression that dogs left carnivora, and so it’s worth pointing out that dogs still are one. I.e., dogs are one of the species of carnivora. (I should point out that I’m not really in full agreement with the Smithsonian statement. I’m not personally opposed to informal, paraphyletic groups. Paraphyletic groups are groups that exclude members who are actually more closely related to certain members than the members are to each other. I agree that there are important ways in which chimps and gorillas are more similar to each other than we are to chimps, even though humans and chimps are indeed closer relatives than chimps are to gorillas. Thus I don’t mind there being a term for chimps, gorillas, and orangutans that excludes humans. Another example of a paraphyletic group is “fish.” Humans are more closely related to trout than trout are to lamprey, but I don’t mind people calling trout and lamprey “fish” but excluding humans, as trout and lamprey have a rather “fishy” quality that humans lack. Thus “fish” is not a formal taxonomic group. But while not opposed to such groups, as an informal designation, it is fascinating to learn, IMO, that such groups are indeed paraphyletic. Some are philosophically opposed to such groups, which is why some will argue that humans are fish.) goodusername

h, Mimus and goodusername above, I am beginning to see what you mean - what a clever piece of grammatical equivocation the Smithsonian indulges in! " humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one." This is capable of two different interpretations: humans are not only related to the great apes – [they and] we are one. [one indivisible group] or humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one [we are one great ape]. I supposed they meant the first and you supposed they meant the second - that we are all one great ape. Perhaps they did. But then what does that mean? "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." In the first place, to the Smithsonian crowd, that wouldn't be a "surprise" at all, They've been talking the idea up since forever, But what barrier has been breached? If anything, the fact that humans and chimpanzees have such similar genetics and are so vastly different should make us wonder how much genetics matters in these things. News

An analogy may help to understand why chimps and humans can have 95% (or whatever) the same DNA, yet be so different. Consider buildings: you can start with a pile of bricks, a pile of lumber, some steel pieces, roofing materials, floor tiles, windows, doors, wiring, paint, etc., and then make two totally different buildings using these materials; one a small house and the other a library or school. The house and school are quite different, although they might use the same materials The genes in DNA mostly describe how to make proteins or building materials. The remaining 5% (at least) tells you how to put those materials together one way or other. Thus, most animals share a significant number or genes for bones, blood, various cell types, and cell internal components that are much the same (or very similar) in all animals. It's like a LEGO set, fifty or more different types of building block from which you can build whatever you like. Fasteddious

Aarceng at 16, thanks for the link. Too funny, even the guy behind the very questionable and misleading 98.5% figure does not believe Darwinian evolution to be true.

Margaret Wieland interviews bird expert and former renowned evolutionist Dr Jon Ahlquist - 2018 Excerpt: Drs Ahlquist and Sibley may well be best known to non-specialists for applying their DNA-DNA hybridization techniques to man,6 coming up with the well-known alleged ‘98% chimp-human similarity’. ,,, Dr Ahlquist says,,, "Molecular evidence of any sort proves nothing about evolution, in fact. All we are doing is measuring ‘God’s numbers’—or as Charles [Sibley, his long-term collaborator] used to call them, ‘nature’s numbers’ of genetic similarity or difference. The techniques used by phylogeneticists to make their ‘trees’ are laden with evolutionary assumptions. They simply assume that evolution is a fact and then stuff their data into their algorithms, which therefore will always produce an evolutionary result. Regardless, we all have the same data, the difference is how we interpret it." https://creation.com/jon-ahlquist

And again to repeat, a Darwinist, who studied the methodology of how one of the more famous 98.5% Chimp-Human DNA similarity comparisons was derived, (i.e. Ahlquist and Sibley), stated that the 98.5% comparison “needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years”,,,

The Rise and Fall of DNA Hybridization – Jonathan Marks – 2011 Excerpt: the technique of DNA hybridization had devolved into being doubly “tricky” – but more significantly, the outstanding charge of data falsification was there in black-and-white in the leading science journal in America. It seemed as though nothing more needed to be said for the “wheels of justice” to begin turning. Yet they didn’t. In 1993, I was asked by The Journal of Human Evolution to review Jared Diamond’s book, The Third Chimpanzee. Noting that the book’s “hook” was based on the Sibley-Ahlquist work, which Diamond was still touting uncritically, I said: Perhaps you recall Sibley and Ahlquist. In a nutshell, their results were: (1) chimp-gorilla DNA hybrids were more thermally stable than chimp-human hybrids; (2) the differences were insignificant; and (3) reciprocity was very poor when human DNA was used as a tracer. Unfortunately, the conclusions they reported were: (1) chimp-human was more thermally stable than chimp-gorilla; (2) differences were significant; and (3) reciprocity was near-perfect. And they got from point A to point B by (1) switching experimental controls; (2) making inconsistent adjustments for variation in DNA length, which was apparently not even measured; (3) moving correlated points into a regression line; and (4) not letting anyone know. The rationale for (4) should be obvious; and if (1), (2) and (3) are science, I’m the Princess of Wales. This work needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years.31 31Marks, J. (1993) Review of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. Journal of Human Evolution, 24:69-73. http://webpages.uncc.edu/~jmarks/dnahyb/Sibley%20revisited.pdf

bornagain77

News,

Your defense of the Smithsonian is well-meant. 

I haven’t given a defense of the Smithsonian; I’m merely trying to explain what they are saying.

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: dogs, coyotes, and cats are more closely related to one another than either is to squirrels or any other mammals. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, dogs are not only related to the coyotes – they are one. But the Smithsonian probably wouldn’t say that. 

Well, yeah, obviously they wouldn’t say that. But I’m confused as to why are you bothering to point that out? Hopefully, if you read post #11, you understand why they wouldn’t say that. Dogs and coyotes are both species. Dogs, coyotes, and cats are indeed more related to each other than they are to squirrels. Dogs, coyotes, and cats thus all belong to carnivora, while the squirrels are left out. Thus a statement analogous to the Smithsonian statement would be: “dogs are not only related to the Carnivora - they are one.” Dogs and coyotes are both mammals, Dogs and coyotes are both carnivora. That doesn’t mean that dogs are coyotes, or cats, or any other carnivoran species.

Some do not want to acknowledge what it says and what it means.

Apparently goodusername

From what I can tell as a confirmed layman, DNA appears to be acting more like a database than a blueprint (IOW an informational resource rather than a program). It's understandable that biologists would resist losing their mechanistic analogy to an informational one, even in the midst of the Information Age, if in doing so the program (formerly known as "the blueprint") by which an organism constructs itself actually resides somewhere as yet unknown. jstanley01

Here are a few more factoids that don't bode well for those who desperately want to be kissing cousins with chimps,, Humans are far more genetically unique from one another that was presupposed by the 'gene-centric' assumption of Darwinists

Duality in the human genome - November 28, 2014 Excerpt: The results show that most genes can occur in many different forms within a population: On average, about 250 different forms of each gene exist. The researchers found around four million different gene forms just in the 400 or so genomes they analysed. This figure is certain to increase as more human genomes are examined. More than 85 percent of all genes have no predominant form which occurs in more than half of all individuals. This enormous diversity means that over half of all genes in an individual, around 9,000 of 17,500, occur uniquely in that one person - and are therefore individual in the truest sense of the word. The gene, as we imagined it, exists only in exceptional cases. "We need to fundamentally rethink the view of genes that every schoolchild has learned since Gregor Mendel's time.,,, According to the researchers, mutations of genes are not randomly distributed between the parental chromosomes. They found that 60 percent of mutations affect the same chromosome set and 40 percent both sets. Scientists refer to these as cis and trans mutations, respectively. Evidently, an organism must have more cis mutations, where the second gene form remains intact. "It's amazing how precisely the 60:40 ratio is maintained. It occurs in the genome of every individual – almost like a magic formula," says Hoehe. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-11-duality-human-genome.html DNA Variation Widens Human-Chimp Chasm - Jeffrey Tomkins - 2017 Excerpt: In the past several years, new sequencing technologies have become commercially available that provide much longer reads of 10,000 to 215,000 bases.2,3 These new long-read sequencing technologies allow for the more accurate assembly of the human genome, revealing some incredible surprises about human genetic diversity.,,, The results from these new papers using long-read technology have been startling and are shaking up the entire human genomics community. The most surprising finding was that the research demonstrates that large regions of the human genome can be markedly different between any two humans,,, The bottom line is that any two human genomes can be up to 4.5% different from one another, in marked contrast to the previous estimate of 0.01% based solely on single-base changes.5 These newly found large differences in human genomes conflict with the evolutionary idea that humans and chimpanzees are 98.5% similar in their DNA. If humans can be up to 4.5% different from each other, how is it that chimps are supposedly only 1.5% different from humans? The fact of the matter is that the 98.5% similarity figure is based on cherry-picked data designed to bolster evolution. Newly published research by this author clearly shows that chimpanzee DNA overall is, at most, only 85% similar to human.9 http://www.icr.org/article/9939

Moreover, as was pointed out in post 4, the genetic similarity numbers quoted in the Smithsonian article are found to be highly questionable and most likely to be tainted by Darwinian bias, (in fact, as was also pointed out in post 4, the most trustworthy numbers are turning out to be around 85%), it is also interesting to point out that the fossil record is also found to be highly questionable and most likely to be tainted by Darwinian bias.

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/ “Contested Bones” review by Paul Giem – video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm

It is also interesting to point out that when we step away from the highly questionable and, apparently, biased evidence for human evolution that is put forth by Darwinists, then both the genetic and the fossil evidence reveal a very different story than the story that Darwinists want to be told.

Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity - Casey Luskin - February 4, 2014 Excerpt: "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).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/02/the_ham-nye_deb081911.html 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

As Phillip Johnson noted, there is something very strange about how Darwinists interpret the overall fossil record,

“What I saw about the fossil record again,, was that Gould and Eldridge were experts in the area where the animal fossil record is most complete. That is marine invertebrates.,, And the reason for this is that when,, a bird, or a human, or an ape, or a wolf, or whatever, dies,, normally it does not get fossilized. It decays in the open, or is eaten by scavengers. Things get fossilized when they get covered over quickly with sediments so that they are protected from this natural destructive process. So if you want to be a fossil, the way to go about it is to live in the shallow seas, where you get covered over by sediments when you die,,. Most of the animal fossils are of that kind and it is in that area where the fossil record is most complete. That there is a consistent pattern.,, I mean there is evolution in the sense of variation, just like the peppered moth example. Things do vary, but they vary within the type. The new types appear suddenly, fully formed, without an evolutionary history and then they stay fundamentally stable with (cyclical) variation after their sudden appearance, and stasis (according) to the empirical observations made by Gould and Eldridge. Well now you see, I was aware of a number of examples of where evolutionary intermediates were cited. This was brought up as soon as people began to make the connection and question the (Darwinian) profession about their theory in light of the controversy. But the examples of claimed evolutionary transitionals, oddly enough, come from the area of the fossil record where fossilization is rarest. Where it is least likely to happen.,,, 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

Of course we all have our own biases, but I think it is more than fair to say that Darwinists have clearly let their own biases completely cloud their judgement to the point of them being completely blind in terms of fairly and objectively assessing the evidence, i.e. When the overall body of fossil and genetic evidence contradicts the already highly questionable fossil and genetic evidence for human evolution that is put forth by Darwinists, then it is, of course, the already highly questionable fossil and genetic evidence for human evolution that should be completely reassessed to see where it went wrong. bornagain77

"we are one" This is just another nonsensical non-scientific proclamation from an air-headed Evolutionist. Statements like these are a dime-a-dozen from the Evolutionist crowd. This is just one more brick in the Great Wall of why Evolutionists cannot be taken seriously. Happy Monday Andrew asauber

The ONLY way chimps are related to humans is via a Common Design. And there still isn't a mechanism that can transform populations of knuckle-walkers into upright bipeds. So thoughts of Common Descent are untestable and as such not part of science. ET

bornagain77 @ 4 In your 3rd block quote it mentions Sibley and Ahlquist who produced the 98% similarity estimate. Jon Ahlquist featured recently in a CMI article "Convert to Creation: Margaret Wieland interviews bird expert and former renowned evolutionist Dr Jon Ahlquist ", https://creation.com/jon-ahlquist aarceng

Given DNA identical in the 90th percentile yet the vast differences between the two species that share it, the obvious conclusion is that DNA isn't nearly as important to biology as previously hypothesized. A blueprint which cannot account for the differences between a cathedral and a shack isn't much of a blueprint. jstanley01

I don't how this could be made any clearer to you, so I guess I give up. Mimus

goodusername and mimus above: Your defense of the Smithsonian is well-meant. However: "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." Now: No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: dogs, coyotes, and cats are more closely related to one another than either is to squirrels or any other mammals. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, dogs are not only related to the coyotes – they are one. But the Smithsonian probably wouldn't say that. Speciation is the grand claim of Darwinian theories of evolution. In any event, the human mind puts humans in a different category in principle. Those who will not acknowledge that are dangerous even if they - and we - don't recognize it. Aaron1978, you didn't misread it. Some do not want to acknowledge what it says and what it means. News

I apologize it looks like I miss read that AaronS1978

News,

goodusername at 1, you outdo yourself. Compare: “humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one.” with “dogs are not only related to the cats – they are one.”

Yes, do compare the two statements - notice how they are very different. They are not analogous because the second statement is talking about two different species. The first statement is talking about a species and a GROUP. If you wanted to make a statement analogous to the first statement, it would go like this: "dogs are not only related to mammals - they are one." Another analogous statement would be "we are not only related to primates - we are one." A statement that would NOT be analogous would be: "we are not only related to chimpanzees - we are one." Which is not at all what they're saying. goodusername

News, You are still missing the point. Member of a taxonomic group are necessarily more closely reletaded to each other than they are to creatues not in that group. Chimps are more closely related to humans than they are to orangs or gorillas. So, if great apes include chimps gorillas and orangs then it has to include humans. In other words, if there is such as thing as a "great ape" then humans are one. This is an inescapable fact, and not some rhetorical device used to upset certain American conservatives. Mimus

goodusername at 1, you outdo yourself. Compare: “humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one.” with “dogs are not only related to the cats – they are one.” No, they're not. And - this is my point - if someone insisted re dogs and cats that "they are one," I would find myself asking why that person needed to believe such a thing. I think more such questions should be directed at contemporary science writers. News

Of related humorous interest, so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, (since, surprisingly, pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are), actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:

A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? - July 3, 2013 Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,, The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal "valves of Kerkring," heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html

Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article, (since the preceding article badly upset many Darwinists), showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins was much harder to shoot down than many Darwinists had first supposed it would be since “he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits.”

Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence - July 25, 2013 Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy. ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html

I don't think you will ever hear a Darwinist on UD ever try to claim that "“we’re a species of great pig” :) ,,, LOL Kind of blows a hole in their entire worldview,,, ha ha ha :) bornagain77

mimus:

The fact we are great apes doesn’t depend on what the number is, it’s just a taxonomic fact.

No, it isn't any type of fact. There isn't any known mechanism that can produce an upright biped starting with populations of knuckle-walkers. ET

AaronS1978, that website is garbage propaganda. GUN's claim that we are "we’re a species of great ape" is further garbage propaganda. bornagain77

AaronS1978, The differences in the 98-99% figure and the 95-96% figure depends on whether you are only comparing the protein encoding portions of the DNA, or if you are comparing the entire genome and including DNA duplications, etc. But as the article states, however one does the comparisons, humans are genetically closer to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to gorillas. goodusername

Hmm, no references in the article. Anyways their numbers are biased to put it mildly,

Geneticist: On (Supposed 99%) Human-Chimp Genome Similarity, There Are “Predictions” Not “Established Fact” - July 31, 2018 Excerpt: To come up with the most accurate current assessment that I could of the similarity of the human and chimpanzee genome, I downloaded from the UCSC genomics website the latest alignments (made using the LASTZ software) between the human and chimpanzee genome assemblies, hg38 and pantro6.,,, The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38% In order to assess how improvements in genome assemblies can change these figures, I did the same analyses on the alignment of the older PanTro4 assembly against Hg38 (see discussion post #40).,,, The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 82.34%. - Richard Buggs https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/geneticist-on-human-chimp-genome-similarity-there-are-predictions-not-established-fact/ New Chimp Genome Confirms Creationist Research BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 Excerpt: The first time they constructed a chimp genome and compared it to humans, they claimed 98.5% DNA similarity based on cherry-picked regions that were highly similar to human. However, an extensive DNA comparison study I published in 2016 revealed two major flaws in their construction of the chimp genome.1 First, many chimp DNA data sets were likely contaminated with human DNA, especially those produced in the first half of the chimpanzee genome project from 2002 to 2005. Second, the chimpanzee genome was deliberately constructed to be more human-like than it really is.2 Scientists assembled the small snippets of chimp DNA onto the human genome, using it as a scaffold or reference. It’s much like putting together a jigsaw puzzle by looking at the picture on the box as a guide. Since many chimpanzee data sets likely suffered from human DNA contamination, the level of humanness was amplified. I studied the 2005–2010 data sets that showed less human DNA data contamination and found they were only 85% similar to human at best.1 Just this year, scientists published a new version of the chimpanzee genome.3 This new version incorporated an advanced type of DNA sequencing technology that produces much longer snippets of DNA sequence than earlier technologies. It also involved better protocols that greatly reduce human DNA contamination. And most importantly, the authors report that the DNA sequences have been assembled without using the human genome as a scaffold. They also acknowledged the flawed nature of previous versions of the chimp genome: The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies.3 This confirms what many creationists have been pointing out for years. Curiously, the authors of the new chimp genome paper said very little about the overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees. However, the University of London’s specialist in evolutionary genomics, Dr. Richard Buggs, evaluated the results of an analysis that compared this new chimp version to the human genome and discovered some shocking anti-evolutionary findings. Dr. Buggs reported on his website that “the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”?4 Assuming the chimpanzee and human genomes are about the same size, this translates to an overall similarity of only about 80%! This outcome is way outside the nearly identical level of 98 to 99% similarity required for human evolution to seem plausible. http://www.icr.org/article/new-chimp-genome-confirms-creationist-research

Further notes:

(March 2018) 1. The DNA similarity (between chimps and humans) is not nearly as close to 99% as Darwinists have falsely portrayed it to be. 2. Even if DNA were as similar as Darwinists have falsely portrayed it to be, the basic ‘form’ that any organism may take is not reducible to DNA, (nor is the basic ‘form’ reducible to any other material particulars in molecular biology, (proteins, RNAs, etc.. etc.. ,,), that Darwinists may wish to invoke. That is to say, ‘you can mutate DNA til the cows come home’ and you will still not achieve a fundamental change in the basic form of an organism. And since the basic ‘form’ of an organism is forever beyond the explanatory power of Darwinian mechanisms, then any belief that Darwinism explains the ‘transformation of forms’ for all of life on earth is purely a pipe dream that has no experimental basis in reality. 3. To further drive this point home, Dolphins and Kangaroos, although being very different morphologically from humans, are found to have very similar DNA sequences to humans. 4. Where differences are greatest between chimps and humans are in alternative splicing patterns. In fact ., due to alternative slicing, “Alternatively spliced isoforms,,, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,” and “As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms,,” 5. Although the behavioral (and morphological) differences between man and apes are far greater than many Darwinists are willing to concede, the one difference that most dramatically separates man from apes, i.e. our ability to speak, is the one unique attribute that leading Darwinists themselves admit that they have no clue how it could have possibly evolved, and is also the one attribute that most distinctly indicates that we are indeed ‘made in the image of God’. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/comparing-human-and-chimp-dna-using-a-software-analogy/#comment-654633

Of humorous note, a Darwinist, who studied the methodology of how one of the more famous 98.5% Chimp-Human DNA similarity comparisons was derived, stated that the 98.5% comparison “needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years”,,,

The Rise and Fall of DNA Hybridization – Jonathan Marks - 2011 Excerpt: the technique of DNA hybridization had devolved into being doubly “tricky” – but more significantly, the outstanding charge of data falsification was there in black-and-white in the leading science journal in America. It seemed as though nothing more needed to be said for the “wheels of justice” to begin turning. Yet they didn’t. In 1993, I was asked by The Journal of Human Evolution to review Jared Diamond’s book, The Third Chimpanzee. Noting that the book’s “hook” was based on the Sibley-Ahlquist work, which Diamond was still touting uncritically, I said: Perhaps you recall Sibley and Ahlquist. In a nutshell, their results were: (1) chimp-gorilla DNA hybrids were more thermally stable than chimp-human hybrids; (2) the differences were insignificant; and (3) reciprocity was very poor when human DNA was used as a tracer. Unfortunately, the conclusions they reported were: (1) chimp-human was more thermally stable than chimp-gorilla; (2) differences were significant; and (3) reciprocity was near-perfect. And they got from point A to point B by (1) switching experimental controls; (2) making inconsistent adjustments for variation in DNA length, which was apparently not even measured; (3) moving correlated points into a regression line; and (4) not letting anyone know. The rationale for (4) should be obvious; and if (1), (2) and (3) are science, I'm the Princess of Wales. This work needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years.31 31Marks, J. (1993) Review of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. Journal of Human Evolution, 24:69-73. http://webpages.uncc.edu/~jmarks/dnahyb/Sibley%20revisited.pdf

bornagain77

The number hasn't changed at all, it's just different if you calculate it from single nucleotide differences or also include deletions/insertions in both species. The fact we are great apes doesn't depend on what the number is, it's just a taxonomic fact. Because chimps are more closely related to us than they are to organs there is no natural group that includes the other apes but not humans. Mimus

I’m not exactly sure I’m reading it the way you are but it really does seem like he’s trying to defend the fact we are super closely related disputes the fact that the more we calculated our genomes the further unrelated we become Remember it wasn’t too long ago that we were 99% related and then it became 98% related and that number just keeps getting lower and lower the more we find out about our actual genomes, now it’s 5% less so we’re at 95% Related And this entire article seems to read that we are one with the great apes despite the fact that that number keeps getting further and further away why was this piece not made when it said we were at 99% related why were those comments not made then but they’re certainly being made now that we are becoming less related each time we check our work I would do not doubt that that number is going to continue to grow the more we find out about the genome But related to great apes are not our morphology is quite a bit different from theirs and if it wasn’t we’d be living side-by-side with them on a day-to-day basis AaronS1978

We and the chimpanzees “are one”:

I think you misread what they are saying. "humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one." -- He's not saying that we're a chimpanzee, he's saying that we're a species of great ape, like the chimpanzees and gorillas. To say that we're a mammal, like dogs, is not the same as saying that we're dogs. goodusername