Intelligent Design

At Fox News: Adam and Eve are compatible with evolution

Spread the love

Sure, but so?:

Many Christians have rejected the scientific theory of evolution in part because they think it rules out the existence of a historical Adam and Eve. Yet some scientists and theologians argue that recent breakthroughs in genetics make a historical Adam and Eve compatible with evolution, and that this development may help bridge what many see as a conflict between faith and science.

“For over 160 years, the societal conflict over evolution has been deep and stubborn. But now, in a surprise twist, evolutionary science is making space for Adam and Eve,” S. Joshua Swamidass, an associate professor at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, told Fox News Digital. “It turns out that the theological questions are about genealogical ancestry, not genetics. In this paradigm shift, we are finding a better way forward, a better story to tell.”

In his book “The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry,” Swamidass argues that genetics and evolutionary theory do not conflict with the existence of Adam and Eve, universal ancestors of all humans whom Jesus died to save.

Tyler O’Neil, “Christians point to genetics breakthroughs to show Adam and Eve are not incompatible with evolution” at Fox News

When we consider the huge difference between human beings and any other life form on the planet, it is more reasonable to assume that we had one pair of ancestors than that we had many.

10 Replies to “At Fox News: Adam and Eve are compatible with evolution

  1. 1 says:

    They keep saying ” the scientific theory” as if that means something. It doesn’t and it isn’t. Easiest thing to demonstrate.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Like, I don’t care if Adam and Eve are compatible with evolution, I care if evolution is compatible with science.

    More specifically, I care if the claim from evolutionists that humanity evolved from some chimp-like ancestor is compatible with the empirical evidence or not. And the answer from the empirical evidence itself is a resounding, “NO! The empirical evidence is NOT compatible with the claim from evolutionists that humanity evolved from some chimp-like ancestor.”

    First I will address the fossil record.

    It is not as if we do not have more than sufficient reason to doubt the narratives that are offered by Darwinists when it comes to their claims about human evolution. The entire fossil record, when viewed in its entirety, instead of just piecemeal, and with a heavy Darwinian bias as it is with human fossils, is VERY antagonistic to the entire Darwinian narrative.

    From the Cambrian explosion onward, the entire fossil record simply refuses to conform to Darwinian expectations.

    Charles Darwin himself acknowledged that the Cambrian explosion was a problem for his theory,

    “Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures…
    To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer…
    The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
    – Charles Darwin – Chapter IX, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” On the Origin of Species, – fifth edition (1869), pp. 378-381.

    In fact the Cambrian explosion is now even more of a problem for Darwin’s theory than it was in Darwin’s day.

    As Stephen Meyer noted in the following recent video at the 8:00 minute mark, “The Cambrian Explosion,, has become more explosive”

    ‘The Cambrian Explosion,, has become more explosive”
    – Stephen Meyer Takes On Darwin’s Tree – video

    And what makes the Cambrian explosion so explosive, so ‘un-Darwinian, and so ‘upside-down’, to what Darwin predicted is the fact that it is phyla, (which are among the very highest taxonomic categories), that are found to be ‘explosively’ appearing in the Cambrian explosion first without any plausible precursors.

    Moreover, “the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”

    Jerry Coyne’s Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show “Why Evolution is True” – Jonathan M. – December 4, 2012
    Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms.
    Darwin’s theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science,
    “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.”
    Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that,
    “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”
    Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved.

    And as James Valentine explained, “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’.”

    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).)

    And as Chen Junyuan, one of the world’s leading researchers on the Cambria explosion, observed, “Darwin’s tree is a reverse cone shape”

    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”.
    As a medical professional and former atheist, I ignorantly believed that Darwin’s evolutionary theory was a scientific fact. The fact is, Darwinism has never been more than an unproven theory,,,

    Moreover, it is not only the Cambrian explosion where the fossil record is, basically, completely upside-down from what Darwin’s theory predicts.

    The following study which “looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups” that appeared subsequent to Cambrian explosion, found that “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head.”

    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.,,,

    That the fossil record is severely discordant, even ‘upside-down’, to what Darwin’s theory predicts is not just some fringe belief that is held by the dreaded creationists, but is something that is readily, and widely, acknowledge by leading Paleontologists.

    At the 16:49 minute mark of the following 2021 video, Dr. Gunter Bechly, who is a paleontologist himself, quotes many leading Darwinian paleontologists who also agree that the fossil record is severely discordant with Darwin’s theory.

    Gunter Bechly Explains What The Fossil Evidence Really Says – video (2021)

    Günter Bechly video: Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design – 2018
    The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule. Also the fossil record establishes only very brief windows of time for the origin of complex new features, which creates an ubiquitous waiting time problem for the origin and fixation of the required coordinated mutations. This refutes the viability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary process as the single conceivable naturalistic or mechanistic explanation for biological origins, and thus confirms Intelligent Design as the only reasonable alternative.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Thus, given the fact that the entire fossil record, (when viewed in its entirety instead of just piecemeal), simply does not conform to Darwinian expectations, (and is even ‘upside-down’ to Darwinian expectations), then, obviously, we have more than sufficient reason to be VERY suspicious of the claims from Darwinists that the fossil record for human evolution is, supposedly, a ‘slam dunk’.

    And indeed, when we zoom-in on the fossil evidence that purports to ‘unquestionably’ establish that humans evolved from some chimp-like ancestor, we find that things are not nearly as neat and tidy as Darwinists have falsely portrayed them to be to the general public.

    Since teeth are, by far, the most complete fossil evidence that we can have for testing the Darwinian claims for human origins,,,,

    Why are teeth the most abundant fossil of hominids?
    Tooth enamel is densely packed with a durable mineral called hydroxyapatite, which makes teeth much better than bones at withstanding the chemical and physical degradation that occurs during fossilization. As a result, teeth are the most abundant elements in the primate fossil record.

    Since teeth are, by far, the most complete fossil evidence that we can have for testing the Darwinian claims for human origins, I consider the following study to be a fairly compelling piece of empirical evidence that undermines the entire Darwinian ‘narrative’ for human evolution.

    “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.”
    – Indiana University, “No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests” at ScienceDaily (October 21, 2013)

    As well, John Sanford and Chris Rupe, who spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature, found that “It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils.”

    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.

    “Contested Bones” chapter by chapter review by Paul Giem – video playlist

    Likewise, Casey Luskin also did a deep dive into the peer-reviewed literature and found that, “multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin.”

    Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride’s Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His – Casey Luskin – August 31, 2012
    Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we’ve seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity.,,,
    The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,,

    Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution: Hype or Good Science? (Casey Luskin Interview) – Oct. 2021

    Also see “Apes as Ancestors (2020)” by Jerry Bergman, Peter Line, and Jeffrey Tomkins, which also, via a deep dive into the peer reviewed literature itself, finds the fossil evidence for supposed human evolution to be far different than what Darwinists portray to the general public..

    Apes as Ancestors: Examining the Claims About Human Evolution – 2020

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Likewise, Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig has collected a fairly impressive list of damning quotes from leading Darwinists themselves in regards to undermining the entire ‘narrative’ of human evolution that is told by Darwinists.

    Neo-Darwinism and the Big Bang of Man’s Origin – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – February 25, 2020
    Excerpt: “There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to the advertisement for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape — …. On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”
    – Bernard Wood, Bernard Wood, Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University,
    “Who are we?” New Scientist 176 2366: 44-47. 26 October 2002:,,,
    A Big Bang at Man’s Origin?
    To repeat the key points quoted above (from Darwinists themselves), we may emphasize that
    1. “differences exist on an unusual scale”
    2. “Homo sapiens appears […] distinctive and unprecedented”
    3. “There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
    4. “…we evidently came by our unusual anatomical structure and capacities very recently.”
    5. “…a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive”
    6. “[W]e should not expect to find a series of intermediate fossil forms with decreasingly divergent big toes and, at the same time, a decreasing number of apelike features and an increasing number of modern human features.”
    7. “No gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species [Homo sapiens], and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.”
    8. “…early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary [as well as coexisting] australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.”
    9. “Our interpretation is that the changes are sudden and interrelated,” “a genetic revolution.”,,,
    “…a rather minor structural innovation at the DNA level” appears to be, for all that can be known at present, a rather unsatisfactory proposal for a comparable origin of some 696 new features (out of 1065) which distinguish man from chimpanzees, 711 from orang, 680 from gorilla, 948 from Gibbon (Hylobathes), presupposing a similar magnitude of different anatomical and other features (“distinctive and unprecedented”) from his supposed animal ancestor, “our closest extinct kin,” not to speak of 15.6% differences on the DNA level between man and his alleged closest cousin, the chimpanzee, which means, in actual numbers, more than 450 million bp differences of the some 3 billion bp constituting the genomes overall.28,,,
    Almost any larger science museum around the globe presents a series of connecting links between extinct apes and humans such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”), Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugensis and others. For a brief overview on such assumed links see Lönnig (2019).38 I include there a series of references to papers and books that do not simply presuppose evolution and neo-Darwinism as the final truth on the origin of species without any scientific alternative (as is common practice nowadays). Instead, these works critically discuss the relevant details, showing in depth the untenability of the evolutionary scenarios usually given to these would-be links generally put forward as indisputable scientific facts….
    98.5 Percent Human/Chimp DNA Identity?
    Although long disproved, the assertion that human and chimp DNA display approximately 98.5 percent identity is still forwarded in many papers and books. The present state of the art has been clearly articulated by Richard Buggs, Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London. He asks, “What does the data say today in 2018, and how can it be described to the public in an adequate manner?” Key answer: “The total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4 percent” (“our minimum lower bound”)39, i.e., more than 450 million differences (15 percent of 3 billion bp = 450 million).
    Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.

    Even Ian Tattersall himself, emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History, (and who believes human evolution to be true and is certainly no ‘creationist in disguise’), stated that, “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.”

    “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)

    Moreover, last May, via an article from the American Museum of Natural History, (again, which is certainly no creationist organization), it was stated that the human evolution ‘narrative’, (as it is portrayed to the general public by evolutionists) is “just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever.”

    Scientists Conclude: Human Origins Research Is a Big Mess – Günter Bechly – May 10, 2021
    Excerpt: Finally, the article concludes with this gem:
    “Humans are storytellers: Theories of human evolution often resemble “anthropogenic narratives” that borrow the structure of a hero’s journey to explain essential aspects such as the origins of erect posture, the freeing of the hands, or brain enlargement (166). Intriguingly, such narratives have not drastically changed since Darwin (166). We must be aware of confirmation biases and ad hoc interpretations by researchers aiming to confer their new fossil the starring role within a preexisting narrative. Evolutionary scenarios are appealing because they provide plausible explanations based on current knowledge, but unless grounded in testable hypotheses, they are no more than “just-so stories” (167).”
    Hardly any ID proponent could have said it better. Fancy storytelling in the style of Kiplingesque “just-so stories” is indeed a hallmark of the soft science of modern evolutionary biology in general, and paleoanthropology in particular.,,,
    In this press release the senior author of the new study, Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History, is also quoted as offering this remarkable admission: “When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever.”

    Even leading Darwinists Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr themselves honestly admitted that the purported evidence for human evolution is, basically, just “elaborate storytelling” and “historical narrative”.

    “most hominid fossils, even though they serve as a basis for endless speculation and elaborate storytelling, are fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls.”
    – Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, page 126 (W.W. Norton, 1980).

    “The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”
    – Ernst Mayr – What Makes Biology Unique?, p. 198 (2004).

    As should be obvious, having a senior research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould, and Ernst Mayr all say that the evidence for human evolution boils down to, basically, “elaborate storytelling” and “historical narrative”, certainly does not bode well for any Darwinist who tries to claim that the fossil record for human evolution is beyond all dispute.

    Thus in conclusion, the fossil record, when viewed in its entirety, from the Cambrian explosion onward, certainly does not support Darwinian evolution. Moreover, when the fossil evidence for the ‘narrative’ of human evolution is scrutinized in detail, we find that the purported fossil record for human evolution falls apart under scrutiny.

    The ‘narrative’ of human evolution is apparently held together far more by imagination, i.e. ‘just so stories’, and the ‘artistic reconstruction’ of fossils, than it is by any real fossil evidence.

    No less that Henry Gee, editor at Nature, makes, pretty much, the same exact point about the imaginary ‘artistic reconstruction’ of fossils that Darwinists offer to the general public in museums for how they imagine human evolution ought to have been like,

    “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)

    Moreover, to top it all off, there is also a systemic racism that is built into the imaginary ‘artistic reconstruction’ of fossils that Darwinists offer to the general public in museums,

    Human Evolution as a “Path to Whiteness” – November 24, 2021
    Excerpt: Do Your Own Google Search
    I had never thought of this before. In contemporary museum displays and other evolutionary depictions, just as in Darwin’s Descent of Man and in the notorious Civic Biology textbook that was at issue in the 1925 Scopes Trial, human origins are portrayed as an upward progress from dark to white. Neanderthals, however otherwise “primitive” (which is questionable in itself), are shown as light-skinned. And maybe they were, but modern man — Homo sapiens — is almost invariably white and European, not African or Asian. Check out some examples from around the Internet, here, here, here, here, and here. (links on site) Do a Google image search for the phrase “human evolution” and you’ll see many others.
    Just a coincidence? Or is Darwin’s racist legacy still with us today? You tell me. For a deeper exploration of that legacy, see John West’s documentary Human Zoos.

    Sobering to say the least!


    Genesis 2:7
    Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    Galatians 3:28
    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

  5. 5
    Trumper says:

    Again B-77 thank you for your detailed (and yes sometimes too detailed ) responses…. always been picking out many of your links to help some of my liberal and atheistic / agnostic family members chew on things….. keep it up

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Further notes:

    Like the fossil record, the genetic evidence also falsifies Darwinian claims for human evolution rather than confirming them.,,,
    The evidence from genetics, directly contrary to what Darwinists claim, simply does not support the Darwinian ‘narrative’.

    Darwinists simply have no evidence that morphology, and/or biological form, is reducible to mutations to DNA.

    Population Genetics falsifies, instead of confirms, Darwinian claims for human evolution

    Human exceptionalism falsifies Darwinian claims for human evolution

    Darwinists, (in what makes the ‘problem’ of explaining the origin of the human species pale in comparison), have no clue whatsoever why I, as an individual person within the human species, should even come into existence as a person with unique individual subjective experience

  7. 7
    Querius says:

    Yes, thank you, Bornagain77.


  8. 8
    Blastus says:

    My deep gratitude as well to BA77 for the additional information provided in his comments. The evidences presented are a great blessing.

    My further deep gratitude to “News” (Ms. Denyse O’Leary) for the never ending stream of articles.

    May God richly bless both of you!

  9. 9
    Blastus says:

    Here is a brief discussion of the scientific method for everyone’s edification:

    The claim of the peasant that he had been turned into a newt, if proven, would demonstrate macro evolution.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    On the Inordinate Amount of “Living Fossils” in the Flowering Plants – (Angiospermae)
    Or how Darwin’s “abominable mystery” has become even more “abominable” and “mysterious” during the last 150 years than ever before
    -Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 22 December 2021
    Abstract Excerpt: All orders and families of the angiosperms appear abruptly in the fossil record (same for most lower systematic categories).
    The statement of distinguished paleontologist Otto H. Schindewolf (University of Tübingen) of 1965 has definitely been further corroborated also in paleobotany and is all the more true in 2021,,,
    “According to the Darwinian concept, minor racial differences are to be gradually increased to become species traits, and then, by adding more and more small alterations, become generic, family differences, etc. The variety of forms would then increase towards the end of the individual phyla, and there would be the greatest abundance of orders, families and genera, that is to say, differences of a higher degree. The opposite is the case.
    A new Bauplan (body plan) of the systematic range of a class or order usually appears absolutely abruptly in the fossil record, without long rows/successions of links that would show us a gradual formation from another order forming its root.”6
    – Otto H. Schindewolf – paleontologist

Leave a Reply