Human evolution Intelligent Design

At the Smithsonian: “Humans in the Americas” story is always evolving

Spread the love

A new theory in “evolutionary genetics contradicts archaeology:

Now our understanding of when people reached the Americas—and where they came from—is expanding dramatically. The emerging picture suggests that humans may have arrived in North America at least 20,000 years ago—some 5,000 years earlier than has been commonly believed. And new research raises the possibility of an intermediate settlement of hundreds or thousands of people who spread out over the wild lands stretching between North America and Asia.

The heart of that territory has long since been submerged by the Pacific Ocean, forming the present-day Bering Strait. But some 25,000 to 15,000 years ago, the strait itself and a continent-size expanse flanking it were high and dry. That vanished world is called Beringia, and the developing theory about its pivotal role in the populating of North America is known as the Beringian Standstill hypothesis—“standstill” because generations of people migrating from the East might have settled there before moving on to North America.

Fen Montaigne, “The Fertile Shore” at Smithsonian Magazine

Then we learn,

Those discoveries have opened a wide gap between what the genetics seem to be saying and what the archaeology actually shows. Humans may have been on both sides of the Bering Land Bridge some 20,000 years ago. But skeptical archaeologists say they will not believe in this grand idea until they hold the relevant artifacts in their hands, pointing out that no confirmed North American archaeological sites older than 15,000 to 16,000 years currently exist. But other archaeologists are confident it is only a matter of time until older sites are discovered in the sprawling, sparsely populated lands of eastern Siberia, Alaska and northwestern Canada.

Fen Montaigne, “The Fertile Shore” at Smithsonian Magazine

Sure. The conflict follows a familiar pattern. For example, some of us were suspicious of the claims that Neanderthals couldn’t do artwork and sure enough, they could do artwork.

Why were we suspicious? Because underlying the claims was a problem peculiar to Darwinists that is unrelated to evidence as such: In any Darwinian scheme, someone must be the subhuman. Otherwise, there is no beginning to human history. The poor old Neanderthalers got that role—until they somehow couldn’t play so dumb any more. No worries, with so many new fossils turning up, someone new will cop the “subhuman” role.

Underlying this arrival-in-North-America conflict there may likewise be a struggle around interpretations of what human beings are. For example, an anthropologist is quoted in the conclusion of the article, “Human ingenuity is incredible. I would never underestimate it.” Unpacking that thought might help.

One problem is that some points of view are understood to arise from a philosophical position but others are thought to be “just science” when they also arise from a philosophical point of view.

Some students of evolution think that there could have been an original Adam and Eve and they are understood to be defending a traditional view enshrined in Scripture. Others reject that notion entirely but they are assumed to be acting from “purely scientific” motives when they have in fact assumed that traditional scriptures could not be an authentic record. They assume that because they themselves are, to use William Provine’s term, “pure naturalist atheists.” But then accepting their position as “just science” turns science into a PR agency for naturalist atheism. And, increasingly, it doesn’t function well that way.

Let’s see how it all plays out in the largely unwritten history of North America.

See also: Ola Hössjer And Ann Gauger Sketch Genetic Scenarios For Adam And Eve

2 Replies to “At the Smithsonian: “Humans in the Americas” story is always evolving

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related interest to, “All that is required is that [ancestral Native Americans] were genetically isolated,,,”

    “Until there’s actual evidence that people were in fact there, then it remains just an interesting hypothesis,” he says. “All that is required is that [ancestral Native Americans] were genetically isolated from wherever the East Asians happened to be around that time. There’s absolutely nothing in the genetics that necessitates the Standstill had to be in Beringia. We don’t have evidence that people were in Beringia and Alaska then.

    Of related interest to that, what they are measuring is loss of genetic diversity in human populations

    “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”
    Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-

    New analysis provides fuller picture of human expansion from Africa – October 22, 2012
    Excerpt: A new, comprehensive review of humans’ anthropological and genetic records gives the most up-to-date story of the “Out of Africa” expansion that occurred about 45,000 to 60,000 years ago.
    This expansion, detailed by three Stanford geneticists, had a dramatic effect on human genetic diversity, which persists in present-day populations. As a small group of modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas, their genetic diversity was substantially reduced.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-10-a.....nsion.html

    This reduction of genetic diversity runs directly contrary to Darwinian ‘just-so’ story telling, where natural selection is falsely imagined to have created this or that particular trait in humans, i.e. “Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers.”

    Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – PHILIP SKELL – Aug 29, 2005
    Excerpt: Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.
    https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion-old/why-do-we-invoke-darwin-48438

    As Austin L. Hughes pointed out, “it is not enough to construct a (just-so) story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…”

    “… another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness… Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling… it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…”
    — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism – The New Atlantis, Fall 2012

    Indeed, far from Natural Selection being the supposed ‘Designer substitute’ that Darwin himself, (and many current Darwinists), falsely imagine it to be, (and construct their ‘just-so’ stories around),,

    “natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing…every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good.”
    – Charles Darwin

    “The Third Way” – James Shapiro, Denis Noble, and etc.. etc..,,,
    excerpt: “some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.”
    http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

    “the uncritical acceptance of natural selection as an explanatory force for all aspects of biodiversity (without any direct evidence) is not much different than invoking an intelligent designer”
    Michael Lynch – The Origins of Genome Architecture, p 368

    Far from that, we now know that “Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have…”

    “…but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have…”
    Maciej Marian Giertych – Population Geneticist – member of the European Parliament – EXPELLED
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk

    And as Lynn Margulis succinctly put it,

    “Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.”
    Lynn Margulis [2011]

    Dr. John Sanford has done an excellent job in showing just how grossly inadequate Natural Selection actually is in its imagined role as the supposed ‘Designer Substitute”

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,,
    Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information.
    While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man.
    It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC4573302/

    Thus in conclusion, not only does natural selection not create, but natural selection is now shown to reduces what was already created. Moreover, all the amazing variety that we see in humans today is resultant from a loss of genetic diversity, not from any gain in genetic diversity, i.e. We are “DEvolving not Evolving”

    Needless to say, this is exactly what ‘creationists’ would presuppose and is exactly the opposite of what Darwinists would presuppose.

    If Darwinian evolution were a normal science, instead of basically being a unfalsifiable science that functions as a religion for atheists, this should count as yet another major falsification of their theory.

    Genetic Entropy – “it’s down not up” – John Sanford
    https://www.geneticentropy.org/

    NIH Presentation – Mutation Accumulation: Is it a Serious Health Risk? (Can genome degradation be stopped) – John Sanford
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqIjnol9uh8&feature=emb_logo

  2. 2
    Silver Asiatic says:

    there may likewise be a struggle around interpretations of what human beings are

    In order for science to determine that human beings evolved from a particular ancestor, it needs to know what human beings are.
    As stated, they have to figure out who the subhumans are. But that is going nowhere. Science is going to define what human nature is? Scientists tell us who we really are? Berlinski’s new book argues against this (I believe).
    Theistic evolutionists struggle with this idea. Catholic evolutionists, for example, have to figure out when (and how) the human soul appeared. The fossil record doesn’t give evidence of organisms that have an immortal soul. It doesn’t show a rational, conscious intellect. It’s not found in DNA either.
    I read a critique recently: “creationists think that evolution teaches that one day a monkey gave birth to a human being, ha ha”.
    Well, not a monkey, but a subhuman. How about that?
    One day, a subhuman animal (ape) gave birth to a human being.
    Evolution doesn’t know the difference between the ape and human.
    Theistic evolutionists should have a big problem with this but they don’t.

Leave a Reply