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
Of related interest to, “All that is required is that [ancestral Native Americans] were genetically isolated,,,”
Of related interest to that, what they are measuring is loss of genetic diversity in human populations
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.”
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.…”
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),,
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…”
And as Lynn Margulis succinctly put it,
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”
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.
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.