Human evolution Intelligent Design

Author of Taking Leave of Darwin on common descent of humans and apes

Spread the love

Neil Thomas will be presenting a series of excerpts from his book:

Simian Ancestry?

Darwin’s major hypothesis concerning the idea of a biological continuum with its Ascent of Man narrative from ape to Homo sapiens (which I, in the company of doubtless numberless others, had previously accepted by dint of little more than passive osmosis) had, I now discovered, been cast into considerable doubt on a whole host of fronts by recent discoveries. In particular, the idea invoked of a crossover from one species to another appears highly problematical in view of the practical experience of animal husbandry, where selective breeding has considerably greater success in bringing about minor changes than major ones (which in fact remain unheard of to date). For it is now thought that the genetic code possesses what might for convenience be termed an inbuilt fail-safe system to ensure genetic homeostasis and the integrity of the species.

Darwin envisioned the momentous ontological change from ape to man occurring gradually by way of “transitional forms.” Pressing far too heavily on time itself as a causal agent, he advanced the untestable hypothesis that the changes will have taken place during the billions of years separating our present day from the supposed time of the first appearance of a simian species on our planet. Since this theory is beyond the reach of any possible empirical test, it requires alternative evidential back-up. Unfortunately for Darwin there is a dearth of any fossil evidence establishing the claimed evolutionary “missing links,” a large lacuna which Darwin was aware of but still hoped might be remedied in finds after his day (vainly to date, it must be added, and the notorious Piltdown fraud only served to underscore the evidentiary gap)

Neil Thomas, “Darwin on Trial (Again)” at Evolution News and Science Today (November 6, 2021)

Hmm, yes. The thing about the Piltdown story was the trouble that was undergone to keep people from getting a really good look at it. Presumably, people would feel the need for such deception because they didn’t think a solution was just around the corner.

You may also wish to read: Was the exposed Piltdown fraudster framed?

17 Replies to “Author of Taking Leave of Darwin on common descent of humans and apes

  1. 1
    Viola Lee says:

    It is hard to take seriously someone who refers to “billions of years separating our present day from the supposed time of the first appearance of a simian species on our planet.” Sounds like he needs to study a bit better.

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    Probably is a typo and meant millions. So assume that is what was meant.

  3. 3
    chuckdarwin says:

    What’s even more difficult to take seriously is that people are getting their information about evolutionary biology and paleontology from a classics and European languages professor…..

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    What’s even more difficult to take seriously is that Chuckdarwin believes he actually is a real person with something meaningful to say.

    Get with the Darwinian program ChuckyD, according to your very own Darwinian worldview, you don’t exist and your sentences mean nothing..

    The following is Dr. Craig’s refutation of atheist Professor Alex Rosenberg’s book “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions”

    1.) Argument from intentionality
    1. If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything.
    2. I am thinking about naturalism.
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    2.) The argument from meaning
    1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning.
    2. Premise (1) has meaning.
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    3.) The argument from truth
    1. If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences.
    2. Premise (1) is true.
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    4.) The argument from moral blame and praise
    1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions.
    2. I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions.
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    5.) Argument from freedom
    1. If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely.
    2. I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1).
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    6.) The argument from purpose
    1. If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything.
    2. I (Dr. Craig) planned to come to tonight’s debate.
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    7.) The argument from enduring
    1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time.
    2. I have been sitting here for more than a minute.
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    8.) The argument from personal existence
    1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist.
    2. I do exist!
    3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

    Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ?

  5. 5
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Chuck, because the high priests, and their minions like you, have all the approved information, right?

    Chuck, is open-ended evolution physically enabled by a system of discontinuous association, i.e. the symbols and constraints in the gene system?

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    What’s even more difficult to take seriously is that people are getting their information about evolutionary biology and paleontology from a classics and European languages professor

    What’s amazing is that biology and evolutionary biology professors are the worse place to get information on Evolution.

    You are living proof of this as you fail to provide any substance on Evolution. All you seem to know how to do is make snarky comments such as the one above. Then disappear when pressed.

    Ironic

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    By the way, Thomas is an authority on Myth. So that makes him an excellent person. to assess Darwin and those who believe in his myths.

  8. 8
    Querius says:

    Great comments, Jerry!

    What’s amazing is that biology and evolutionary biology professors are the worse place to get information on Evolution.

    Indeed! In high school Biology, I noticed that Biology and Geology referred to and depended on each other for validation. I also noticed the flaw in the supposed refutation of Lamarck’s theory in our textbook that referred to a cruel experiment in which many generations of lab rats/mice had their tails severed. The experiment supposedly discovered that the rats/mice were born with out any appreciable differences in tail length. It seemed to me that this experiment disproved nothing about Lamark’s theory, plus I noticed a lot of Lamarckian descriptions in the presentation of Darwinism. The biology teacher was doctrinaire however.

    Then, in college Biology, I noticed the similarity between Von Helmont’s experiment in support of the spontaneous generation of mice and the explanation of the spontaneous development of life on earth–that they different only in recipe and time. Both lacked a credible mechanism.

    I understood the controversy between biogenesis and spontaneous generation and appreciated Redi’s experiment with meat and maggots, and later Pasteur’s when microscopic “cavorting beasties” were first discovered, reigniting the debate. The blind acceptance of Darwinism is when I lost my faith in Darwin.

    You are living proof of this as you fail to provide any substance on Evolution. All you seem to know how to do is make snarky comments such as the one above. Then disappear when pressed.

    Yeah, exactly. What’s the point of that?

    And later in studying college-level American History, I began to appreciate the zeitgeist of Darwinism with the prevailing white racial manifest destiny in rationalizing colonialism and later fueling race-based and class-based eugenics, I could see why Darwinism became popular as a politically and philosophically useful myth.

    Sadly, many Biology professors are clueless of the racial implications of Darwinism when it intersects politics and commercial interests. So, it’s particularly pathetic to see them struggling to defend this 19th century travesty that’s been falsified so many times by its failures to predict anything but ability to rationalize anything: living fossils . . . trans-strata fossils . . . out of order fossil sequences . . . vestigial organs (such as ductless glands) . . . “junk” DNA . . . the “poor” design of the eye . . . and so on!

    -Q

  9. 9
    Marfin says:

    Chuck D – Yon need to stop being a sheep, engage that brain that God gave you ,question the orthodoxy , the mainstream , the status quo .Open your mind to actual evidence if it disagrees with
    your ideology then go with the evidence ,assume nothing is true until you are convinced by the evidence ,don`t accept sound bites , and consensus, dig deep look for the truth , who knows it might lead you where you should be going.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    Evolutionary biologists don’t even know what makes a human a human nor a chimp a chimp. So, it’s hard to take seriously a mechanistic position that doesn’t have any mechanisms capable of accounting for life’s observed diversity.

    Evolutionary biologists don’t have a clue how to test the claims made by their position. Why would anyone take them seriously?

  11. 11
    bill cole says:

    Population Genetics assumes living populations. There is no mathematical model at the cellular level capable of explaining the origin of these populations where different gene sets separate the populations.

  12. 12
    Querius says:

    ET @10,

    Why would anyone take them seriously?

    Because that’s the current orthodoxy required to pass a course and get a job in academia. If Lamarkianism or Panspermia became orthodox, there would be an instant pivoting of the majority of academics to that new position.

    The mission of powerful in academia is to weed out independent thinkers and keep them out of scientific journals as much as possible.

    -Q

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    Bill Cole @11,

    There is no mathematical model at the cellular level capable of explaining the origin of these populations where different gene sets separate the populations.

    I’d be interested in your elaborating on this point.

    One can make a mathematical model of nearly any observed dynamic. But what you’re suggesting is that populations maintaining different gene sets trace their differentiation to the cellular lever, right?

    -Q

  14. 14
    ET says:

    Q- all the students need to do is start asking the tough questions. The professors aren’t going to have any answers.

  15. 15
    Querius says:

    ET,

    Yes, but I’d hope they would at least be academically transparent rather than doctrinaire.

    Querius: . . . trace their differentiation to the cellular lever, right?

    Oops, I meant cellular level.

    -Q

  16. 16
    Querius says:

    Here’s an interesting interview of David Berlinski about his book on the obvious inadequacy of Darwinism:

    Uncommon Knowledge with David Berlinski on “The Deniable Darwin”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuEaJDksxls

    -Q

  17. 17
    ram says:

    Years ago I asked a chimp what he thought of the idea that chimps and humans were descended from a common ancestor.

    I was taken aback by his answer.

    –Ram

Leave a Reply