Recent fossil find a “Cambrian explosion” for humans?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 5, 2015

Human evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further to Oldest human fossil found, 400k years “earlier than previously thought,” neuroscientist David A. DeWitt writes to say,

That is a real problem since it means that humans overlapped with australopithcines including especially sediba which is a mere 2 million years old.

Humans dated 2.8 million years ago? Sophisticated tools used by H. erectus? Neanderthal genes in modern humans? Range of variation in Dmanisi overlapping H. erectus to modern humans? A. sediba is a mixture of Homo and Australopithecine remains in South Africa?

What we essentially have is a Cambrian explosion type phenomenon for human origins.

Readers?

See also:

The ridiculous level of uncertainty in the field of human evolution DeWitt: “Look at how messed up this field is. Genetic evidence supports Neanderthals and modern humans interbred. The Dmanisi skulls show such variation as to incorporate all of the various Homo specimens.”

History of man unravels in “huge fraud”

and

Contemplating Bill Nye’s skulls slide “I can only conclude that the sole purpose of showing such a slide was to confuse and obfuscate, not educate.”

But wait! It’s not messed up as long as hundreds of pop science writers refrain from wondering.

Also: What we know (and don’t) about human evolution, s synopsis

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

bornagain77: Let’s just say that I, and every other skeptic of evolution, is more than justified to question the way in which Darwinists handle and ‘interpret’ fossils shall we! In other words, you can't say what about the reconstruction to be ~~in error~~ fraudulent. bornagain77: Lucy – The Powersaw Incident Several different specimens have been found confirming the reconstruction and bipedalism.Zachriel_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Let's just say that I, and every other skeptic of evolution, is more than justified to question the way in which Darwinists handle and 'interpret' fossils shall we! 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 Yes Zach, that is plaster and imagination being used to dictate what the fossil bone must of looked like! Is such fraud okie dokie in your book? Not mine!bornagain77_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: does not contradict my claim that the evidence for ‘early homo’ is flimsy and indeed even fraudulent in nature. Why do you think the reconstructions are ~~in error~~ fraudulent.Zachriel_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Zacherial, the actual study, which I cited verbatim previous to what you copy cat cited back to me, does not contradict my claim that the evidence for 'early homo' is flimsy and indeed even fraudulent in nature. i.e. removing their imagination from the reconstruction we find the fossil fragment is an ape not a human. So what? You are the one claiming that apes can change into humans. I need far more empirical evidence than a Darwinian 'reconstructed virtual fossil fragment' and imagination to prove your unsubstantiated claim! Moreover. Refusing to honestly address the unfathomed complexity being dealt in humans, and still claiming undirected material processes produced that unfathomed complexity in humans, is denialism in the extreme. (i.e maybe if I ignore the elephant it won't sit on me! :) ) ,,, but other than being in denial of your insanity, I'm sure you are a nice guy!bornagain77_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: why did you cite my link that I gave you back to me? The evidence for early homo is clearly fraudulent and imaginary in its character! 1. Because you didn't cite the actual study. 2. Because the study contradicts your claims about the study. bornagain77: you may have no problem believing all that unfathomed complexity in humans came about by purely undirected material processes Changing the subject is not a persuasive argument. You made a false claim about the scientific findings of a specific paper. The original paper discusses the difficulty of resolving the diversity of early Homo, but there is no ambiguity as to whether the fossils represent modern humans. They do not.Zachriel_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

LoL! A family tree is not a nested hierarchy...
Of course every family tree (like any other tree graph) is a nested hierarchy. Any heritable features whose history can be represented by such a tree are therefore also arranged into a hierarchy of inclusion. The traditional Linnaean classification is also a nested hierarchy, but since it isn't consistently based on common descent, heritable traits (apomorphies) do not reflect its structure.
...you ignorant puke.
More peanuts for Joe!Piotr_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, why did you cite my link that I gave you back to me?
It’s always best to examine the source. This time the announcement stems from a paper in Nature, “Reconstructed Homo habilis type OH 7 suggests deep-rooted species diversity in early Homo” from Fred Spoor’s group working in Ethiopia. In the figures, we find one fragmentary jaw, with the caption saying, “As preserved, marking individual parts that were adjusted in the reconstruction.” The researchers also “reconstructed” in a computer model the fragmentary pieces of the type specimen of Homo habilis, found in the 1960s by Louis and Mary Leakey.,,, ,,,the distorted preservation of the diagnostically important OH 7 mandible has hindered attempts to compare this specimen with other fossils. Here we present a virtual reconstruction.,,,
The evidence for early homo, i.e. 'powersaw lucy' and 'reconstructed habilis', is clearly fraudulent and imaginary in its character! as to: "Not knowing everything doesn’t mean not knowing anything" Actually realizing just how ignorant we are, in terms of explaining the origination of the unfathomed complexity being dealt with, is a very good place to start in coming up with a realistic explanations as to how that complexity (i.e. we) came about:
Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 8, 2012 Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling... and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)",,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2
Now Zach, you may have no problem believing all that unfathomed complexity in humans came about by purely undirected material processes, but, especially since you have no real time experimental evidence to support your claim, I simply find your belief to be insane in the extreme! Other than being insane, I'm sure you are a nice guy! :)bornagain77_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: the fossil evidence for ‘early homo’ is far more flimsy than you seem willing to realize Not knowing everything doesn't mean not knowing anything, nor are your quote-mines representative of the scientific findings. The original paper discusses the difficulty of resolving the diversity of early Homo, but there is no ambiguity as to whether the fossils represent modern humans. They do not. See Spoor et al., Reconstructed Homo habilis type OH 7 suggests deep-rooted species diversity in early Homo, Nature 2015.Zachriel_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Zach the fossil evidence for 'early homo' is far more flimsy than you seem willing to realize,,, on top of the lucy fraud which I've already discussed (and which the researchers were duped by),,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/recent-fossil-find-a-cambrian-explosion-for-humans/#comment-552258 ,,,besides that humorous 'paleoanthropology by powersaw' fraud, it turns out 'homo habilis' is another transitional fossil built more out of Darwinian fantasy and imagination than reality:
Another “Oldest Homo” Contender Alleged - March 5, 2015 Excerpt: It’s always best to examine the source. This time the announcement stems from a paper in Nature, “Reconstructed Homo habilis type OH 7 suggests deep-rooted species diversity in early Homo” from Fred Spoor’s group working in Ethiopia. In the figures, we find one fragmentary jaw, with the caption saying, “As preserved, marking individual parts that were adjusted in the reconstruction.” The researchers also “reconstructed” in a computer model the fragmentary pieces of the type specimen of Homo habilis, found in the 1960s by Louis and Mary Leakey.,,, ,,,the distorted preservation of the diagnostically important OH 7 mandible has hindered attempts to compare this specimen with other fossils. Here we present a virtual reconstruction.,,, Those who grew up with the Leakey stories plastered on covers of National Geographic may be shocked at Fred Spoor’s account of their work on so-called Handy Man: "But Homo’s origins are increasingly confusing, as a reanalysis of 1.8-million-year-old fossil specimens, reported in Nature, demonstrates. In the early 1960s, a team led by palaeoanthropologists Louis and Mary Leakey found a deformed lower jaw, hand and partial skull in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. “It was reported in a very informal way in Nature: ‘Sir: I found a bone and I’m showing you a picture now. Goodbye,’” says Fred Spoor, a palaeoanthropologist at University College London. The Leakey team later designated the remains as a new species that they called Homo habilis, meaning the handy man. They contended that members of the species had made stone tools that had been discovered nearby years earlier. But the material was so sparse that all manner of other fossils were later designated H. habilis. “It’s how I cut my teeth as a palaeoanthropologist — working with the mess that is Homo habilis,” says Lieberman. “It became very clear that there was too much variation to accommodate just one species.” http://crev.info/2015/03/oldest-homo-alleged/
as Henry Gee said, such fossil evidence is far more appropriate for bedtime stories than for science
“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life
bornagain77_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Transitional forms means there would be a smooth blending of traits that would blur any lines for distinct categories of classification. Aurelio Smith:
Nineteenth-century thinking!
Ignorant spewage? Even in the 21st century evolutionary biologists say that gradual evolution would produce many, many transitional forms. Obviously Aurelio loves to be ignorant.Joe_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Piotr:
It’s hard to believe that someone who has spent years hanging about blogs discussing biology can remain so ignorant.
The ignorance is all yours, Piotr.
Most of the human genome undergoes recombination, and individual humans, like individuals in any other sexually reproducing population, inherit genetic traits from both parents.
Yes, I know. Did you have a point?
The result is a network of gene flow, not a family tree. And if there is no family tree, there is no nested hierarchy.
LoL! A family tree is not a nested hierarchy you ignorant puke.
However, some fragments of our genome are inherited only from the mother (mtDNA) or only from the father (about 95% of the Y chromosome). The histories of these fragments do form a neatly branching family tree, and, accordingly, any mutations that occur in them and are passed on to the descendants via the germline do produce a nested hierarchy of innovations.
Look, Piotr, Linnean Classification is the observed nested hierarchy. It doesn't have anything to do with descent with modification. I quoted Darwin and Wagner. I can quote others too.
A nested hierarchy is the pattern produced by mutations inherited in a family tree.
That is incorrect. You are obviously ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies.Joe_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Neither are the researchers themselves certain of what it is. The researchers identified it as the genus Homo, but not Homo sapiens. See Villmoare, Early Homo at 2.8 Ma from Ledi-Geraru, Afar, Ethiopia, Science 2015.Zachriel_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

So genes aren't plastic? Thanks for agreeing that the modern synthesis is bunk! Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology – Denis Noble – 17 MAY 2013 Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating (in genes) to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134/abstractbornagain77_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

As to Mendel's work on discrete genetic inheritance and the Darwinian necessity for genetic plasticity:
podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about Gregor Mendel’s laws of inheritance and how they opposed the thinking of Darwin. podcast - Mendel Vs. Darwin - part 1 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/01/mendel-vs-darwin/ Mendel Vs. Darwin - part. 2 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/01/mendel-vs-darwin-pt-2/ Mendel Vs. Darwin, part. 3 Dr. Lönnig discusses how Darwinian evolutionary biology held back the acceptance of the laws of inheritance, discovered by the famous monk Gregor Mendel. (Darwinists orginally tried to censor Mendel's work) http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/01/mendel-vs-darwin-pt-3/ Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video https://vimeo.com/115822429 ,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Denis Noble - 17 MAY 2013 Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134/abstract Die, selfish gene, die - The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong - Dec. 2013 Excerpt: But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited [introduced] this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: the biologist Richard Dawkins. In his magnificent book The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet (called the selfish gene). Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/epigenetics-dawkins-selfish-gene-discredited-by-still-more-scientists-you-should-have-heard-of/
At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the concept of the selfish gene
'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years" - Trifonov Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://vimeo.com/81930637
bornagain77_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

#67 Joe, It's hard to believe that someone who has spent years hanging about blogs discussing biology can remain so ignorant. Are you intersted in learning anything, or only in making noises from the peanut gallery? Most of the human genome undergoes recombination, and individual humans, like individuals in any other sexually reproducing population, inherit genetic traits from both parents. The result is a network of gene flow, not a family tree. And if there is no family tree, there is no nested hierarchy. However, some fragments of our genome are inherited only from the mother (mtDNA) or only from the father (about 95% of the Y chromosome). The histories of these fragments do form a neatly branching family tree, and, accordingly, any mutations that occur in them and are passed on to the descendants via the germline do produce a nested hierarchy of innovations. What else would you expect? A nested hierarchy is the pattern produced by mutations inherited in a family tree. Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA has a family tree; species have a family tree. Whatever is part of a family tree can be expected to display nested hierarchy effects.Piotr_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Common descent does not produce a nested hierarchy based on shared characteristics. Period. Sampling a continuum of your family will not produce a nested hierarchy based on defined characteristics. Also Linnean Classification, ie the nested hierarchy wrt biology, doesn't have anything to do with common descentJoe_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Joe
Transitional forms means there would be a smooth blending of traits that would blur any lines for distinct categories of classification.
Only if we had to deal with every single one. Sampling a continuum frequently allows sufficient discreteness and distinctness to allow naming, despite shading in the actual continuum.Hangonasec_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

An example? Darwin, 1859; Mayr, 1982; Denton, 1985; Wagner, 2014. Transitional forms means there would be a smooth blending of traits that would blur any lines for distinct categories of classification.
The goals of scientists like Linnaeus and Cuvier- to organize the chaos of life’s diversity- are much easier to achieve if each species has a Platonic essence that distinguishes it from all others, in the same way that the absence of legs and eyelids is essential to snakes and distinguishes it from other reptiles. In this Platonic worldview, the task of naturalists is to find the essence of each species. Actually, that understates the case: In an essentialist world, the essence really is the species. Contrast this with an ever-changing evolving world, where species incessantly spew forth new species that can blend with each other. The snake Eupodophis from the late Cretaceous period, which had rudimentary legs, and the glass lizard, which is alive today and lacks legs, are just two of many witnesses to the blurry boundaries of species. Evolution’s messy world is anathema to the clear, pristine order essentialism craves. It is thus no accident that Plato and his essentialism became the “great antihero of evolutionism,” as the twentieth century zoologist Ernst Mayr called it.- Andreas Wagner, “Arrival of the Fittest”, pages 9-10

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14
Joe_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Joe: That is evidence against descent with modification which posits many transitional forms which would ruin a clear nested hierarchy. You lose, again. Why? Perhaps you could provde an example.velikovskys_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

as to: "Are you saying the fossil is not a non-sapiens hominin?" I don't know for certain what the fossil fragment is. Whether it is human or ape. Neither are the researchers themselves certain of what it is. In fact, they qualify their fragment fossil finding with phrases such as "seems to share" and 'may be a transitional'.
The jawbone was found close to where Lucy was discovered in 1974. The specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, dubbed Lucy, is from 3.2 million years ago. The species walked upright, but only stood a meter tall and had a small brain. This contrasts with the species Homo, “characterized by an upright, bipedal posture, sophisticated tool-making abilities and a relatively large braincase”, reports BBC News. The Ethiopian jawbone seems to share traits similar to both species, and may be a transitional fossil, filling in an evolutionary gap. http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/jawbone-found-ethiopia-set-rewrite-history-push-back-origins-humans-002745 picture: http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/Ledi-Geraru-jawbone.jpg
Thus, how can you be certain of what the fossil fragment definitely is when the researchers themselves characterize their finding so tentatively?, i.e. 'seems to,, may be', And why should I take your certainty over their hesitant uncertainty? In fact, I have much reason to doubt their interpretation of the fossil fragment, as tentative as it is, since they made a false claim about 'lucy' in the article. i.e. In regards to 'lucy' they claimed:
"The species (lucy) walked upright"
Yet that claim is simply an urban legend. Darwinists, as usual, were shameless in their manipulation of the fossil evidence of lucy to make it fit their Darwinian worldview that lucy walked upright. The following video clip, 'the powersaw incident', humorously shows how biased Darwinists are with the evidence (i.e. aka 'fit!, Damn you, Fit!' method of paleoanthropology).
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 entire video: Lucy - She's No Lady - lecture video (of note: review of the 'severely distorted' evidence of Lucy starts at about the 17:00 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4ADhPVpA0
The evidence simply does not fit the 'lucy walked' narrative that is relentlessly sold by Darwinists to the public as if it were the gospel truth on par with the fact that Jesus died and rose again.
Lucy Makeover Shouts a Dangerously Deceptive Message About Our Supposed Ancestors by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on October 5, 2013 Excerpt: Australopithecus afarensis is extinct. Its bones suggest it was not identical to living apes, but it did have much in common with them. Many have assessed the skeletal pieces of the various afarensis and possible afarensis fossils that have been found. Overall, these skeletal parts reveal an animal well-adapted to arboreal life. Its wrist bones also suggest it was a knuckle-walker. Reconstructions of its pelvis demonstrate its so-called “bipedal” gait was nothing like a human being’s upright gait. In fact, it is only the evolutionary wish to impute a bipedal gait to this animal that marches its fossils upright across the pages of the evolutionary story. https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/lucy-makeover-shouts-a-dangerously-deceptive-message-about-our-supposed-ancestors/ "these australopith specimens (Lucy) can be accommodated with the range of intraspecific variation of African apes" Nature 443 (9/2006), p.296 "The australopithecines (Lucy) known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage." Charles Oxnard, former professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis; http://creationwiki.org/Australopithecines "The australopithecine (Lucy) skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian (ape-like) as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." Lord Solly Zuckerman - Chief scientific advisor to British government and leading zoologist My Pilgrimage to Lucy’s Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism Excerpt: ---"We were sent a cast of the Lucy skeleton, and I was asked to assemble it for display,” remembers Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich.,,, "When I started to put [Lucy’s] skeleton together, I expected it to look human,” Schmid continues “Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/my_pilgrimage_to_lucys_holy_re.html
Thus, since the researchers could be so wrong about lucy, claiming she walked we she in fact did not walk, why should I trust their interpretation as to what the current fossil fragment 'seems to,, may be'? I simply have no reason to place any confidence in their 'new' interpretation of this fossil fragment, as tentative as it is, since they were so wrong in the first interpretation about lucy.bornagain77_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
There’s a clear nested hierarchy?
That is evidence against descent with modification which posits many transitional forms which would ruin a clear nested hierarchy. You lose, again. Obviously Zachriel doesn't have an actual argument.Joe_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

bornagain: I have answered your question twice now. You did? Not sure we see it. Are you saying the fossil is not a non-sapiens hominin? bornagain: as to the infamous pre-Cambrian rabbit, that certainly would not falsify common descent Of course it would, as would many other findings. However, the fossil succession clearly supports some sort of evolutionary transition. bornagain: no they don’t support overall phylogeny There's a clear nested hierarchy. Did you have an actual argument?Zachriel_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Find an organism that has no plausible ancestors;
Define "plausible" and then tell us who gets to determine what is and isn't a plausible ancestor.Joe_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Zach, answer 1 is word play, of course a hypothesis is an assumption, moreover your supposed confirmation of that assumption is imaginary. as to the infamous pre-Cambrian rabbit, that certainly would not falsify common descent
The evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what would convince him that evolution was false, replied that finding a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rocks would do quite nicely. Such a fossil would, by standard geological dating, be out of sequence by several hundreds of millions of years. Certainly such a finding, if rigorously confirmed, would overturn the current understanding of the history of life. But it would not overturn evolution. Haldane’s rabbit is easily enough explained as an evolutionary convergence, in which essentially the same structure or life form evolves twice. In place of a common underlying intelligent design, evolutionists invoke evolutionary convergence whenever confronted with similar biological structures that cannot reasonably be traced back to a common evolutionary ancestor. So long as some unknown or unexplored evolutionary pathway might have led to the formation of some biological structure or organism, evolutionists prefer it over alternative explanations such as intelligent design. And since the unknown and unexplored allow for an infinity of loopholes, the committed evolutionist regards Darwinian and other materialist explanations of life’s origin and subsequent development as always trumping alternative explanations, regardless of the evidence. - By William A. Dembski "What Would Disprove Evolution?" - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Fossils are found in the "wrong place" all the time (either too early, or too late). Paleontological theory, however, allows for such devices as "ghost lineages" to repair the damage; see ENV's coverage here and here. (links on the site) Again, discordance between molecular and anatomical phylogenies is commonplace in systematics; see here.(link on the site) But we expect Coyne is able to handle these anomalies via his shock-absorbing adjective "complete," which allows an indefinitely large range of possibilities, short of "complete" discordance (whatever that means). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_would_disp061891.html
as to: "bornagain77: if common descent were truly falsifiable, as all robust theories of science are, then why does the Cambrian explosion itself not falsify your assumption of common descent? Zach: Because there are plausible ancestors, and genetic studies support the overall phylogeny. " No they are not plausible and no they don't support overall phylogeny as I said earlier: "The reason why it (the Cambrian) does not falsify common descent for Darwinists is because Darwinists are always able to imagine fossils where none exist, or to imagine transitions that never occurred. Once again, this is NOT a testable science, but is pseudo-science masquerading as a science." I have answered your question twice now. As is usual for a Darwinist, you refuse to listen to the answer. I can't help you there! It is up to you to decide to be more open and less dogmatic.bornagain77_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: common descent is assumed as true in your position from the outset. We responded to this already, which you ignored. It wasn’t a simple presumption, but a hypothesis that led to a valid prediction, the existence of non-sapiens Hominins. bornagain77: Moreover there is simply no way to falsify your assumption that common descent is true. Of course there is. Find an organism that has no plausible ancestors; e.g. a centaur, a precambrian rabbit. bornagain77: if common descent were truly falsifiable, as all robust theories of science are, then why does the Cambrian explosion itself not falsify your assumption of common descent? Because there are plausible ancestors, and genetic studies support the overall phylogeny. You still haven't answered the question. What is the alternative hypothesis that explains how an expedition was *successfully* mounted to find such fossils? Lucky guess?Zachriel_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Thanks tjguy. Zach, as to: "Each non-sapiens hominin found is a confirmation of the hypothesis of common descent." common descent is assumed as true in your position from the outset. Moreover there is simply no way to falsify your assumption that common descent is true. Even the current fossil is older than some of the other fossils that were formerly proposed to be transitional. But instead of anyone noticing this embarrassing problem, (save for David A. DeWitt and other skeptics of evolution), the 'story' of common descent is simply held to be confirmed by yet another fragment of a fossil. Such inherent bias simply is not science. It is in fact 'a ratchet mechanism of confirmation bias', i.e. everything confirms the theory nothing ever falsifies it. You may disagree that your assumption of common descent is unfalsifiable, but let me ask you, if common descent were truly falsifiable, as all robust theories of science are, then why does the Cambrian explosion itself not falsify your assumption of common descent?
Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin's Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg What Types of Evolution Does the Cambrian Explosion Challenge? - Stephen Meyer - video - (challenges Universal Common Descent and the Mechanism of Random Variation/Natural Selection) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaF7t5wRFtA&list=UUUMhP2x7_7psVO-H4MJFpAQ
The reason why it does not falsify common descent for Darwinists is because Darwinists are always able to imagine fossils where none exist, or to imagine transitions that never occurred. Once again, this is NOT a testable science, but is pseudo-science masquerading as a science. In essence, in regards to the fossil record Darwinists consider their 'imagination run amok' to be 'hard science'. For prime example of the 'imagination run amok' of Darwinists in the fossil record, I present the infamous march to man cartoon that is presented in some textbooks as a fact:
“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), "most hominid fossils, even though they serve as basis of endless speculation and elaborate storytelling, are fragments of of jaws and scraps of skulls" Stephen Jay Gould Paleoanthropologist Exposes Shoddiness of “Early Man” Research - Feb. 6, 2013 Excerpt: The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike. ,,, archaic species concepts and an inadequate fossil record continue to obscure the origins of our genus. http://crev.info/2013/02/paleoanthropologist-exposes-shoddiness/ New York Times Inherits the Spin, Republishes Darwinists’ Error-Filled “Answers” to Jonathan Wells’ – 2008 Excerpt: And all three of these textbooks include fanciful drawings of ape-like humans that help to convince students we are no exception to the rule of purposelessness. Some biology textbooks use other kinds of illustrations ,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/new_york_times_inherits010581.html
'Artistic Reconstruction' is even more misleading than the drawings are:
Paleoanthropology Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature: "Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears (or eyes). Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture." http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Paleoanthropology The Fragmented Field of Paleoanthropology - July 2012 Excerpt: "alleged restoration of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public" Earnest A. Hooton - physical anthropologist - Harvard University http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/the_fragmented_062101.html "National Geographic magazine commissioned four artists to reconstruct a female figure from casts of seven fossil bones thought to be from the same species as skull 1470. One artist drew a creature whose forehead is missing and whose jaws look vaguely like those of a beaked dinosaur. Another artist drew a rather good-looking modern African-American woman with unusually long arms. A third drew a somewhat scrawny female with arms like a gorilla and a face like a Hollywood werewolf. And a fourth drew a figure covered with body hair and climbing a tree, with beady eyes that glare out from under a heavy, gorilla-like brow." “Behind the Scenes,” National Geographic 197 (March, 2000): 140 picture - these artists "independently" produced the 4 very "different" ancestors you see here http://www.omniology.com/JackalopianArtists.html
One can see that 'artistic license' for human evolution being vividly played out on the following site.
10 Transitional Ancestors of Human Evolution by Tyler G., March 18, 2013 http://listverse.com/2013/03/18/10-transitional-ancestors-of-human-evolution/
Please note, on the preceding site, how the sclera (white of the eye), a uniquely human characteristic, was brought in very early on, in the artists' reconstructions, to make the fossils appear much more human than they actually were, even though the artists making the reconstructions have no clue whatsoever as to what the colors of the eyes, of these supposed transitional fossils, actually were.
Evolution of human eye as a device for communication - Hiromi Kobayashi - Kyoto University, Japan Excerpt: The uniqueness of human eye morphology among primates illustrates the remarkable difference between human and other primates in the ability to communicate using gaze signals. http://www.saga-jp.org/coe_abst/kobayashi.htm
Clearly inventing evidence to fit a 'just so story' is not science but is pseudo-science! But Zach, why are you not equally shocked at such a fraudulent confirmation bias in your chosen belief system?? What is in it for you to ignore such shenanigans and pretend there are no severe problems with Darwinism??/ One would think, given the inherent Nihilism of atheism, that Darwinists would be a lot fairer to the evidence than they actually are. But alas, Darwinists are perhaps the most dogmatic of Dogmatists when it comes to allowing their theory to be questioned. Sad!bornagain77_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

111bornagain77_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Piotr, fine that is your choice, but, once again, how can you choose to ignore me if you have no free will to choose with in the first place?,,, as is held in your atheistic worldview? Admitting you have a problem is the first step in recovery! :)bornagain77_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

wd400:
Where in this jawbone do we see that evolution is not falsifiable?
Where is unguided evolution testable?Joe_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Each non-sapiens hominin found is a confirmation of the hypothesis of common descent.
Each non-sapiens hominin found is a confirmation of the hypothesis of baraminology. Unguided evolution can't even get beyond prokaryotes.Joe_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply